Next Article in Journal
Inclusion of Students with ADHD in Secondary School Through an Innovative Motor Science Educational Curriculum
Previous Article in Journal
Characteristics of Effective Elementary Mathematics Instruction: A Scoping Review of Experimental Studies
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Operationalizing the Inclusive Professional Framework to Develop STEM Faculty Change Agents

by
Selyna Pérez Beverly
1,*,
Quintana M. Clark
2,
Lucas B. Hill
3 and
Donald L. Gillian-Daniel
4
1
Department of Leadership & Counseling, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI 48197, USA
2
College of Agricultural Sciences and College of Education, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA
3
The Wisconsin Center for Education Research (WCER), The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA
4
College of Engineering, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(1), 77; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010077
Submission received: 4 November 2024 / Revised: 22 December 2024 / Accepted: 8 January 2025 / Published: 13 January 2025

Abstract

:
With the need for diverse representation in STEM, institutions have found ways to improve Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) through programs and broad institutional policies. Yet, improving the awareness of faculty regarding DEI can be instrumental in improving conditions for underrepresented students in STEM. This article discusses the Inclusive Professional Framework (IPF) and its operationalization through a summer professional development program, the Aspire Summer Institute (ASI). Findings from longitudinal survey data indicated that participants increased their knowledge of, and confidence in, DEI practices. Qualitative data revealed that participants gained a personal awareness of the impact that identity had on their professional responsibilities. As a result, participants adapted their teaching approaches and changed how they interacted with students and colleagues, as well as how they contributed to institutional efforts around DEI in STEM.

1. Introduction

Despite efforts within higher education to retain underrepresented students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)—such as STEM intervention programs, K-12 outreach programs, affinity groups and organizations, and STEM faculty professional development (Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning, n.d.; Preparing Future Faculty, n.d.)—attrition in STEM majors and the United States (U.S.) STEM workforce continues. As of 2021, Black, Latino, and American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN) individuals accounted for only 24% of the U.S. STEM workforce (9%, 15%, and less than 1%, respectively; National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics [NCSES]). According to the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), women also have low representation in the U.S. STEM workforce (35%) compared to men (65%). NCSES data also indicate that in 2020, women were underrepresented at all degree levels in engineering, the physical and earth sciences, mathematics, and computer science. The world faces complex problems (e.g., climate change, socio-cultural disparities, and disease) that warrant creative solutions centered on diverse perspectives and experiences. Therefore, improving conditions in STEM fields for underrepresented students to increase retention is critical to addressing complex problems in a heterogeneous society.
A strategy to improve conditions for underrepresented students in STEM within the university environment is to create inclusive spaces within academic departments and in the classroom. Research has demonstrated that faculty-student interactions in college can lead to academic and personal development, shape the college experience, and impact persistence and graduation (Astin, 1993; Kim & Sax, 2017; Pascarella et al., 2011; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Tinto, 1993) Particularly evident is how interactions with faculty inside and outside of the classroom can contribute to an environment that affects the experiences of women and students of color (Lester et al., 2016; Ong et al., 2011; Rainey et al., 2018; Riegle-Crumb et al., 2020; Stewart et al., 2020; Winterer et al., 2020).
By improving the classroom experience for underrepresented students in STEM, we can potentially contribute to the retention of these populations in STEM majors and, in turn, within the STEM workforce. Current Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts utilize broad institutional strategies which are valuable but do not account for unique disciplinary differences, particularly with respect to culture. It is important to recognize how STEM disciplinary contexts have historical relationships with meritocracy and Eurocentrism, which make it more challenging to enact DEI-related changes (Carter et al., 2019; Cech, 2013; Ladson-Billings, 2000). For example, educating STEM faculty about how their social and cultural identities shape the localized classroom environment and their students’ experiences could create a ripple effect by impacting STEM departments and beyond, as efforts to change systems, like institutions, can interact and be mutually reinforcing (Senge, 2006).
Because faculty are instrumental in influencing student success (Killpack & Melón, 2016), especially for underrepresented students, it is important to consider how institutions can positively impact instructors’ teaching to be both inclusive and equitable to broaden the participation of students from underrepresented groups (Macdonald et al., 2019). Henderson et al. (2011), in a literature synthesis on promoting instructional changes in undergraduate STEM fields, identified that change required multiple approaches such as instructors reflecting on their own teaching, policymaking aligning with the institutional culture, continuous engagement with instructors, and recognizing improved teaching within institutional reward structures. Numerous system-focused change initiatives have been launched to address the multiple levers at play in improving STEM instruction. For instance, the National Science Foundation’s Eddie Bernice Johnson (NSF EBJ) Inclusion across the Nation of Communities of Learners of Underrepresented Discoverers in Engineering and Science (INCLUDES) Aspire Alliance (referred to as Aspire hereon) portfolio of large, multi-institutional, and multi-sector projects focuses on STEM equity by increasing the participation of students from historically underrepresented populations from elementary to postgraduate levels. Aspire, the focus of this article, is one of the several large-scale INCLUDES alliances. One facet of Aspire’s work is to enhance the professional development of STEM faculty to increase their diversity and create faculty who are equity-centered. Aspire also aims to guide institutional change to improve policies and practices that benefit both faculty and student success.
The Inclusive Professional Framework (IPF) (Beverly & Gillian-Daniel, 2024; Gillian-Daniel et al., 2021a, 2021b) was developed to advance the faculty professional development goals of Aspire. The IPF is a holistic approach to help faculty, faculty developers, and academic administrators develop an equity mindset and in turn, understand how to engage more inclusively in their various professional responsibilities to create inclusive climates for underrepresented students. The IPF offers an initial way to begin achieving greater equity in STEM, through supporting faculty reflection on equity and inclusion, as well as focusing on building positive relationships between students and faculty and between faculty and their colleagues.
This article presents findings from three years of data from the Aspire Summer Institute (ASI), an immersive professional development program created to guide faculty and administrators in implementing the IPF at individual and institutional levels. The research questions include the following:
  • To what degree do participants of the ASI develop knowledge of IPF concepts, find value in the IPF domains (identity, intercultural, relational), and acquire confidence in their ability to implement inclusive practices?
  • How do faculty, faculty developers, and administrators in STEM operationalize aspects of the IPF in their various responsibilities?

1.1. Literature Review

1.1.1. Inequities in STEM

Research suggests that exclusionary environments in STEM may be one of the primary obstacles for both women and people of color, especially in physical science fields such as physics and engineering (Barthelemy et al., 2016; Gonsalves, 2014; Johnson, 2019; Simon et al., 2017). Research also indicates that an exclusionary environment can have several negative effects on women and people of color in STEM fields including their socioemotional well-being and doubts about their academic abilities (Cheryan et al., 2017; Hall & Sandler, 1982; Lester et al., 2016). Studies have also found these beliefs can affect students’ self-efficacy and sense of belonging (Ong et al., 2011; Rainey et al., 2018; Stewart et al., 2020). Negative academic and socioemotional beliefs can contribute to students’ desires to leave STEM majors and careers (Riegle-Crumb et al., 2020; Winterer et al., 2020).
Broader representation in STEM is necessary to maintain equity in the STEM workforce and to leverage that diversity toward addressing complex problems. As stated above, representation in the STEM workforce is not currently reflective of the U.S. population, and gender and racial/ethnic inequities persist (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics [NCSES], 2023). The absence and attrition of women and students of color in undergraduate and graduate STEM programs contributes to the lack of representation of women and students of color in the STEM workforce. Consequently, women and racial/ethnic minorities do not have access to the same advantages and economic and social mobility opportunities in STEM as white and Asian men. Importantly, without diverse perspectives, the STEM workforce is limited in what solutions can be developed for society, which can have dismal effects on underrepresented populations (Barry, 2019; Lohr, 2018). For example, research solutions designed for the white majority may not reflect the needs and interests of underrepresented communities (Pockock & Palin, 2021). To resolve these inequities, it is imperative to prevent the attrition of underrepresented students from STEM undergraduate programs and facilitate their entry into the STEM workforce.

1.1.2. Faculty’s Role in Equity

In general, studies of faculty-student interactions—inside the classroom or outside—show that these relationships can positively affect the educational values, academic skills, academic self-concept, persistence, and graduation of students (Kim, 2002; Pascarella et al., 2011; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Sax, 2008). For example, Kim and Sax (2009) found that students’ perceptions of positive interactions with a faculty member were positively associated with critical thinking skills. In addition, academic self-concept can also be affected by faculty-student interactions. Sax (2008) and Sax et al. (2005) found that support and interactions with instructors outside of class contributed to positive increases in students’ confidence as scholars, achievers, and leaders, as well as improved emotional well-being. Further research indicates that faculty support and encouragement of students of color such as African American and Latino students are positively related to intellectual self-concept and student self-confidence, respectively (Cole, 2007; Núñez, 2009; Cokley & Chapman, 2008). Cokley and Chapman also found a relationship between African American academic self-concept and caring professors.
Interestingly, course-related faculty-student interactions can lead to varying results for different student populations. Sax et al. (2005) utilized national longitudinal data to identify the differential effects of faculty-student interactions on men and women. Their sample, which was 88% white, consisted of 17,637 students across disciplines, of which 10,901 were women. They found that student perceptions that faculty did not take their comments seriously in class predicted higher rates of feeling overwhelmed and reduced satisfaction with faculty contact, courses, instruction, and community on campus; this result was true for both men and women. In addition, women reported a stronger negative effect than men on satisfaction with the campus community. While men indicated higher levels of feeling that faculty did not take their comments seriously, the significance for women was greater, since it was related to declines in self-rated physical health and mathematical ability, as well as degree aspirations.
Kim and Sax (2009), in a sample of 58,281 students, studied two different types of faculty interaction, research- and course-related, and the differential effects by gender, race, social class, and first-generation status. Course-related interactions included talking with faculty outside of class about course material, communicating with faculty by email or in person, and interacting with faculty during class. Specifically, regarding the perceived quality of course-related interactions, Kim and Sax (2009) did not find differences by gender but found numerous differences by race/ethnicity. The frequency of course-related interactions predicted higher GPAs and enhanced satisfaction for all groups except African Americans. These interactions also promoted degree aspirations for all groups except African Americans and Latinos. Lastly, critical thinking and communication were enhanced for all groups except African Americans and white people.
Whereas Sax and her colleagues studied interactions with faculty inside and outside the classroom, Fassinger (1995) focused more narrowly on the classroom environment. In her study of 51 classrooms across STEM, humanities, and social science disciplines at a small liberal arts college, she found that confidence in classroom involvement, class size, peer interaction, interest in the subject, the belief that contributing comments positively affected grade outcomes, and perceptions of the emotional climate were predictive of women’s participation in classrooms. In this study, professor traits (which focused on professor interpersonal behaviors) were not found to be significantly linked to women’s classroom participation. Yet, Fassinger suggested that course design may have a greater impact on women’s participation, since they could facilitate peer interaction and improve the emotional classroom climate; these variables had a positive relationship with women’s participation in class. Fassinger’s study shows the potential differential gendered effects on a classroom environment and potential factors (instructors and peers) that may contribute to those experiences.
Overall, prior research demonstrates the key role that faculty members have in influencing student experiences inside and outside of class. Because they are the primary point of contact with students, faculty can be a major contributor to the retention or departure of diverse students in STEM.

1.1.3. A Need for a New Approach: The Inclusive Professional Framework

Faculty development programs aim to help faculty become better instructors. Campus centers for teaching and learning often provide this through a range of programs from short-duration workshops to multi-day institutes. This work has been performed at a national level as well (Pfund et al., 2009; National Institute on Scientific Teaching, 2022). These professional development spaces help faculty learn to be more engaging in their instructional approach. For example, centers for teaching and learning will often offer sessions about active learning. This form of teaching, while centering students in the learning process, provides activities to promote critical thinking and encourages active participation through hands-on activities (Hernández-de-Menéndez et al., 2019). In the more recent past, the focus has broadened to help faculty teach inclusively. Often, these professional development events focus on aspects of active learning to “facilitate” inclusivity rather than engaging instructors in a deep, self-reflective process to help them understand the profound effects they can have on students.
According to Dewsbury (2020), creating inclusive classrooms can help mediate the challenges underrepresented students encounter because of traditional exclusionary STEM methods of teaching. He contends that instructors’ self-awareness (i.e., understanding their social position and the personal histories they bring to the classroom) and empathy (i.e., listening to and understanding the needs of students) combined with pedagogy (i.e., incorporating strategies to maximize “deep learning”) contribute to the development of a positive classroom climate. Encouraging instructors to engage in reflective practices can potentially help to create an inclusive environment where all students feel included, in turn influencing their desire to persist in STEM. Thus, professional development that centers self-reflection to engage in inclusive practices is needed.

1.2. Theoretical Framework

The Inclusive Professional Framework for Faculty (IPF) is a holistic way for faculty to reflect on and build self-awareness, and to be more equitable and inclusive in how they engage with students as well as colleagues. The framework can be leveraged to impact faculty and universities at both individual and organizational levels (Gillian-Daniel et al., 2021a, 2021b). The elements of the framework provide a roadmap for instructors to follow to create inclusive environments in their classrooms as well as develop inclusive relationships with students through inclusive advising and mentoring. Further, the framework contributes to all aspects of a faculty career by providing tools to engage in more inclusive leadership and colleagueship.
The IPF, which considers best practices and research on effective faculty professional development, focuses on three main conceptual domains: identity, intercultural, and relational (see Figure 1). The first domain, identity (Dessel & Rogge, 2008; Ensher & Murphy, 1997; Museus & Ravello, 2010; Salazar et al., 2010), involves helping faculty reflect on their own socio-cultural identities, as well as student identities, and how identity can play a role in creating the learning environment. The second domain, intercultural (King & Baxter Magolda, 2005; Lee et al., 2012; Stanley, 2010; Yosso, 2005; Okun & Jones, 2000), considers instructors’ ability to understand cultural differences in order to cultivate positive interactions with students from diverse backgrounds. This domain also includes aspects of intercultural humility (King & Baxter Magolda, 2005), which relates to being aware of one’s own cultural background and intersection of identities, acknowledging one’s own biases and privileges, committing to learning about other people’s backgrounds, and recognizing power dynamics and addressing them. The final domain, relational (Alfred et al., 2005; Bryson & Grunert Kowalske, 2022; Ives & Rowley, 2005; Zurn-Birkhimer et al., 2011), promotes one-on-one connection, trust, and relationships through effective communication skills to create positive interpersonal interactions.
The goal of the IPF is to support faculty in developing an equity mindset through awareness and knowledge-raising reflection on identity as well as skill building to effectively navigate intercultural differences. This equity mindset is put into practice through communication skills and the ability to build trusting interpersonal relationships. Importantly, the framework supports faculty in developing skills related to the identity, relationship-building, and intercultural domains that they can apply across their various student-focused (e.g., teaching, advising, mentoring in research) and peer-focused (e.g., colleagueship and leadership) institutional roles. In essence, the interpersonal skills associated with engaging students through the lens of an equity mindset in a classroom context can be applied directly to interpersonal relationships with students in an advising or research mentoring space. Those same skills apply to navigating relationships with colleagues and with administrators in leadership positions.
Between 2020 and 2023, Aspire’s IPF-based professional development programming took the form of a virtual Aspire Summer Institute (ASI). The week-long ASI engaged faculty, Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) and STEM Education Center directors, and institutional administrators (e.g., department chairs, deans, provosts) in an immersive professional development experience. The ASI drew on theories of adult learning and the following key principles: (a) drawing on faculty’s prior experiences, (b) promoting the application of learning, (c) engaging participants actively in their learning, and (d) empowering participants (Cranton, 1994; Saroyan et al., 1997). The ASI also drew on Bandura’s concepts of self-efficacy and outcome expectations to promote change (Bandura, 1991; Carnes et al., 2012).
The ASI was designed to promote participants’ examination of issues of equity in higher education through deep, personal reflection about their own social and cultural identities and intercultural awareness and skill sets. Participants learned from scholars about salient topics, and engaged in hands-on reflective and interactive activities that were grounded in the IPF’s core domains. Through these activities, individual reflection, and group discussion, participants developed or deepened their equity mindset; the institute’s goal was that they would apply this mindset more intentionally in their interpersonal relationships with students and colleagues. Participants also created action plans with teammates to operationalize learning in both their individual and organizational roles to advance local DEI change goals.

2. Materials and Methods

This study is based on research data collected to assess the effectiveness of the ASI, a high-engagement professional development program involving institutional teams exploring individual and organizational applications of the concepts found within the IPF. Data consisted of pre- and post-surveys completed by two participant cohorts from 2021 to 2022 (n = 52). Although there was a survey administered in 2020, the focus of the survey differed, so the quantitative data for that cohort will not be presented. The 2021 and 2022 cohorts included faculty, administrators, and faculty developers who participated in the ASI as teams representing their respective institutions. Interviews were also conducted with participants across cohorts from 2020 to 2022 (n = 14). Following each ASI, participants were invited to complete an intake survey if they expressed interest in being interviewed. To encourage participation, gift cards were offered as incentives to the 2022 cohort. The pre-survey consisted of participant characteristics (e.g., demographics, institutional role, discipline), the extent of prior connections between institutional team members, learning goals for themselves and their teams, and prior involvement in DEI-focused professional development. The survey was initially developed in 2020, and its items were reviewed with the presenters to ensure they accurately measured the intended learning outcomes. By 2021, the IPF had become a more central focus of the survey. A group of experts involved in developing the IPF identified expected outcomes for its domain areas, guided by relevant literature. These outcomes were then incorporated into the existing items from the 2020 survey. Finally, ASI contributors reviewed the revised survey to confirm that the items were clear and aligned with the expected outcomes of both the ASI and the IPF. Survey questions in the post-program instrument, rooted in the stated learning outcomes of the ASI, consisted of three primary quantitative scales: (1) knowledge of key IPF concepts, (2) value of the domains of the IPF, and (3) confidence in implementing inclusive practices. These scales measured the extent of the participant’s knowledge, value, and confidence on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from (1) not at all to (6) extremely. At the end of the ASI, participants completed a post-measure and a retrospective pre-measure for all three scales. Retrospective pre-measures are a common way for researchers to evaluate short-term professional development programs and determine change (Allen & Nimon, 2007). According to Allen and Nimon, retrospective pre-tests are more accurate in capturing pre-intervention behavior. This is due to individuals’ desire to be more conservative in their estimates when pre-intervention behavior is measured retrospectively. The post-survey contained questions to probe the planned or anticipated implementation of what was learned, both individually and with institutional teams. The surveys also contained qualitative prompts for participants to reflect on their experiences with the ASI and resultant impacts. Data analysis consisted of descriptive statistics for each quantitative survey question and then pre–post matched paired T-tests (Agresti, 2018) to measure the significance of learning outcome achievement (awareness and confidence scales). Due to our small sample size, we were not able to conduct a higher level of statistical analysis.
An initial interview protocol, featuring open-ended questions, was developed based on the research questions. It explored participants’ knowledge of IPF concepts, the perceived value of the IPF domains (identity, intercultural, relational), their confidence in implementing inclusive practices, and how they applied the framework in their professional responsibilities. Semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom using phenomenologically based interviewing to understand how individuals were understanding the IPF domains and connecting them to DEI practices in and outside the classroom (Seidman, 2012). The initial interview protocol was utilized and then further adapted to capture clearer understandings of how individuals were conceptualizing the framework. Following each interview, analytic memoing was used to capture interpretations of the data (Charmaz, 2014). After this process, a priori codes were developed as a result of concepts that emerged from the interview protocol. During the initial coding process, inductive coding was utilized to capture concepts that emerged throughout the data analysis process. Data were then organized into themes and categories. Table 1 shows the demographic information of the interview participants. Those who were categorized as administrators (n = 2) did not have teaching responsibilities on their campus but were involved in DEI initiatives. Faculty developers (n = 2) pertain to those who worked in centers for teaching and learning and were engaged in faculty professional development.

3. Results

The ASI evolved over three cohorts from 2020 to 2022. The 2020 cohort focused on the individual level and compartmentalized faculty roles (e.g., advising, teaching, mentoring) with respect to the fundamental domains of the IPF. The 2021 and 2022 cohorts progressively focused on organizational change and the application of the principles of the IPF through the development of institutional action plans. These cohorts also further embraced the need to develop cross-role skills related to identity, relationship-building, and intercultural domains. This is reflected in both the quantitative and qualitative data.

3.1. Quantitative Results

Because the focus of the survey shifted from 2020 to 2021, the items and scales used in the survey evolved. The 2021 and 2022 survey instruments were almost identical; however, the 2020 survey does not have some of the same measures as the subsequent two surveys. Therefore, it is not included in the analysis. The data include knowledge and value of the IPF scales and confidence measures. We conducted a series of matched paired t-tests (Agresti, 2018) which compared the pre- and post-measures of the data.
Table 2 and Table 3 demonstrate matched paired t-tests from the 2021 (n = 31) and 2022 (n = 21) data, in which there are positive significant gains in the knowledge of key IPF concepts. Both datasets show that the following areas of knowledge within the domain areas were significant in 2021 and 2022 after the ASI: (a) your and others’ social and cultural identities; (b) ways to enable effective interactions with others from different racial, ethnic, or social identity groups in both domestic and international contexts; and (c) communication and relational skills that build one-on-one connection, trust, and relationships. At least one area from each domain was significant in 2021 and 2022. Data in 2021 show more domain items as significant than in 2022, which could be a result of a larger sample size as well as differences in professional roles amongst the participants. For example, the 2022 cohort included more administrators and faculty developers compared to previous cohorts that had higher numbers of faculty. Therefore, some of the participants in 2022 may have had more previous knowledge around issues of equity such as identity, intercultural awareness, and relational skills because it was integrated into their professional roles at their institutions.
Table 4 and Table 5 show matched paired t-tests in which the 2021 data (n = 30) reveal significance around the value participants placed on learning about the domains of the IPF (identity, intercultural, and relational). The 2022 data (n = 18) revealed significance around the intercultural domain.
Table 6 and Table 7 show a t-test analysis of participants’ confidence in implementing inclusive practices from the 2021 (n = 31) and 2022 (n = 21) cohorts. The results indicate significant levels of confidence in participants’ ability to implement inclusive practices after the ASI, across most measures including helping, identifying, applying, recognizing, and engaging in inclusive practices as well as interrupting injustices witnessed in student and collegial relationships. Notably, the 2022 data revealed more significant areas of confidence than the 2021 data. This may bolster the argument that the 2022 cohort may have had more knowledge of areas of equity when they participated in the ASI due to their professional roles centering equity and DEI work. Therefore, the ASI may have given them further confidence to enact inclusive practices at their institutions.
Overall, the findings indicate that across the 2021 and 2022 data, participants found that they were knowledgeable in at least one area of each domain in the IPF: your and others’ social and cultural identities; ways to enable effective interactions with others from different racial, ethnic, or social identity groups in both domestic and international contexts; and communication and relational skills that build one-on-one connection, trust, and relationships. The qualitative data complement these findings as participants indicated that the knowledge they learned about the domains was helpful to them in enacting institutional practices centering DEI. Across the data, the intercultural domain was found to be significant in its value to participants. Yet, the 2021 data revealed the significance of value across all domains (identity, intercultural, relational). Qualitative data revealed that participants resonated with the identity domain the most. These mixed results warrant potential further exploration. Across the 2021 and 2022 data, confidence in implementing aspects of inclusive practices was significant among participants, Participants indicated confidence across most of the items including feeling that they could help, identify, apply, recognize, and engage in inclusive practices. They also indicated that they felt confident in interrupting forms of injustice occurring in student and collegial relationships. This is further reflected in the qualitative data as participants expressed confidence in their abilities to enact inclusive practices with students, with colleagues, and at an institutional level.

3.2. Qualitative Results

Qualitative findings (n = 14) further bolstered some of the quantitative findings. Participants indicated that not only did individuals implement inclusive practices in their teaching, but they also gained personal self-awareness about their identity that made them reflect on their positionality, power, and privilege. Quantitative data support this finding, as the 2021 cohort data revealed that the value placed on the identity domain was significant. Besides the internal reflections they engaged in, some participants found that their knowledge of identity and identity in context, intercultural awareness, and relational skills influenced their relationships with colleagues and people they interacted with on a daily basis. This reflects findings in the quantitative data that showed participants felt knowledgeable about at least one area within each domain (identity, intercultural, relational). Further, participants indicated how knowledge of the IPF influenced their institutional efforts around DEI such as engaging in large- and small-scale programming on their respective campuses. Quantitative data support this finding in that participants indicated significant confidence in their ability to enact inclusive practices in their interactions with students, with colleagues, and at the institutional level.

3.2.1. Teaching and Interactions with Students

Participants who had teaching responsibilities (n = 4) shared the multitude of ways they incorporated their IPF knowledge into their pedagogical behaviors and practices. Amir and Cathleen discussed how they integrated aspects of what they learned in ASI into their courses. Amir redesigned his courses to bring in different cultural perspectives, while Cathleen created a syllabus template with an inclusivity statement, and as a result of her recognizing her positionality and privilege, she revised the curriculum for a course in physics in her department. She shared,
we revised the curriculum of a course for physics, where we try to include different voices into the curriculum. Usually, the scholars that are covered in physics are White male. So, we created an identified structure in the course where students can have access to different scholars from all around the world, different backgrounds, and they can know more about their stories and the achievements they did. That was a pilot that we did to combine course design technology and an inclusive curriculum.
As a result of the ASI, Julie garnered a deeper understanding of what inclusive practices are and discussed how what she learned in Aspire helped her begin to understand the experiences of diverse students on campus and recognize the importance of learning about other people’s cultures. She shared how this impacted her interactions with students and the way she first introduces herself to students:
I have talked with faculty and graduate students about the way we introduce ourselves, sort of the way we provide that first groundbreaking hello when we interact with students, and I think that is important.
She also shared that she realized how much “faculty can really set the tone” and that there are small “everyday things, that you can integrate into your behavior and in your being that can make a difference to how students ultimately perform”. Jeff indicated that Aspire had shifted the way he interacted with students and was more conscious and aware of how he approached advising:
I think that one thing that I perhaps do more consciously now is ask questions when I enter into a discussion with a student or a colleague to establish where they’re coming from so I have a better understanding of how I can help them, how we can get done what we need to…Now when we talk about advising or mentoring, especially with students, the questions can be a bit different, more nuanced in some ways, and maybe the students recognize it, maybe they don’t. But it certainly helps me be more effective in my role.
Overall, these participants were utilizing what they had learned, particularly about identity, to alter their teaching practices and the way they interacted with students.

3.2.2. Personal Self-Awareness

Some participants (n = 4) also shared how the ASI affected their internal self-awareness and growth. Ariana indicated that she was able to reflect on how she and her colleagues were operating from an “asset perspective versus a deficit perspective”. She also shared that the ASI helped her understand how to evaluate her different faculty roles with an equity mindset, “thinking about what does research mentoring look like from an equity minded perspective, or what does collegiality look like or leadership from an equity minded perspective, and being able to process and talk about those things”.
Rose also indicated that ASI affected her personal growth the most and that her work with faculty was “enriched” through her learning about the IPF. Aaron and Kiera discussed how they implemented what they learned at a personal level. Aaron explained that he was implementing “values and professional standards, concepts of intersectionality into my everyday practice”. Kiera explained that “it’s made me more introspective I guess you could say so that I’m being more careful in how I develop programs, how I talk to people, how I engage with others”. Participants revealed that learning about the IPF domains affected them on a personal level, and they were considering what they had learned in the ASI as they operated in their everyday lives.

3.2.3. Relationships with Colleagues

Participants (n = 8) also expressed how what they had learned in the ASI regarding inclusive practices contributed meaningfully to the relationships they had with others within their departments and across campus. For example, Aaron recognized the importance of “communication and relationship building” and felt that it was “very central to what all this work is”. Jeff felt that ASI “improved the way that I interact with different groups on our campus”, while Rose recognized the importance of trust in her interpersonal relationships. Kiera discussed how the ASI had altered the way she interacted with others, while Ruby found the relational piece of the IPF useful because of negative behaviors she had witnessed in her department connected to overall STEM culture.
Cynthia felt that the ASI had influenced her desire to create cross-campus relationships to better support DEI, while Julie shared that she felt the ASI prepared her to be a “psuedo-expert” so she could engage with others. Subsequently, she grew her DEI team and had a desire to expand it further. Maureen felt that the ASI had given her the confidence to understand the various lenses that people have and was intentional in not only being cognizant of diverse representation in her materials but also being aware of diverse issues when she communicated with others. Participants felt that learning about the IPF made them consider strengthening their relationships with colleagues by recognizing how diversity plays a pivotal role.

3.2.4. Institutional Effects

The ASI also influenced institutional efforts. Participants (n = 8) discussed the various programs and practices they were engaged in on their respective campuses. For example, Aaron, Cathleen, and Damon discussed how they were incorporating the identity domain into training for faculty and staff. Damon was leading faculty workshops to help faculty think about identity when navigating interpersonal conflict, while Cathleen discussed how she was incorporating the identity domain into faculty workshops. She explained, “we are inviting our faculty to reflect on their identity and then how they introduce, for example, the first day of class, how they connect with their students, how they can create a more inclusive syllabus, a more inclusive schedule”. She also launched a grant opportunity for faculty interested in integrating inclusive teaching. After Aspire, Aaron and his committee were focused on developing a “learning cohort…but targeted to STEM department chairs and their next-in-line leaders, up-and-coming leaders”.
Ariana integrated the identity domain by developing an identity-affirming mentorship program for faculty. Jeff recognized that understanding identity was key to “creating strategies for moving in the right direction” within his discipline (engineering) which made him begin working to change the promotion and tenure process at the institutional level. He shared,
Our promotion and tenure process is, I would say, broken in that the criteria that we use are not very friendly to people with different backgrounds whose accomplishments will show up in different ways, and that is a challenge. And I’ve been working to try to get the discussion going on campus of changing our criteria for promotion, especially for tenure cases.
Both Maureen and Rhonda discussed how they were incorporating aspects of DEI into their training and programming. Maureen was reworking training and modules to “ensure that I talk about inclusivity and diversity, which is something that wasn’t in my training before”. Rhonda was focused on “supporting the professional, the personal and professional development of…administrators, faculty and staff” through a discussion series centered on DEI topics such as implicit bias. Julie discussed how she felt she was working and adding to what the university already had in place and better integrating her initiatives. She felt that it was an opportunity to leverage other people’s efforts in service to DEI.
Overall, the qualitative data show that ASI participants found the IPF conceptually and practically useful in organizing their efforts to advance DEI at a personal level, within their localized environments (such as interactions with colleagues in their departments), and at an institutional level.

3.3. Limitations

There are three limitations associated with this study. First, the study did not examine the direct impact on students, which limits our understanding of how inclusive practices influence their academic and social experiences. Collecting additional student data, such as through interviews or focus groups, could provide insights into how these practices shape students’ sense of belonging, engagement, and persistence in STEM fields. Furthermore, complementary sources, including curriculum analysis and teaching observations, could offer a more comprehensive assessment of how the Inclusive Professional Framework (IPF) principles are implemented and experienced in classroom settings.
Second, the relatively small data set restricted the scope of our quantitative analyses, impacting the generalizability of our findings. While this initial dataset provides valuable preliminary insights, expanding the participant pool across diverse institutions and conducting longitudinal research would further strengthen research in inclusive teaching. A larger, more varied sample and extended research timeline would enable more nuanced statistical analyses, thereby providing stronger, evidence-based support for inclusive teaching practices in STEM.
Finally, this study relies heavily on self-reported data from surveys and interviews, which may introduce bias. Future research could supplement self-reported data with objective sources, such as student evaluations, classroom observations, and peer or faculty assessments. These complementary sources would broaden the study’s perspective, offering a fuller view of the impact on teaching practices and student outcomes. Together, such triangulated data would provide a broader, more balanced understanding of how inclusive practices genuinely affect students’ experiences and outcomes in STEM, enhancing the study’s contribution to the literature.

4. Discussion

Quantitative results revealed that after the ASI, participants across both cohorts indicated that they felt knowledgeable about at least one area within each domain (identity, intercultural awareness, and relational skills). Both cohorts indicated that they found value in the intercultural domain, yet the 2021 cohort indicated they found value in all three domains. Qualitative data indicated that participants found the identity domain to be the most impactful, yet they identified all the domains as contributing to their actions centering DEI on their campuses. Participants also gained confidence in their ability to enact inclusive practices in their interactions with students, with colleagues, and at the institutional level. The qualitative data further demonstrated that after the ASI, participants garnered knowledge and personal awareness, particularly around the identity domain and how identity can shape social interactions. With this knowledge, they integrated inclusive practices in their classrooms and in their interactions and relationships with students and colleagues. Participants also described how they were integrating the IPF concepts into practice at the institutional level, creating DEI programs for a broader STEM audience on their respective campuses. Together, findings from this study indicate the potential effectiveness of promoting a framework for faculty in STEM that initially focuses on reflecting on personal identity and how it can shape relationships with others.
Supporting STEM faculty in developing an equity mindset is a unique way of engaging faculty in professional development. Much of faculty professional development focuses on creating a toolbox of strategies, such as those pertaining to active learning. This does not detract from the importance of this mainstream style of professional development in advancing the adoption of evidence-based teaching strategies, though widespread uptake of improved teaching practices has had marginal success across STEM (Laursen, 2019). In contrast, the IPF, advanced through the ASI, has proven to be an effective framework for faculty to engage in self-reflective practices to understand their identity in their institutional and instructional context and how to develop inclusive relationships within and outside the classroom.
Instructors are not typically asked to reflect on their own positionalities in the classroom and the effects they have on other students. Similarly to the Inclusive STEM Teaching Project (2023), IPF-inspired professional development is centered on identities as the psychological lynchpin in rooting efforts to improve teaching. As Parker (2017) argued in Courage to Teach, the heart of a teacher is everything; thus, we cannot expect to see fundamental shifts in STEM instruction without proper attention to what constitutes the identities of faculty and their students, which transcends the multiple and overlapping roles of faculty. This perspective is likewise parallel to adult education perspectives related to transformational learning, including the importance of praxis (reflection and action) (Mezirow, 2000). In essence, the IPF is a transformational learning tool that helps faculty members explore three critical, interlocking domains, which intersect their institutional roles and responsibilities. In addition, as a professional development framework, the IPF supports meaning-making for participants as they explore deepening and using their equity mindset (Beverly & Gillian-Daniel, 2024).
Instead of placing teaching and associated development in a silo, the IPF demonstrates how an equity mindset spans the boundaries between roles and how associated identity, intercultural, and relational skills can have applications in multiple settings. Thus, the IPF is not concerned with the acquisition of tools for an instructor’s toolbox, but about fundamentally influencing ways of seeing and knowing the world, which translates into improved faculty–student interactions and relationships that promote retention of all students, especially those underrepresented.
Given the success of the IPF and ASI, as indicated by the findings discussed above, it is important to highlight three implications and applications of the IPF. First, the IPF has utility across multiple disciplines within STEM. Not only is the awareness, knowledge, and skill gained through engagement with the IPF applicable across multiple faculty roles, but it can also be applied across disciplinary settings, allowing for different language and cultural norms to be interpreted through the identity, intercultural, and relational lenses of the IPF. Thus, the IPF can transcend disciplinary boundaries and act as a unifier within and across STEM units on campus.
Second, the IPF is applicable to those developing, implementing, and evaluating professional development for faculty members. For example, the IPF can be used to engage Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTL) and STEM Education Center staff in self-directed reflective practice and meaning-making (Beverly & Gillian-Daniel, 2024). The framework can also be used as a lens to consider the following: (1) ways to supplement existing programming to build IPF-aligned awareness, knowledge, and skills; (2) gaps in center programming that could be filled with new offerings to build IPF-aligned awareness, knowledge, and skills; and even (3) ways to build deeper connections with other units on campus to promote the knowledge gained from the IPF (e.g., CTL staff connecting faculty with Office of Advising professional development programming that builds interpersonal relationship skills). Past ASI participants have included CTL leaders and staff. These individuals have found the IPF to be a strong conceptual tool for examining and potentially organizing teaching professional development to include a stronger DEI perspective.
Lastly, the IPF can be applied to other stakeholder groups such as disciplinary and professional societies (Leibnitz et al., 2022) to generate organizational change in higher education. Leibnitz et al. developed the IPF for professional societies (IPF: Societies) to bring inclusive practices into the STEM professional society context because of the broad national audiences that societies are positioned well to engage with in their DEI work. Leibnitz et al. argued that professional societies have a role in establishing disciplinary culture and norms and have the means to influence change within STEM disciplines and professions. Therefore, the foundations of the IPF can serve as a tool to elicit change at a much broader level than individual faculty members in specific STEM departments by weaving the core domains into organizational change efforts. For example, focusing on the organizational structures and policies of academic units to complement faculty teaching, advising, and mentoring activities can help foster more inclusive environments within and across academic units, which can leverage change within the broader institution. In summary, the IPF is a promising approach to helping diverse stakeholders in higher education to deeply consider identities, interculturalism, and relationships in their efforts to implement and not only support positive faculty–student interactions but collegial relationships within departments that can in turn affect cultural shifts to advance broadening participation goals in STEM.

5. Conclusions

As the world continues to change in drastic ways, STEM fields need to continue to seek diverse representation in response to complex problems that cannot be solved by homogenous groups. Solving the problems of STEM attrition and retention continues to be a challenge and initiatives that focus on faculty and departmental change may be a means to improvement. Because faculty interactions with students are impactful, it is essential that faculty are well equipped to develop inclusive environments. Research indicates that students who have a sense of belonging are also more likely to have higher academic self-confidence and self-efficacy (Johnson, 2012; Verdín, 2021; Wilson et al., 2015), and self-efficacy can also be linked to persistence.
To improve underrepresented student persistence in STEM, it is necessary to enhance faculty professional development, so that faculty can integrate an equity-minded approach in varying contexts (e.g., teaching, advising, mentoring). The IPF provides important self-awareness of identity for instructors which appears to be pivotal in ameliorating the experiences of students in STEM. The IPF is one way to put theory into practice by being intentional about creating inclusive environments that can improve the participation and persistence of underrepresented students in STEM. Future research could consider how instructors engage with the IPF longitudinally since the effects of professional development interventions can lessen over time, and the current study only explores participants’ confidence to implement inclusive practices six months post-ASI. Research should also identify the effects on students’ experiences in and outside of the classroom with instructors who have engaged in IPF-based professional development to determine its effectiveness in improving students’ experiences and, in turn, retention in STEM.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.P.B. and L.B.H.; methodology, S.P.B., L.B.H., Q.M.C. and D.L.G.-D.; validation, S.P.B. and L.B.H.; formal analysis, S.P.B., L.B.H. and Q.M.C.; investigation, S.P.B. and Q.M.C.; writing—original draft preparation, S.P.B., L.B.H., Q.M.C. and D.L.G.-D.; writing—review and editing, S.P.B., L.B.H., Q.M.C. and D.L.G.-D.; project administration, D.L.G.-D. and L.B.H.; funding acquisition, D.L.G.-D. and L.B.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. (1834518, 1834522, 1834510, 1834513, 1834526, 1834521). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Publication made possible in part by support from Eastern Michigan University’s Faculty Open Access Publishing Fund, administered by the Associate Provost and Associate Vice President for Graduate Studies and Research, with assistance from the EMU Library.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of the University of Wisconsin-Madison (protocol number 2021-1234, and determined to be exempt on 10 May 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to privacy concerns but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Bipana Bantawa, NiCole Buchanan, Chris Castro, Emily Dickmann, Levon Esters, Gretal Leibnitz, Louis Macias, Ebony Omotola McGee, Shannon Patton, Robin Parent, Christine Pfund, Robin McC. Greenler, Evangeline Su, and Kecia Thomas for contributions to the intellectual development of the Inclusive Professional Framework. In addition, Janet Trembly is responsible for the IPF: Faculty image design.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Agresti, A. (2018). Statistical methods for the social sciences. Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alfred, L. J., Atkins, C., Lopez, M., Chavez, T., Avila, V., & Paolini, P. (2005). A science pipeline pathway for training underrepresented students in the biomedical sciences. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 11(1), 45–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Allen, J. M., & Nimon, K. (2007). Retrospective pretest: A practical technique for professional development evaluation. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 44(3), 27–42. [Google Scholar]
  4. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Barry, K. (2019). The crash test bias: How male-focused testing puts female drivers at risk. Consumer reports. Available online: https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/crash-test-bias-how-male-focused-testing-puts-female-drivers-at-risk/ (accessed on 13 June 2022).
  7. Barthelemy, R. S., McCormick, M., & Henderson, C. (2016). Gender discrimination in physics and astronomy: Graduate student experiences of sexism and gender microaggressions. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 020119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Beverly, S. P., & Gillian-Daniel, D. (2024). Facing the challenge: Connecting concepts to practice to improve STEM faculty professional development. Innovative Higher Education, 49, 735–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bryson, T. C., & Grunert Kowalske, M. (2022). Black women in STEM graduate programs: The advisor selection process and the perception of the advisor/advisee relationship. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 15(1), 111–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Carnes, M., Devine, P. G., Isaac, C., Manwell, L. B., Ford, C. E., Byars-Winston, A., Fine, E., & Sheridan, J. (2012). Promoting institutional change through bias literacy. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5(2), 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Carter, D. F., Dueñas, J. E. R., & Mendoza, R. (2019). Critical examination of the role of STEM in propagating and maintaining race and gender disparities. In M. B. Paulsen, & L. W. Perna (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (34th ed., pp. 39–97). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cech, E. (2013). The (mis)framing of social justice: Why ideologies and meritocracy hinder engineers’ ability to think about social justice. In J. Lucena (Ed.), Engineering education for social justice: Critical explorations and opportunities (pp. 67–84). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  13. Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning. (n.d.). Available online: https://cirtl.net/ (accessed on 1 April 2023).
  14. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  15. Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S., Montoya, A., & Jiang, L. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Cokley, K. O., & Chapman, C. (2008). The roles of ethnic identity, anti-White attitudes, and academic self-concept in African American student achievement. Social Psychology of Education, 11(4), 349–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cole, D. (2007). Do interracial interactions matter? An examination of student-faculty contact and intellectual self-concept. Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 249–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cranton, P. (1994). Self-directed and transformative instructional development. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(6), 726–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dessel, A., & Rogge, M. E. (2008). Evaluation of intergroup dialogue: A review of the empirical literature. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26(2), 199–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dewsbury, B. M. (2020). Deep teaching in a college STEM classroom. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15(1), 169–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ensher, E. A., & Murphy, S. E. (1997). Effects of race, gender, perceived similarity, and contact on mentor relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50(3), 460–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fassinger, P. A. (1995). Understanding classroom interaction: Students’ and professors’ contributions to students’ silence. The Journal of Higher Education, 66(1), 82–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gillian-Daniel, D. L., Greenler, R. C., Bridgen, S. T., Dukes, A. A., & Hill, L. B. (2021a). Inclusion in the classroom, lab and beyond: Transferable skills via an Inclusive Professional Framework for Faculty. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 53(5), 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gillian-Daniel, D. L., Troxel, W. G., & Bridgen, S. (2021b). Promoting an Equity Mindset through the Inclusive Professional Framework for Faculty. The Department Chair, 32(2), 4–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gonsalves, A. J. (2014). “Physics and the girly girl—There is a contradiction somewhere”: Doctoral students’ positioning around discourses of gender and competence in physics. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(2), 503–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women? (Project on the Status and Education of Women). Association of American Colleges. [Google Scholar]
  27. Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hernández-de-Menéndez, M., Vallejo Guevara, A., Tudón Martínez, J. C., Hernández Alcántara, D., & Morales-Menendez, R. (2019). Active learning in engineering education: A review of fundamentals, best practices, and experiences. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 13(3), 909–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Inclusive STEM Teaching Project. (2023). Available online: https://www.inclusivestemteaching.org/ (accessed on 1 April 2023).
  30. Ives, G., & Rowley, G. (2005). Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervision: Ph. D. students’ progress and outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 535–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Johnson, A. M. (2019). ‘I can turn it on when I need to’: Pre-college integration, culture, and peer academic engagement among Black and Latino/a engineering students. Sociology of Education, 92(1), 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Johnson, D. R. (2012). Campus racial climate perceptions and overall sense of belonging among racially diverse women in STEM majors. Journal of College Student Development, 53(2), 336–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Killpack, T. L., & Melón, L. C. (2016). Toward inclusive STEM classrooms: What personal role do faculty play? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(3), es3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Kim, M. M. (2002). Cultivating intellectual development: Comparing women-only colleges and coeducational colleges for educational effectiveness. Research in Higher Education, 43(4), 447–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2009). Student–faculty interaction in research universities: Differences by student gender, race, social class, and first-generation status. Research in Higher Education, 50(5), 437–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2017). The impact of college students’ interactions with faculty: A review of general and conditional effects. In M. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 32, pp. 397–426). Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2005). A developmental model of intercultural maturity. Journal of College Student Development, 46(6), 571–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Racialized discourses and ethnic epistemologies. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 257–277). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  39. Laursen, S. (2019). An assessment of progress of changing STEM instruction. American Association for the Advancement of Science. [Google Scholar]
  40. Lee, A., Poch, R., Shaw, M., & Williams, R. D. (2012). The need for intercultural competency development in classrooms. ASHE Higher Education Report, 38(2), 1–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Leibnitz, G. M., Gillian-Daniel, D. L., Greenler, R. M. C. C., Campbell-Montalvo, R., Metcalf, H., Segarra, V. A., Peters, J. W., Patton, S., Lucy-Putwen, A., & Sims, E. L. (2022). The inclusive professional framework for societies: Changing mental models to promote diverse, equitable, and inclusive STEM systems change. Frontiers in Sociology, 6, 784399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lester, J., Yamanaka, A., & Struthers, B. (2016). Gender microaggressions and learning: The role of physical space in teaching pedagogy and communication. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 40(11), 909–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lohr, S. (2018). Facial recognition is accurate, if you’re a white guy. The New York Times. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/technology/facial-recognition-race-artificial-intelligence.html (accessed on 13 June 2022).
  44. Macdonald, H. R., Beane, R. J., Baer, E. M. D., Eddy, P. L., Emerson, N. R., Hodder, J., Iverson, E. R., McDaris, J. R., O’Connell, K., & Ormand, C. J. (2019). Accelerating change: The power of faculty change agents to promote diversity and inclusive teaching practices. Journal of Geoscience Education, 67(4), 330–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  46. Museus, S. D., & Ravello, J. N. (2010). Characteristics of academic advising that contribute to racial and ethnic minority student success at predominantly White institutions. NACADA Journal, 30(1), 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). (2023). Diversity and STEM: Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities 2023; (Special Report NSF 23-315). National Science Foundation. Available online: https://ncses.nsf.gov/wmpd (accessed on 1 June 2024).
  48. National Institute on Scientific Teaching. (2022). Available online: https://www.nisthub.org/ (accessed on 23 June 2024).
  49. Núñez, A. M. (2009). Modeling the effects of diversity experiences and multiple capitals on Latino/o college students’ academic self-confidence. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 8(2), 179–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Okun, T., & Jones, K. (2000). White supremacy culture. In Dismantling racism: A workbook for social change groups. Change work. Available online: https://www.tinyispowerful.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Everyday-Justice-December-2021-Resource-Packet-2.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2024).
  51. Ong, M., Wright, C., Espinosa, L., & Orfield, G. (2011). Inside the double bind: A synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 172–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Parker, P. J. (2017). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  53. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  54. Pascarella, E. T., Salisbury, M. H., & Blaich, C. (2011). Exposure to effective instruction and college persistence: A multi-institutional replication and extension. Journal of College Student Development, 52(1), 4–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Pfund, C., Miller, S., Brenner, K., Bruns, P., Chang, A., Ebert-May, D., Fagen, A. P., Gentile, J., Gossens, S., Khan, I. M., Labov, J. B., Pribbenow, C. M., Susman, M., Tong, L., Wright, R., Yuan, R. T., Wood, W. B., & Handelsmann, J. (2009). Summer institute to improve university science teaching. Science, 324(5926), 470–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pockock, J., & Palin, Y. (2021). Toxic legacy. ASEE Prism. Available online: https://www.asee-prism.org/toxic-legacy/ (accessed on 13 June 2022).
  57. Preparing Future Faculty. (n.d.). Available online: https://preparing-faculty.org/ (accessed on 18 May 2023).
  58. Rainey, K., Dancy, M., Mickelson, R., Stearns, E., & Moller, S. (2018). Race and gender differences in how sense of belonging influences decisions to major in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 5, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Riegle-Crumb, C., Peng, M., & Russo-Tait, T. (2020). Committed to STEM? Examining factors that predict occupational commitment among Asian and White female students completing STEM U.S. postsecondary programs. Sex Roles, 82, 102–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Salazar, M. D. C., Norton, A. S., & Tuitt, F. A. (2010). Weaving promising practices for inclusive excellence into the higher education classroom. To Improve the Academy, 28(1), 208–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Saroyan, A., Amundsen, C., & Li, C. (1997). Incorporating theories of teacher growth and adult education in a faculty development program. To Improve the Academy, 16(1), 93–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sax, L. J. (2008). The gender gap in college: Maximizing the developmental potential of women and men. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  63. Sax, L. J., Bryant, A. N., & Harper, C. E. (2005). The differential effects of student-faculty interaction on college outcomes for women and men. Journal of College Student Development, 46(6), 642–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Seidman, I. (2012). A structure for in-depth, phenomenological interviewing. In Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (4th ed., pp. 14–31). Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar]
  65. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (2nd ed.). Currency. [Google Scholar]
  66. Simon, R. M., Wagner, A., & Killion, B. (2017). Gender and choosing a STEM major in college: Femininity, masculinity, chilly climate, and occupational values. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(3), 299–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Stanley, C. A. (2010). Conceptualizing, designing, and implementing multicultural faculty development activities. In A guide to faculty development (pp. 203–224). [Google Scholar]
  68. Stewart, J., Henderson, R., Michaluk, L., Deshler, J., Fuller, E., & Rambo-Hernandez, K. (2020). Using the social cognitive theory framework to chart gender differences in the developmental trajectory of STEM self-efficacy in science and engineering students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(6), 758–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  70. Verdín, D. (2021). The power of interest: Minoritized women’s interest in engineering fosters persistence beliefs beyond belongingness and engineering identity. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wilson, D., Jones, D., Bocell, F., Crawford, J., Kim, M. J., Veilleux, N., Floyd-Smith, T., Bates, R., & Plett, M. (2015). Belonging and academic engagement among undergraduate STEM students: A multi-institutional study. Research in Higher Education, 56(7), 750–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Winterer, E. R., Froyd, J. E., Borrego, M., Martin, J. P., & Foster, M. (2020). Factors influencing the academic success of Latinx students matriculating at 2-year and transferring to 4-year US institutions—Implications for STEM majors: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zurn-Birkhimer, S., Geier, S. R., & Sahley, C. (2011). ADVANCE-PURDUE: Retention, success, and leadership for senior female STEM faculty (pp. 22.145.1–22.145.6). American Society for Engineering Education. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Aspire’s Inclusive Professional Framework (Gillian-Daniel et al., 2021a).
Figure 1. Aspire’s Inclusive Professional Framework (Gillian-Daniel et al., 2021a).
Education 15 00077 g001
Table 1. Demographics of participants.
Table 1. Demographics of participants.
PseudonymGenderRace/EthnicityProfessional Position
AaronManWhiteAdministrator
JulieWomanWhiteFaculty
CynthiaWomanWhiteFaculty/Faculty Developer
JeffManWhiteFaculty
KieraWomanBlackFaculty
MaureenWomanWhiteFaculty Developer
Rose WomanWhiteFaculty
ArianaWomanWhiteFaculty
RhondaWomanWhiteAdministrator
DamonManBlackFaculty
AmirManAsianFaculty
LindaWomanWhiteFaculty
RubyWomanWhiteFaculty
CathleenWomanWhiteFaculty
Table 2. Participant knowledge of key IPF concepts (2021 cohort).
Table 2. Participant knowledge of key IPF concepts (2021 cohort).
Extent of KnowledgePre
2021
Post
2021
p-ValueCohen’s d
Identity
Your and others’ social and cultural identitiesM = 4.29
SD = 1.21
M = 5.23
SD = 0.61
0.00002 ***0.98
The intersectionality of your and others’ social and cultural identitiesM = 4.26
SD = 1.31
M = 5.16
SD = 0.77
0.000 ***0.84
The role that identity plays in creating effective learning environmentsM = 3.68
SD = 1.46
M = 5.06
SD = 0.68
0.000 ***1.21
Biases and privileges you hold, in relation to self and othersM = 4.32
SD = 1.32
M = 5.10
SD = 0.70
0.000 ***0.73
Intercultural
Cultural differencesM = 4.45
SD = 1.26
M = 4.97
SD = 1.01
0.019 *0.45
Aspects of your own cultural backgrounds that could influence your interactions with students and colleaguesM = 4.32
SD = 1.35
M = 5.00
SD = 0.85
0.003 **0.60
Ways to enable effective interactions with others from different racial, ethnic, or social identity groups in both domestic and international contextsM = 3.94
SD = 1.23
M = 4.74
SD = 0.93
0.000 ***0.73
Relational
Communication and relational skills that build one-on-one connection, trust, and relationshipM = 4.32
SD = 1.07
M = 4.84
SD = 0.96
0.012 *0.51
Strategies for effective interpersonal interactionM = 4.16
SD = 1.03
M = 4.84
SD = 0.96
0.000 ***0.68
n = 31. Significance levels: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 3. Participant knowledge of key IPF concepts (2022 cohort).
Table 3. Participant knowledge of key IPF concepts (2022 cohort).
Extent of KnowledgePre
2022
Post
2022
p-ValueCohen’s d
Identity
Your and others’ social and cultural identitiesM = 4.14
SD = 1.38
M = 5.19
SD = 1.03
0.031 *0.86
The intersectionality of your and others’ social and cultural identitiesM = 4.10
SD = 1.70
M = 5.05
SD = 1.16
0.1030.65
The role that identity plays in creating effective learning environmentsM = 3.90
SD = 1.81
M = 5.05
SD = 1.24
0.0610.74
Biases and privileges you hold, in relation to self and othersM = 4.24
SD = 1.51
M = 5.14
SD = 1.06
0.0860.69
Intercultural
Cultural differencesM = 4.33
SD = 1.52
M = 5.00
SD = 1.14
0.1730.57
Aspects of your own cultural backgrounds that could influence your interactions with students and colleaguesM = 4.33
SD = 1.52
M = 5.10
SD = 1.13
0.0670.77
Ways to enable effective interactions with others from different racial, ethnic, or social identity groups in both domestic and international contextsM = 3.67
SD = 1.35
M = 4.67
SD = 1.23
0.036 *0.83
Relational
Communication and relational skills that build one-on-one connection, trust, and relationshipM = 3.76
SD = 1.30
M = 4.71
SD = 0.95
0.031 *0.86
Strategies for effective interpersonal interactionM = 3.86
SD = 1.27
M = 4.67
SD = 1.06
0.1030.65
n = 21. Significance levels: * p < 0.05.
Table 4. Value of the domains of the IPF (2021 cohort).
Table 4. Value of the domains of the IPF (2021 cohort).
Extent of ValuePre
2021
Post
2021
p-ValueCohen’s d
Identity: Developing an awareness of self and student social and cultural identities, the intersectionality of those identities, and examining the role that identity plays in creating effective learning environments.M = 4.53
SD = 1.33
M = 5.40
SD = 0.72
0.00 ***0.81
Intercultural: Developing an understanding of cultural differences in ways that enable effective interactions with others from different racial, ethnic, or social identity groups in both domestic and international contexts.M = 4.50
SD = 1.15
M = 5.40
SD = 0.72
0.00 ***0.93
Relational: Building one-on-one connection, trust and relationships through effective communication and relational skills, which support effective interpersonal interaction.M = 4.77
SD = 1.20
M = 5.60
SD = 0.56
0.00 ***0.89
n = 30. Significance levels: *** p < 0.001.
Table 5. Value of the domains of the IPF (2022 cohort).
Table 5. Value of the domains of the IPF (2022 cohort).
Extent of KnowledgePre
2022
Post
2022
p-ValueCohen’s d
Identity: Developing an awareness of self and student social and cultural identities, the intersectionality of those identities, and examining the role that identity plays in creating effective learning environments.M = 4.33
SD = 1.57
M = 5.39
SD = 0.97
0.060.81
Intercultural: Developing an understanding of cultural differences in ways that enable effective interactions with others from different racial, ethnic, or social identity groups in both domestic and international contexts.M = 4.11
SD = 1.56
M = 5.22
SD = 1.00
0.05 *0.85
Relational: Building one-on-one connection, trust and relationships through effective communication and relational skills, which support effective interpersonal interaction.M = 4.44
SD = 1.46
M = 5.33
SD = 1.02
0.120.71
n = 18. Significance levels: * p < 0.05.
Table 6. Participants’ confidence in implementing inclusive practices (2021 cohort).
Table 6. Participants’ confidence in implementing inclusive practices (2021 cohort).
Extent of ConfidencePre
2021
Post
2021
p-ValueCohen’s d
Help foster success for undergraduate students from underrepresented groups M = 3.65
SD = 1.35
M = 4.48
SD = 1.09
0.140.67
Help close the achievement gap in STEM participation for undergraduate students from underrepresented groups M = 3.32
SD = 1.32
M = 4.06
SD = 1.12
0.00 ***0.60
Help build learning communities of change agents committed to improving STEM education for undergraduate students from underrepresented groups M = 3.26
SD = 1.23
M = 4.16
SD = 1.18
0.00 ***0.74
Identify the barriers to establishing and maintaining inclusive relationships in STEM contexts M = 3.48
SD = 1.15
M = 4.68
SD = 0.74
0.00 ***1.24
Implement proactive strategies for building diverse and inclusive relationships in STEM contexts M = 3.52
SD = 1.12
M = 4.61
SD = 0.84
0.00 ***1.10
Apply the Inclusive Professional Framework: Faculty to my job responsibilities. M = 2.48
SD = 1.43
M = 4.55
SD = 0.99
0.00 ***1.68
Recognize how identity and the intersectionality of identities impact my student and collegial interactions M = 3.87
SD = 1.28
M = 4.90
SD = 0.59
0.00 ***1.03
Continuously reflect on the impact of my personal and socio-cultural identities in my student and collegial relationships M = 4.16
SD = 1.29
M = 5.00
SD = 0.77
0.110.79
Engage my students’ individual identities, experiences, and values in support of their personal, developmental, and academic growth M = 3.93
SD = 1.70
M = 4.80
SD = 0.99
0.01 *0.62
Recognize how cultural diversity can complicate my student and collegial relationships M = 4.19
SD = 1.04
M = 5.16
SD = 0.68
0.00 ***1.10
Recognize how cultural diversity can benefit my student and collegial relationships M = 4.47
SD = 1.19
M = 5.40
SD = 0.56
0.00 ***1.00
Interrupt injustices I witness in my student and collegial relationships M = 3.52
SD = 1.26
M = 4.61
SD = 1.02
0.00 ***0.95
Interrupt injustices I participate in, and/or commit in my student and collegial relationships M = 4.00
SD = 1.31
M = 4.87
SD = 1.05
0.00 ***0.73
Communicate effectively across diverse dimensions (e.g., varied backgrounds, disciplines, ethnicities, and positions of power) with students and colleagues M = 4.06
SD = 1.36
M = 4.74
SD = 1.06
0.00 ***0.55
n = 31. Significance levels: * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.
Table 7. Participants’ confidence in implementing inclusive practices (2022 cohort).
Table 7. Participants’ confidence in implementing inclusive practices (2022 cohort).
Extent of ConfidencePre
2022
Post
2022
p-ValueCohen’s d
Help foster success for undergraduate students from underrepresented groups M = 3.29
SD = 1.34
M = 4.43
SD = 1.20
0.04 *0.90
Help close the achievement gap in STEM participation for undergraduate students from underrepresented groups M = 3.14
SD =1.35
M = 4.24
SD =1.26
0.00 ***0.84
Help build learning communities of change agents committed to improving STEM education for undergraduate students from underrepresented groups M = 3.19
SD =1.32
M = 4.48
SD =1.12
0.051.05
Identify the barriers to establishing and maintaining inclusive relationships in STEM contexts M = 3.10
SD =1.30
M = 4.52
SD = 1.20
0.00 ***1.14
Implement proactive strategies for building diverse and inclusive relationships in STEM contexts M = 2.90
SD = 1.29
M = 4.20
SD = 1.32
0.03 *1.00
Apply the Inclusive Professional Framework: Faculty to my job responsibilities. M = 2.33
SD = 1.31
M = 4.19
SD = 1.32
0.00 ***1.41
Recognize how identity and the intersectionality of identities impact my student and collegial interactions M = 3.80
SD = 1.43
M = 5.05
SD = 1.05
0.00 ***1.00
Continuously reflect on the impact of my personal and socio-cultural identities in my student and collegial relationships M = 3.80
SD = 1.50
M = 5.00
SD = 1.07
0.00 ***0.92
Engage my students’ individual identities, experiences, and values in support of their personal, developmental, and academic growth M = 3.33
SD = 1.49
M = 4.61
SD = 1.24
0.00 ***0.93
Recognize how cultural diversity can complicate my student and collegial relationships M = 4.05
SD = 1.50
M = 4.95
SD = 1.17
0.050.67
Recognize how cultural diversity can benefit my student and collegial relationships M = 4.11
SD = 1.44
M = 4.84
SD = 1.16
0.050.56
Interrupt injustices I witness in my student and collegial relationships M = 3.50
SD = 1.33
M = 4.67
SD = 0.97
0.02 *1.01
Interrupt injustices I participate in, and/or commit in my student and collegial relationships M = 3.37
SD = 1.46
M = 4.58
SD = 1.17
0.070.91
Communicate effectively across diverse dimensions (e.g., varied backgrounds, disciplines, ethnicities, and positions of power) with students and colleagues M = 3.58
SD = 1.57
M = 4.58
SD = 1.42
0.080.67
n = 21. Significance levels: * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Beverly, S.P.; Clark, Q.M.; Hill, L.B.; Gillian-Daniel, D.L. Advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Operationalizing the Inclusive Professional Framework to Develop STEM Faculty Change Agents. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010077

AMA Style

Beverly SP, Clark QM, Hill LB, Gillian-Daniel DL. Advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Operationalizing the Inclusive Professional Framework to Develop STEM Faculty Change Agents. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(1):77. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010077

Chicago/Turabian Style

Beverly, Selyna Pérez, Quintana M. Clark, Lucas B. Hill, and Donald L. Gillian-Daniel. 2025. "Advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Operationalizing the Inclusive Professional Framework to Develop STEM Faculty Change Agents" Education Sciences 15, no. 1: 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010077

APA Style

Beverly, S. P., Clark, Q. M., Hill, L. B., & Gillian-Daniel, D. L. (2025). Advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Operationalizing the Inclusive Professional Framework to Develop STEM Faculty Change Agents. Education Sciences, 15(1), 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010077

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop