A Paradoxical and Critical Sensemaking Perspective
Open Access DepositedSTEM Faculty Efforts to Lead Equitable Change
how do faculty members interested in equitable student success make sense of their agency and navigate institutional constraints to enact change in undergraduate STEM education? The study utilized a narrative inquiry framework (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). Eight participants, all STEM faculty in higher education institutions in the United States, shared their experiences with leading change efforts with the intention of increasing equitable outcomes in undergraduate STEM education. Data was collected by conducting two interviews with each participant and through the form of a written response between interviews. Findings demonstrate that the participants in my study make sense of their agency and navigate institutional constraints to enact change by
1) embracing their disruptor identities, seeking to learn and identify new ways to go about change
The purpose of this study is to understand how faculty members, independent and outside of large-scale institutional initiatives, enact change to achieve equitable student success. In examining their change efforts, the study focuses on how they make sense of their agency to navigate paradoxical tensions associated with structure and agency. Using a critical sensemaking and paradoxical perspective, the study addresses the following research question
2) demonstrating resilience in the face of obstacles, where they adapt practices to overcome challenges and acknowledge when they need to take a different approach, and 3) accepting the limitations of their independent actions, where they navigate organizational rules and rely on support from others. The findings indicate that individual faculty have agency to enact change, but that their agency has limits. A model is developed for understanding the virtuous cycle between individual agency and relational sensemaking. This cycle is enabled by several micro-level facilitators, including the participants’ professional and personal identity, learning with and from others, collective resilience, and creative adaptability. At times, the participants found themselves in a vicious cycle wherein their efforts were temporarily stalled because of the actions of other human and non-human actors. The virtuous and vicious cycles were surrounded by a permeable meso-level boundary with additional factors that both influenced and were influenced by the individual agency and relational sensemaking cycle. Finally, several macro-level served as the superordinate structure layer over the other aspects of the model and included forces that exerted pressure on the participants and their actions. Directions for future research and practice are offered at the conclusion of the study.
- All rights reserved
Notice to Authors
If you are the author of this work and you have any questions about the information on this page, please use the Contact form to get in touch with us.