Hi, Gretal, thanks for this amplification.  The three "approaches" that I was referring to are in your abstract, thus:" 1) focus on department leaders and faculty in the largest engineering discipline--mechanical engineering; 2) use of change models that explicitly link knowledge acquisition with intentional actions; and 3) application of a unique combination of topics--change leadership; engineering culture and underrepresentation; and inclusive pedagogies. "

Thanks Brian, LOL!  Yes!  You ask a challenging question as to which of the 3 approaches is most productive or problematic.  I guess I would have to say all of the approaches have both productive and problematic elements.  

 

To shift engineering academic culture, it is clear that focus needs to be on leaders and faculty and, it makes sense to target the largest engineering discipline--Mechanical Engineering.  That said, I think the TECAID approach would work within any discipline where diversity, equity and inclusion issues emerge, engineering or otherwise.  Most of our Mechanical Engineering teams were highly productive, and, as you can imagine, there were also challenges.  Change produces personal and interpersonal dissonance.  Managing that dissonance productively is key.  So key, that "Constructive Dissonance Cycle" is a core element embedded into the development of the TECAID model, along with resources to help faculty/leaders manage dissonance well.

 

Similarly, using change models that link knowledge acquisition AND action is KEY.  It is not unusual for projects to focus primarily on knowledge acquisition.  Helping people translate knowledge into action is part of what we call our "act-learn feedback loop."  It is wonderful to see people acting on learning, AND sometimes that acting creates the dissonance described above.  The Virtual Learning Community, as well as the participant team, have proved beneficial forums for helping people manage interpersonal dissonance created in acting upon new learning.

 

Finally, providing a combination of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and leadership, content and skill-building opportunity has been critical.  Engineers are not typically trained in key DEI concepts and usually only gain skill in leading change based upon individual experiences.  To help engineers be successful it is important that they gain understanding in concepts but also self-efficacy around DEI and change-making integral to any culture shift.  Naturally, different people were able to embrace and act upon the concepts and skill-building opportunity to greater and lesser degree.  Regardless, all of our participants benefited, either directly or indirectly, from the process.  

 

Our project is unique in seeking to build broad-based skill to effect DEI culture change; all three approaches were necessary but not sufficient unto themselves.  All three approaches brought inherent challenges associated with change.  We teach our participants that the experience of dissonance is a good sign because it means opportunity for growth if managed productively.

 

In  your experience, what would you say are key challenges to shifting engineering culture to be more diverse, equitable and inclusive?

 

Thanks again for the great question and opportunity to share details of our project!

Well, thanks for a really in-depth answer.  This helps me understand your program much more fully. 

   I have to say, I love your comment:  "Change produces personal and interpersonal dissonance," and the insight that this dissonance is both inevitable and actually a learning resource.  (Very Deweyan stance!) It's the sort of conceptual  tool that can help someone take control of, or make sense of, their professional growth throughout their careers.  

Thanks Albert!  Sometimes the most simple premises end up being the most elegant.  Having worked in the area of STEM culture change for the past decade, I am aware that some projects have engaged engineers, for example, in diversity knowledge building but not partnered with those same engineers to serve directly as agents of engineering culture change.  Knowledge acquisition is foundational, but action is necessary for culture change.  Helping individuals apply their knowledge is a much more complicated process than providing information.  Thank you for your gracious awareness of the significance of our outcomes!

 

Yes, virtual learning communities can be challenging.  We know that leadership of the community is key.  Having led a national virtual community of practice for 5 years, I know the importance of having the leader be engaged in the community work with a clear "thumb on the pulse" of key concerns (and successes) of the community.  Rapport is critical and time demanding.  The community is less likely to be optimally functional if structure is imposed from "without" rather than emerge from the group process.  We had the benefit of building and supporting our virtual community with face time.  The fact that the community was small, as well as actively engaged in facilitating learning opportunities for people to be authentic and work with new skills, helped to foster trust, respect and rapport.  The virtual learning community is now sustained through the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Grassroots leadership within the TECAID virtual learning community has emerged.  Motivated, respected, internal leadership has been a key element of sustained engagement.

Thanks for your insightful question!

I appreciate you sharing Gretal and it sounds like you have a wonderful skill set and authentic background yourself to develop those virtual communities.

 

Allowing them to organically grow from the collective needs of the group is much more engaging and compelling than the often formal top down structures I've seen (moderation skills aside).

 

I was fortunate to be on the CS10K advisory group for building community, where Etienne Wenger (communities of practice fame) was also a part of the group. He, Beverly Trayner and Maarten de Laat published an evaluative framework for looking at learning communities titled: Promoting and Assessing Value Creation in Communities and Networks: A Conceptual Framework (Open University Netherlands/Dutch Ministry of Education). I wonder if this might be a lens from which to look through if you desire to evaluate the "contributions" against some yardstick?

 

Freely available online: http://wenger-trayner.com/resources/publication...

 

All the best of success in the effort!