Introduction

The (STEM)2 Network (Sustainable, Transformative Engagement across a Multi-Institution/Multidisciplinary STEM Network) was designed to catalyze systemic change in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in higher education by addressing siloed courses, disciplines, and institutions that create barriers to student success (Santangelo et al., 2021). Herein, we describe the formation of our Network with the intention of supporting others in creating their own networks. Those networks will likely have different goals than ours - goals that address the unique context(s) and challenges that exist across their unique set of discipline(s) and institution(s). Therefore, as we share the nuts and bolts of how we developed the (STEM)2 Network, we encourage readers to complete the supplemental network development planning guide (Supplemental Material).

Systemic transformational change requires altering institutional culture, affects the whole institution, is intentional, and occurs over a period of time (Eckel et al., 1998). Duffy and Reigeluth (2008) add two additional requirements for systemic transformational change: the new system continuously strives to create an idealized version of itself and operates within an entirely new paradigm. These requirements for change are particularly challenging to achieve in higher education. While these challenges occur across multiple levels, we chose to focus on the faculty. Faculty are dispersed and relatively autonomous, which can make them resistant to change (W. R. Watson & Watson, 2013). Added to this are the tensions between teaching, scholarship, and service often driven by the reward structures in place (Anderson et al., 2011; Shadle et al., 2017; W. R. Watson & Watson, 2013).

Despite these challenges, the global STEM higher education community has called for and undertaken transformation efforts in a variety of ways (Council on Higher Education Monitoring Brief, 2022; Department of Industry Science and Resources, 2024; European Universities Initiative, n.d.; Olson & Riordan, 2012). Some transformation efforts are focused on the classroom and use of evidence-based pedagogical practices (BioQuest: Evolution and Revolution in STEM Education, n.d.; National Institute on Scientific Teaching (NIST), n.d.; Partnership for Undergraduate Life Sciences Education (PULSE), n.d.; Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities (SENCER): Middlecamp et al., 2006, Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL): Moog & Spencer, 2008; Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research (SABER): Offerdahl et al., 2011; International Centre for STEM Education (ICSE), n.d.; STEM Continuous Professional Development at European Universities (STEM-CPD@EUni), n.d.). Others are more broadly focused on institutional transformation (e.g., AAAS STEMM Equity Achievement Change (SEA Change), n.d.; AAC&U Teaching to Increase Diversity and Equity in STEM (TIDES), n.d.; HHMI Inclusive Excellence, n.d.; Euro-Asia Collaboration for Enhancing STEM Education (EASTEM), n.d.; Leadership and Organisation for Teaching and Learning at European Universities (LOTUS), n.d.) or developing faculty as leaders to support institutional transformation efforts (Project Kaleidoscope (PKAL), n.d.). These efforts complement each other and share overlapping goals and approaches.

Despite many of us engaging with STEM transformation efforts, we recognized that systemic transformational change was inhibited at our institutions due in part to the siloed nature of disciplines, departments, and institutions (Keeling et al., 2007; Leimer, 2009; Reinholz & Andrews, 2019; Roper, 2021). These silos make interdisciplinary and inter-institutional communication and collaboration challenging (Leimer, 2009; Roper, 2021) and hinder systemic transformation. When silos are intentionally bridged, students and institutions benefit (Leimer, 2009; Lloyd, 2016).

We developed a network model that built connections across traditionally siloed disciplines and institutions to catalyze change (Kezar & Holcombe, 2018; Kurland et al., 2010). The model includes a core infrastructure that, combined with intentional self-reflection, results in an adaptable design that can be tailored to individual institutions, contexts, and goals (Fig. 1). Herein, we describe the inception of the network, the foundational theoretical frameworks that guide network development and growth, and detail network structure and operations.

Fig. 1
figure 1

A representation of the adaptable (STEM)2 Network model for the creation of a network that bridges disciplinary and institutional silos. The core infrastructure includes multiple disciplines and institutions, along with foundational frameworks that guide network development and growth. The adaptable component of the model is a result of intentional self-reflection. This self-reflection allows network developers to select areas of focus, disciplines, institutions, and types of institutions that should be included in the network. In this way, the model design that incorporates a fundamental infrastructure can be adapted to meet the needs of many contexts

Full size image

Network Inception

The idea for the (STEM)2 Network emerged from conversations between two of the authors, JS and AH, after they met at AAC&U’s Project Kaleidoscope STEM Leadership Institute (Project Kaleidoscope (PKAL), n.d.). Recognizing that their institutions were in the same geographic area, that they served similar student populations, and that they had common aspirations with respect to transforming undergraduate STEM education, they continued their PKAL conversations to determine how a biologist (JS) and a chemist (AH) at different institutions could work together.

From those conversations emerged three themes that they felt were important to support faculty in tackling the challenge of STEM transformation:

  1. (1)

    To ensure faculty are invested in transformation efforts, because faculty are critical to the success of these efforts. This would require creating space for faculty to determine their own priorities and to identify projects that resonate with them.

  2. (2)

    To provide faculty with a framework, skills, and support to pursue transformation efforts that result in sustainable change that resists reverting back to the status quo.

  3. (3)

    To create a system in which faculty are simultaneously supported as individuals and with respect to their larger institutional contexts. This would require a system in which faculty are rewarded for their transformation efforts within existing reward structures (e.g., tenure and promotion criteria).

They then identified foundational frameworks to support each theme: Emergent Outcomes, Systems Design for Organizational Change, and Communities of Transformation, respectively. These frameworks guided the initial development of the network and continue to guide on-going activities and growth. We offer that these frameworks are applicable across goals and contexts. However, in establishing a new network, it is important for the network leaders to interrogate their intentions and decide which frameworks are relevant to their own context or challenges. Regardless of which themes emerge, it is important to articulate the themes and frameworks clearly to build a network that intentionally addresses them.

Foundational Frameworks

Each foundational framework aligns with one of the themes. Emergent Outcomes and Systems Design for Organizational Change guide decisions regarding how the Network operates while the philosophy of a Community of Transformation guides how we envision ourselves as a community and how we approach our participants.

Emergent Outcomes

Emergent outcomes are those that arise from individual stakeholders as opposed to being prescribed to them by an outside person or body (Henderson et al., 2010). Both emergent and prescribed approaches can impact individuals and address changes to the larger environments and contexts in which those individuals operate. The majority of STEM instructional transformation efforts have focused on diffusion of prescribed outcomes and have not been widely adopted or had widespread impact (Henderson et al., 2010). The more effective and impactful approach is the emergent outcomes approach which seeks to support individuals and empower stakeholders (Henderson et al., 2010).

In the (STEM)2 Network, we use the emergent outcomes model to ensure that ideas are generated and implemented by participants representing a diversity of disciplines and institutions. Utilizing the emergent outcomes framework requires the leadership team to intentionally scaffold opportunities for participants to articulate what they want to do and to self-select into projects of interest. In practice, we have found that this maintains motivation, investment, and persistence. We further provide support, whether via collaborations initiated within the network, access to data or resources from member institutions, or direct financial support from the Network for participants to pursue their ideas.

Systems Design for Organizational Change

Systems design for organizational change is an approach to transformation that utilizes both systems theory and design theory (Stavrianeas et al., 2022; Watson et al., 2008; W. R. Watson & Watson, 2013). Systems theory allows participants to view institutions of higher education as a system of multiple interacting subsystems. A systems theory approach allows identification of problems and solutions within the context of these interacting subsystems that make up the whole. The other component of systems design, design theory, guides participants to envision and create a new system. Both systems theory and design theory provide approaches and tools that Network participants employ in a practical way.

In the (STEM)2 Network, we engage participants in activities that encourage thinking systemically such as rich picturing and creation of influence diagrams (Williams & Hummelbrunner, 2010). These methods help participants understand interrelationships, view systems from multiple perspectives, and be aware of relevant boundaries (Williams & Hummelbrunner, 2010). We also engage with and utilize change theory and theory of change (Reinholz & Andrews, 2020). In particular, participants benefit from employing logic modeling. The combination of systems design skills to view complex higher education institutions as systems and logic modeling to align transformation goals with activities and projects allows participants to identify and situate transformation efforts within their institutional contexts.

Communities of Transformation

Communities of Transformation (CoTs) “[explore] philosophically, in deep and fundamental ways, how science is taught” (Kezar & Gehrke, 2015). As defined by Kezar and Gehrke (2015), CoTs are a variant of a community of practice (CoP). Three elements distinguish CoTs from CoPs. CoTs have: “(1) A compelling philosophy. (2) Living integration of the philosophy throughout activities and communications, creating a new world of practice. (3) A network of peers to break the isolation, brainstorm revising practices, and help sustain changes once an individual returns to the status quo environment” (Kezar & Gehrke, 2015).

The CoT framework further emphasizes the individual, the interactions among individuals, and the larger context to address transformations involving faculty and the broader system. Engagement in a CoT has benefits, particularly for faculty of color and female faculty. These benefits include networking, pursuing grant opportunities, credibility for professional work, skills in leadership and change, and contributing to career advancement (Kezar & Gehrke, 2015).

In practice, the (STEM)2 Network utilizes the CoT framework from both practical and philosophical standpoints. From a practical standpoint, we simultaneously focus on the individual and on their broader context. This is critical because individuals must have skills to lead transformation efforts that occur within a broader context. We therefore build individual leadership skills while using a systems design approach to pursue Network projects that target this context. It is also critical because, for faculty to be invested in transformation efforts, they must be rewarded for those efforts within their existing institutional structures. Each Network project must have clear deliverables that align with the reward structures for participants at their respective institutions (e.g., manuscripts, grant submissions, pedagogical training).

Kezar and Gehrke (2015) discuss a CoT’s philosophy in terms of grounding participants in a new system and “guiding novel behavior.” In this way, a CoT’s philosophy serves as an “anchor for learning” (Kezar & Gehrke, 2015). Thus, from a philosophical standpoint, the (STEM)2 Network is grounded in interdisciplinary, interinstitutional collaboration, integrates that philosophy across the leadership structure, meetings, activities, and design of Working Groups, and serves as a network of peers that breaks isolation, provides opportunity to collaborate to revise practices, and provides mechanisms to sustain change once an individual returns to their home department and institution.

CoTs progress through four stages of development: Showing Potential, Coalescing, Maturing, and Stewardship (Kezar & Gehrke, 2015). The (STEM)2 Network cannot be identified as CoT as we have not yet reached the final phase. However, we aspire to similar goals and successes as the four identified CoTs. Therefore, we use their developmental progression as a roadmap to monitor our growth, anticipate next steps, and increase the probability that we will be as successful as they have been (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Growth and development of the (STEM)2 Network aligned with the stages of development of a community of transformation

Full size image

Structure and Operation of the (STEM)2 Network

We previously described the (STEM)2 Network, its goals, outcomes, and activities (Santangelo et al., 2021). Here we consider the structure of the leadership team, of the overall Network, and how the Network operates and engages participants. We intentionally designed the leadership structure and operations to mirror the structure and operations we hoped to create within the overall Network membership.

Identifying Initial Leaders and Participants

We are frequently asked how we got started and how we identified the leadership team and initial Network participants. We used a combination of people we already knew, cold calling people who we thought might be interested, and leveraging the networks of others. For example, JS had previously worked with LH and EV-C, both at Adelphi University, and contacted them about joining. AH had worked with faculty from Queensborough Community College, and contacted the chairs of the Biology, Chemistry, and Mathematics Departments and the Dean for Academic Initiatives in the Office of Academic Affairs (MP) who happened to be a chemist. We knew we wanted to include Nassau Community College. Having no contacts there, we had the Provost at Hofstra University reach out to the Vice President of Academic Affairs at Nassau Community College who was able to connect us with a colleague in biology (JL) who became part of the leadership team. In this way, we created a leadership team that reflected the participant population we hoped to build: a multidisciplinary, multi-institutional team.

To attract participants to the network, we capitalized on the professional networks of the leadership team. We contacted colleagues in biology, chemistry, and mathematics departments at each of our institutions and encouraged them to join the network. As the network has continued to grow, we use similar approaches to identify points of contact at institutions we would like to have join the network.

Leadership Structure

The leadership structure is organized around the same principles and utilizes the same frameworks as the overall Network. To that end, the leadership team is multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional and utilizes the foundational frameworks in the same way as the overall network does. Within the leadership team we cultivate a culture in which ideas emerge and we explore them using a systems design approach.

The leadership organization reflects the organizational goals of the Network, that is, to develop a network of colleagues from multiple disciplines and multiple institutions. Therefore, the Network has two primary investigators (PI’s), a chemist (AH) and a biologist (JS) from two different institutions, and the remainder of the leadership team is composed of colleagues from participating two- and four-year institutions. As the Network expands to include new institutions, a liaison from each new institution is selected to engage regularly with the leadership team.

The two PI’s serve as leaders, motivators, and administrators of the overall network. Having two PI’s spreads the administrative workload burden, allows the PI’s to serve as accountability partners, and ensures that ideas emerge from more than one perspective. The composition of the larger leadership team allows the team to make decisions with an awareness and acknowledgement of the diversity of contexts, constraints, and opportunities that exist across the disciplines and institutions represented in the network. The diversity of perspectives allows the leadership team to guide the Network in a way that supports participants from multiple disciplines and institution types. As the Network grows, adding liaisons to the leadership team ensures that we have the context to address the needs of the expanding participant group.

With respect to logistics, the two PI’s meet one to two times each week to work on administrative tasks, logistics, and broad scope projects such as presenting at national meetings and writing papers that relate to the full Network. The larger leadership team meets monthly, with liaisons from institutions attending at least bimonthly. At these larger Network leadership team meetings the team provides feedback on activities, contributes to and develops ideas for future activities, and determines the future direction of the overall Network.

In addition to the leadership team, we have two education researchers who, in addition to being participants, offer support and advice to colleagues. This provides support to participants whose projects address questions that require use of techniques or analyses outside of the participants’ fields of expertise.

Network Structure

The Network is composed of biology, chemistry, and mathematics faculty from two- and four-year institutions. The institutions are within close geographic proximity, have similar student demographics, and share students who transfer between institutions. We focus on biology, chemistry, and mathematics as these are disciplines that STEM students encounter in the first two years of college. We encourage at least six faculty from each school to join, two from each discipline. We began with a core group of five institutions (two two-year and three four-year institutions) and are expanding by two institutions each year. Thus, we can grow at a reasonable pace, making adjustments through time based on participant feedback. Our goal is to onboard pairs of two- and four-year institutions to maintain a balance of representation within the Network. In addition, individual faculty from other schools, just outside our geographic area, are welcomed to join the Network with the idea that they get a sense of how the Network functions. We then support them in creating a similar network with schools in their geographic area with whom they share students.

The Network structure is intentional on several fronts. Geographic proximity allows faculty to easily attend in-person Network meetings, facilitating collaboration. We deliberately incorporate both two- and four-year institutions into the Network because students transfer between our schools, systemic issues exist around the transfer process for students, and students at two- and four-year institutions may experience different barriers. Critical to our success is that the two-year institutions are equal partners in the Network, helping to develop the Network from the very beginning, and influencing the Network’s continued growth. The importance of a true partnership became apparent as colleagues at two-year institutions shared that they appreciated the fundamental ethos of the Network in which they and their institutions were engaged from the beginning as partners and decision-makers.

Network Operations and Participant Engagement

Network operations are structured to catalyze and sustain collaboration across disciplines and institutions. We host two in-person full-Network meetings (an onboarding and a mid-year leadership-focused meeting) and quarterly virtual check-in meetings (Fig. 3). The full-Network meetings provide the foundation for development of Working Groups (WG). All participants join at least one multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional WG in which on-going work and collaboration occurs. The virtual check-in meetings allow participants to share WG progress, ideas across a larger audience, and receive feedback. They further allow the leadership team to track WG progress and offer support as necessary.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Annual cycle of meetings. This cycle of meetings provides regular touchpoints for participant engagement, helping maintain momentum and sustain collaborations. This structure provides the flexibility for Working Groups to set their own schedule since only two in-person meetings (onboarding and the all network meeting focused on leadership) are set by the Network

Full size image

Onboarding meetings occur annually. The goal is to orient participants to the Network’s foundational frameworks, structure, and operations. These meetings are two-day events, structured to catalyze collaborations with colleagues from other disciplines and institutions. The first day focuses on newcomers to the Network. The second day focuses on integrating newcomers with existing participants. Each onboarding meeting includes workshops to build participant skills in systems design for organizational change and logic modeling. Embracing our commitment to emergent outcomes, participants are guided to discuss issues relevant to student success and, from those discussions, identify areas they would like to target for transformation. By the end of the onboarding meeting, each participant self-selects into at least one WG with a specific project.

For the inaugural onboarding meeting, the leadership team pre-selected three areas of focus relevant to the overall Network goals: interdisciplinary teaching, transfer pathways, and institutional systems. This provided a starting point for participants to self-select into an area of interest to them. The original three areas of focus still exist within the Network today. However, the specific projects within those areas have changed through time. We have also added new areas of focus that emerged from facilitated discussions among participants at onboarding meetings.

Once participants self-select into a WG, the WG meets regularly to pursue their project. All WG’s apply the systems design and logic modeling skills built at the onboarding meeting. They submit a work plan in the form of a logic model for their project showing how their project inputs and activities align with outputs and outcomes (Reinholz & Andrews, 2020; Kellogg Foundation, 2004). They further identify the level of systems change their project addresses (Kania et al., 2018). Some WG’s choose to meet weekly, others monthly, and some meet as frequently as required based on where they are with their project, sometimes multiple times per week. Several elements converge to make WG’s productive: (1) identifying a “motivator” responsible for ensuring the WG meets regularly and makes continual progress on their project(s), (2) clearly defining the project at the outset, and (3) delineating roles and responsibilities for each participant. The quarterly check-in meetings provide support to WGs by offering opportunities to report out and receive feedback on project progress.

The mid-year leadership-focused meeting provides a second in-person touchpoint for participants to meet in person and sustain collaborations. It focuses on developing skills needed to navigate the complex higher education landscape. We include leadership skills development to enable participants to successfully implement the projects they initiated within the Network.

The WGs are further supported by educational researchers engaged in the Network. These colleagues were invited to join specifically to provide advice and support to WGs pursuing education research and transformation projects. The education researchers engage with the Network both as participants and in their advisory role.

One reason participants continue to be engaged in the Network is the focus on supporting them within their existing reward structures for tenure, promotion, professional recognition, and advancement. The relative valuation of scholarship, teaching, and service varies across institutions. Self-selecting into WG’s of their own interest helps participants ensure that the projects to which they dedicate time will benefit them professionally. This is a key component to developing a Community of Transformation, as we focus both on developing the individual while simultaneously helping them transform the broader system (Kezar & Gehrke, 2015).

Discussion

We developed the (STEM)2 Network model both to address our specific challenges and to be adaptable such that it can be applied to build collaborations in multiple contexts. We argue that the infrastructure of multiple disciplines, multiple institutions, and the three foundational frameworks are essential and should be central to the formation of a new network. In the instance that the model is applied within a single institution or in a non-higher education context, the disciplines and institutions could be replaced with the particular units that are seen as siloed. The foundational frameworks provide the scaffolding to ensure that connections can form and be sustained. Additional frameworks may be relevant depending on the challenges a network is designed to address. With reflection, one can adjust the adaptable components of the model to identify the specific disciplines, institutions, or units to include and the initial focus of the new network. Here, we provide additional suggestions based on our experiences growing and developing the (STEM)2 Network.

Philosophical Suggestions

Intentionality matters. We were intentional in articulating goals and subsequently aligning to these goals activities, measurable outcomes, and deliverables produced by the Network. We found that using a logic model for the alignment was useful both in the construction and continued growth of the Network. As we develop activities or workshops for meetings, we consistently refer back to our logic model to ensure that everything is aligned.

Find common ground. Because the (STEM)2 Network model is designed to cross traditionally siloed units, there must be a common, overarching focus to engage participants. Within that focus, there must be opportunity for individuals from different units to find common ground for projects they want to pursue.

Build in mechanisms for feedback. Regularly survey participants to gather feedback. For example, the (STEM)2 Network surveys participants twice each year at the two in-person meetings. These surveys help us gather feedback on the meetings themselves, track connections as they form among participants, understand how participants feel they benefit from the network, and collect participant demographic and institutional data.

Be willing to adjust based on constructive feedback. There may be activities or structures within the network that do not end up working for participants. For example, the (STEM)2 Network originally had WG’s plus institutional groups. The intent of the institutional groups was to address challenges unique to each institution. However, we quickly realized that asking participants to be active in two types of groups was too great of a time commitment. Therefore, we pivoted and now focus solely on the WG’s which participants indicated were more exciting and productive.

Practical Suggestions

Build a logic model early and continuously refer to it. We re-emphasize the importance and value of constructing a well-aligned logic model (Reinholz & Andrews, 2020; Kellogg Foundation, 2004), consistently referring to it, and intentionally following it. It helps focus the initial efforts when creating a new network and guides activities as the network develops.

Grants provide excellent rallying points. Identify possible sources of funding. Writing a grant proposal forces one to clearly articulate ideas and structure, provides a concrete deadline, and offers a professionally-valued mechanism around which to recruit additional participants and institutional support. For example, in U.S. higher education, the National Science Foundation Research Coordination Networks Program is an excellent place to start for those interested in creating new collaborations (NSF Research Coordination Networks, n.d.).

Identify key personnel. We found that identifying two primary motivators who can develop a strong working relationship was critical. The motivators initiate network development, articulate the logic model, identify potential leadership team members and network participants. Once two motivators have pulled initial ideas together, build a larger leadership team that is reflective of the participant pool you plan to develop. For example, the (STEM)2 Network leadership team is composed of faculty from two- and four-year institutions and from multiple disciplines.

Recruit participants. We used existing connections to recruit colleagues from our institutions. In some instances, we recruited colleagues with whom we already had working relationships. In others, we asked existing colleagues if they could recommend others who might be interested and cold-contacted them or asked our colleagues to make introductions for us.

Cohort models work well. Having participants join the network in cohorts, whether within a discipline or within an institution, works well. Joining with a colleague creates accountability, can be socially more comfortable when joining something new, and provides a local contact to discuss a project.

Regular meetings are critical. This is true both of the leadership team and for the participants. Building mechanisms that ensure continuous, regular communication among the leadership team allows you to maintain momentum and make near-real-time adjustments based on feedback. Offering a consistent calendar of meetings, both in-person and online, supports the continuation of relationships built among participants.

Be intentional about meeting spaces. Crucial to the success of participant meetings is selecting a location for in-person meetings that is convenient for all participants. The physical space selected for in-person meetings should facilitate participants gathering, talking, moving, and working in groups of different sizes or configurations. It should further allow the full group to share and integrate their small group discussions.

Be intentional about group dynamics. When asking participants to work together, organize participants into different subgroups that connect people in intentional ways. For example, at a meeting with 30 people, we create smaller subgroups of 3–5 people and alter the composition of those subgroups throughout the day. Some subgroups focus on connecting people across disciplines at the same institution, others connect people within a discipline across institutions, and others connect people across both disciplines and institutions.

Intended Successes

From the outset, the Network’s goals were to: (1) increase collaboration across disciplines and institutions and (2) empower faculty to transform undergraduate STEM education. With the three foundational frameworks as our guide, we left the determination of specific projects up to our participants. We generally expected that the Network would yield peer-reviewed publications and grant proposals. Indeed, that has been the case. In the first four years of the (STEM)2 Network’s formation, participants have submitted five proposals for external funding, $5.5 million in external funding has been awarded, five peer-reviewed papers resulted from Network projects (Novick et al., 2022; Santangelo et al., 2021; Silverio et al., In Press; Sonbuchner et al., 2021, 2022) and an additional paper was published about the systems design work done within the Network (Gates, 2023).

With respect to transforming institutional culture, the Network has supported faculty in feeling empowered to create institutional change (Santangelo et al., 2021). The workshops embedded within Network meetings provide resources and develop skills for faculty to initiate and lead transformation efforts. As the number of faculty engaged in this work increases, so does the probability of sustained cultural transformation. The Network further provides a mechanism for faculty to be professionally rewarded for the work they undertake as change agents. Several participants used grants awarded and papers published as a result of their efforts in the Network to meet tenure and promotion requirements.

Impacts of the (STEM)2 Network on classrooms and student success are a longer-term goal. To that end, the Network hosts annual pedagogy development workshops to support faculty in addressing student success in the classroom. In addition, some Working Groups are focusing their efforts on projects that bridge siloes between disciplines with the explicit goal of increasing interdisciplinarity within courses.

Unintended Successes

At the outset of building the (STEM)2 Network we planned to connect faculty across disciplines and institutions with the goal of supporting STEM transformation efforts. As the Network has grown, we have observed successes that were not part of the original goals of the Network. For example:

  • The Network catalyzed collaborations among participants that led to submission of multiple grant proposals that, if not for the Network, would not have occurred.

  • For those participants whose tenure and promotion guidelines require external review, the Network provided a large pool of peers qualified to provide such letters.

  • With respect to curricula, the inter-institutional connections have facilitated creation of new and updating of existing agreements regarding transfer of credits from one institution to the other.

  • The Network serves as a distribution point for regional events and conferences hosted by our participants or their institutions.

  • Colleagues from two-year institutions feel they are equal partners in the development and growth of the Network as opposed to their experiences with other collaborations in which they felt they were an add-on to the program.

Unanticipated Challenges

Our primary challenge has been recruiting colleagues from two-year institutions. We have been more successful recruiting faculty from two-year institutions that require scholarship for tenure and promotion than from two-year institutions that do not require scholarship. We are very focused on having participants engage in the Network in a way that rewards them within existing reward structures, often guided by tenure and promotion guidelines. In those institutions where teaching and service are the primary focus, and where teaching loads are relatively high, it has been challenging for our colleagues to justify the time commitment to the Network.

Conclusion

We posit that the model is adaptable to other groups of institutions and/or contexts. The model demonstrates that disciplinary and institutional silos can be bridged and those bridges can be maintained through time. It further demonstrates that, when bridging traditional silos, there can be high productivity, including papers and grants. Participants have remained engaged in the Network at a high rate with an overall 74% retention rate within the Network through time. The primary reasons participants have stepped away from the Network are moving to another position and shifts in their personal or professional responsibilities that limited the time available for them to commit to the Network. Participants report feeling more prepared to be change agents for STEM transformation and that they value the connections and collaborations formed within the Network (Santangelo et al., 2021).