Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 549–579 | Cite as

Dual identities: organizational negotiation in STEM-focused Catholic schools

  • Matthew Kloser
  • Matthew Wilsey
  • Dawn W. Hopkins
  • Julie W. Dallavis
  • Erin Lavin
  • Michael Comuniello
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

In the last decade, STEM-focused schools have opened their doors nationally in the hope of meeting students’ contemporary educational needs. Despite the growth of these STEM-focused institutions, minimal research exists that follows how schools make a transition toward a STEM focus and what organizational structures are most conducive to a successful transition. The adoption of a STEM focus has clear implications for a school’s organizational identity. For Catholic schools, the negotiation of a new STEM focus is especially complex, as Catholic schools have been shown to generally possess a distinct religious and cultural organizational identity. The adoption of a second, STEM-focused identity raises questions about whether and how these identities can coexist. Framed by perspectives on organizational identity and existing conceptualizations of the cultural and religious hallmarks of Catholic schools, this study utilizes a multiple-case study design to explore the organizational transition of four Catholic K-8 institutions to Catholic STEM-focused schools. These cases demonstrate the particular challenges of negotiating multiple organizational identities. While variation existed in how the four schools accommodated these identities, the most promising environments for successful transition drew upon an aggregative model of identity negotiation, that is, when schools attended to both identities, but ensured that the original Catholic identity of the school remained foundational to all decisions. The least successful identity negotiations occurred when there was a lack of common understanding about what comprised a STEM-focused school, leading to minimal buy-in from stakeholders or when a school sought to make the transition for recruitment or marketing rather than mission-driven reasons. Discussion of the more successful identity aggregation provides a framework for schools within and beyond the religious sector that desire to adopt an additional STEM-focused identity.

Keywords

STEM Organizational identity Catholic school Organizational transformation STEM-focused schools 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Institute for Educational Initiatives and its Fellows’ Grant program for providing the seed grant that funded the data collection for this paper.

References

  1. Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. In L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 263–295). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1986-02640-001.
  2. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13, 44–559. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-4/baxter.pdf.
  3. Billingsley, B., Riga, F., Taber, K. S., & Newdick, H. (2014). Secondary school teachers’ perspectives on teaching about topics that bridge science and religion. Curriculum Journal, 25(3), 372–395. doi: 10.1080/09585176.2014.920264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Billingsley, B., Taber, K., Riga, F., & Newdick, H. (2013). Secondary school students’ epistemic insight into the relationships between science and religion—A preliminary enquiry. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1715–1732. doi: 10.1007/s11165-012-9317-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryk, A. S., Lee, V. R., & Holland, P. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Canon Law Society of America. (1999). Code of Canon Law. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  7. Carbonaro, W., & Covay, E. (2010). School sector and student achievement in the era of standards based reforms. Sociology of Education, 83, 160–182. doi: 10.1177/0038040710367934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coleman, J. S., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982). High school achievement: Public, Catholic, and private schools compared. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. Congregation for Catholic Education. (1977). The Catholic school. Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference.Google Scholar
  10. Cook, T. J., & Simonds, T. A. (2011). The charism of 21st-century Catholic schools: Building a culture of relationships. Journal of Catholic Education, 14. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ce/vol14/iss3/7.
  11. Davis, M., & Venugopal, N. (2012). Catholic schools turn to blended learning. Education Week, 32(9), 9.Google Scholar
  12. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  13. DelFra, L., Mattison, W., McGraw, S., & Scully, T. (in press). Education in the Catholic key. In W. Jeynes (Ed.), Handbook of Christian education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/258557.
  15. Eisenhart, M., Weis, L., Allen, C. D., Cipollone, K., Stich, A., & Dominguez, R. (2015). High school opportunities for STEM: Comparing inclusive STEM-focused and comprehensive high schools in two US cities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 763–789. doi: 10.1002/tea.21213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25, 63–81. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/259263.
  17. Goldschmidt, E. P., & Walsh, M. E. (2013). Urban Catholic elementary schools: What are the governance models? Journal of Catholic Education, 17. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.15365/joce.1701072013.
  18. Groome, T. H. (1996). What makes a school Catholic. In T. McLaughlin, J. O’Keefe, & B. O’Keeffe (Eds.), The contemporary Catholic school: Context, identity and diversity (pp. 107–125). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hallinan, M., & Kubitschek, W. N. (2012). A comparison of academic achievement and adherence to the common school ideal in public and catholic schools. Sociology of Education, 85, 1–22. doi: 10.1177/0038040711431586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krathwohl, D. R. (2009). Methods of educational and social science research (3rd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  21. LaForce, M., Noble, E., King, H., Holt, S., & Century, J. (2014). The 8 elements of inclusive STEM high schools: Findings from the STEM school study. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  22. Lockwood, R. (2014). Factors influencing parental choice and enrollment in Catholic schools (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (Dissertation No. 3617421).Google Scholar
  23. Lynch, S. J., Peters-Burton, E. E., Behrend, T., Han, E. M., Ford, M., Spillane, N., & House, A. (2015). Exemplar inclusive STEM high school curriculum and instruction: Cross case analysis of eight schools. In Presented at the annual meeting of the national association of research in science teaching, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  24. Miles, M., Huberman, M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Miller, J. (2006). Five essential marks of Catholic schools. In The Holy (Ed.), See’s teaching on Catholic schools (pp. 17–63). Atlanta, GA: Sophia Institute Press.Google Scholar
  26. National Conference of Catholic Bishops. (1972). To teach as Jesus did. Washington, DC: U.S. Catholic Conference.Google Scholar
  27. National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  28. Ozar, L. A., & Weitzel-O’Neill, P. (Eds.). (2012). National standards and benchmarks for effective Catholic elementary and secondary schools. Chicago: Loyola University Chicago, Center for Catholic School Effectiveness.Google Scholar
  29. Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. (2000). Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities. Academy of Management Review, 25, 18–42. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/259261.
  30. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) for America’s future. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.Google Scholar
  31. Reardon, S. F., Cheadle, J. E., & Robinson, J. P. (2009). The effect of Catholic schooling on math and reading development in kindergarten through fifth grade. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 45–87. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19345740802539267.
  32. Scott, C. (2012). An investigation of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) focused high schools. U.S. Journal of STEM Education, 13, 30–39. Retrieved from http://ojs.jstem.org/.
  33. Sinek, S. (2009). Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  34. South Carolina Department of Education. (2016). South Carolina STEM implementation continuums. Retrieved from http://ed.sc.gov/instruction/standards-learning/programs-grants-awards/stem-science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics/.
  35. Spillane, N. K., Lynch, S. J., & Ford, M. R. (2016). Inclusive STEM high schools increase opportunities for underrepresented students. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(8), 54–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present and future of an identity theory. Social Psychological Quarterly, 63, 284–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Subotnik, R. F., Tai, R. H., Rickoff, R., & Almarode, (2010). Specialized public high schools of science, mathematics, and technology and the STEM pipeline: What do we know now and what will we know in 5 years? Roeper Review, 32, 7–16. doi: 10.1080/02783190903386553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Taber, K., Billingsley, B., Riga, F., & Newdick, H. (2011). To what extent do pupils perceive science to be inconsistent with religious faith? An exploratory survey of 13-14 year-old English pupils. Science Education International, 22(2), 99–118. ISSN-2077-2327.Google Scholar
  39. Weis, L., Eisenhart, M., Cipollone, K., Stich, A. E., Nikischer, A. B., Hanson, J., et al. (2015). In the guise of STEM education reform: Opportunity structures and outcomes in inclusive STEM-focused high schools. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 1024–1059. doi: 10.3102/0002831215604045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Kloser
    • 1
  • Matthew Wilsey
    • 1
  • Dawn W. Hopkins
    • 2
  • Julie W. Dallavis
    • 1
  • Erin Lavin
    • 1
  • Michael Comuniello
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Educational InitiativesUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA
  2. 2.Indiana University South BendSouth BendUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options