View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Organization Change Networks (OCNs): An Emerging Framework for Understanding Their Development and Functioning

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Organization Change Networks (OCNs): An Emerging Framework for Understanding Their Development and Functioning
Language: English
Authors: Ann E. Austin (ORCID 0000-0001-9889-5815), Susan R. Singer, Adam Grimm, Vicki L. Baker, Levi B. Shanks
Source: Innovative Higher Education. 2025 50(3):715-741.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 27
Publication Date: 2025
Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF), Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE)
Contract Number: 1725320
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Organizational Change, Networks, Educational Change, Higher Education, Organizational Development, Group Membership, Leadership, Universities, Intercollegiate Cooperation
DOI: 10.1007/s10755-024-09750-4
ISSN: 0742-5627
1573-1758
Abstract: Organization Change Networks (OCNs) are increasing in use as a lever for fostering systemic change in higher education. OCNs are inter-organizational networks composed of institutional members that seek to advance targeted goals such as improving STEM education. This study presents findings from a six-year study of six STEM education-focused networks. Using extensive qualitative date, the results suggest that OCNs experience a four-stage life cycle (including Formation, Development and Growth, Maturity, and Transformation or Sunsetting), as well as manage a set of critical considerations (i.e., purpose; leadership; membership; and funding) that weave throughout the life cycles but manifest differently across stages. Offering a framework that situates OCNS in relationship to other kinds of networks in higher education, the article contributes to emerging conceptual understanding of OCNs as unique collaborative forms designed to advance significant change goals. Additionally, the findings provide ideas for higher education leaders considering institutional membership in OCNs, policy makers considering supporting them, and current and potential leaders of OCNs pertaining to navigating network developmental stages and addressing such considerations as leadership pipelines, scaling network size, and institutionalizing network processes. Finally, the article highlights further questions that should be examined about OCNS, such as how they impact their member institutions and interact with other organizations in the broader context in which universities and colleges are situated.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1475308
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFbHRDJ4y435Cm2eY_g_9J3AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEgD0FRnhdAxfCN1QwIBEICBm6kQM3uAM9uzUtS6BhnqLvlx__MMSZooSAVgZ0fY0fS-ykIuoaBCwq8_YvFa2HtIWfl4qcvhHHKzv_NFKiGb8RjSO3cuR0ScGee_AfJagpKr_zdlhSY3L_SioVbt9Rvlud_klLmv-u3QUt-VpTVWNepaRFrwoBCRhj8hNplecTo2QIOqmfMZI1g_uyRY8rdNwM7DIS6eC4OqG-gE
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186106337;ihe01jun.25;2025Jun25.03:31;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186106337-1">Organization Change Networks (OCNs): An Emerging Framework for Understanding Their Development and Functioning </title> <p>Organization Change Networks (OCNs) are increasing in use as a lever for fostering systemic change in higher education. OCNs are inter-organizational networks composed of institutional members that seek to advance targeted goals such as improving STEM education. This study presents findings from a six-year study of six STEM education-focused networks. Using extensive qualitative date, the results suggest that OCNs experience a four-stage life cycle (including Formation, Development and Growth, Maturity, and Transformation or Sunsetting), as well as manage a set of critical considerations (i.e., purpose; leadership; membership; and funding) that weave throughout the life cycles but manifest differently across stages. Offering a framework that situates OCNS in relationship to other kinds of networks in higher education, the article contributes to emerging conceptual understanding of OCNs as unique collaborative forms designed to advance significant change goals. Additionally, the findings provide ideas for higher education leaders considering institutional membership in OCNs, policy makers considering supporting them, and current and potential leaders of OCNs pertaining to navigating network developmental stages and addressing such considerations as leadership pipelines, scaling network size, and institutionalizing network processes. Finally, the article highlights further questions that should be examined about OCNS, such as how they impact their member institutions and interact with other organizations in the broader context in which universities and colleges are situated.</p> <p>Keywords: Networks; Organizational change in higher education; Inter-organizational structures; Studies in Human Society Sociology Education Specialist Studies In Education</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <p>Networks comprised of organizations working together to advance a common goal, sometimes called "inter-organizational networks," have emerged as an important strategy to address major societal challenges. Interest in these networks is related to assumed benefits they provide member organizations in fostering learning across organizations, creating efficiencies, flexibility, and risk management in change initiatives, and enhancing impact through the efforts of multiple organizations (Popp, et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref1">37</reflink>]). In higher education, leaders seek powerful approaches for advancing major transformational goals, such as strengthening undergraduate STEM education, broadening access to educational opportunity, creating more diverse and inclusive academic environments, and reforming doctoral education (Committee on STEM Education, National Science and Technology Council, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref2">13</reflink>]; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref3">30</reflink>]; National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref4">31</reflink>]); National Research Council, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref5">32</reflink>]; Singer et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref6">45</reflink>]). Research on effectively supporting undergraduate learning has elevated awareness of the challenges and necessity of scaling promising practices to transform institutions (Miller, et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref7">28</reflink>]; Singer et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref8">45</reflink>]). However, most approaches taken—both at the institutional level and through associations of individuals committed to reform--have been insufficient to catalyze change at the scale necessary to address pressing needs for improved quality and student success, including persistence and degree completion, in STEM fields. The recognition that major change in undergraduate STEM education is so difficult has led to interest among change leaders and funders in the potential impact of networks of higher education institutions working together to advance a common goal—what we call Organization Change Networks (OCNs)-- as potentially powerful and effective levers for change.</p> <p>While the use of inter-organizational networks as a strategy to address major societal problems has increased over recent decades, the research base is still developing with important questions unanswered, including how they develop over time (Popp, et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref9">37</reflink>]). In higher education, most organizational change research, particularly as it relates to STEM undergraduate education, has focused primarily on change within individual organizations, with less attention to using networks to foster change. Research focused on OCNs in higher education will add to theoretical and practical knowledge helpful to higher education leaders as well as those committed to supporting their work.</p> <p>Our research, funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF IUSE grant 1725320), investigates how OCNs created to contribute to systemic change in higher education develop and function. While OCNs may address a range of transformational goals, our research has focused on networks whose goal is to improve undergraduate STEM education. The networks we have studied include: the Advanced Technological Education Network (ATE); the Bay View Alliance (BVA); the Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL); the PULSE Fellows Network (PULSE); the Network of STEM Education Centers (NSEC); and the Association for Undergraduate Education at Research Universities (UERU). Specifically, the paper defines OCNs, presents data-based findings about their life cycles as well as critical challenges they encounter, offers two illustrative case studies, and discusses the implications of this research for higher education leaders, funders, and researchers.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-2">Situating this Study within the Literature</hd> <p>The term <emph>network</emph> is used in a variety of fields from computer science to sociology, and commonly refers to groups or systems of interconnected entities (such as persons or organizations). Several key features are typically associated with networks, including social interactions, relationships, interconnectedness, collaboration, a focus on a common problem, and a shared interest or desire for change (Bryson et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref10">7</reflink>]; Coleman, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref11">12</reflink>]; Plastrik et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref12">36</reflink>]; Popp, et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref13">37</reflink>]; Putnam, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref14">40</reflink>]; Weber & Khademian, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref15">50</reflink>]; Wenger et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref16">52</reflink>]). We are especially interested in "generative social impact networks" (which include networks with educational goals) that focus on solving complex social problems and advancing change in service to the social good (Plastrik, et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref17">36</reflink>]). Such networks are different in their goals and principles than networks aimed at advancing financial profit, such as may occur in industry-related networks (Kezar, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref18">21</reflink>]; Plastrik, et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref19">36</reflink>]). Within the past few decades, social impact networks have received increasing attention and are being deployed as important strategies for leveraging energy, ideas, and commitment to advance major social goals (Kezar, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref20">21</reflink>]; Plastrik, et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref21">36</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-3">Networks as Levers in Institution-Level Change in Higher Education</hd> <p>Our specific interest is in examining networks that play a role in organizational change efforts in higher education. One way to understand networks is from the perspectives of theories that illuminate how institutions engage in change efforts. In examining "how colleges change," Kezar ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref22">21</reflink>]) has explained six main theories that offer explanations of how significant change occurs. Four of these theories have implications for why networks may be a useful tool for change of interest to change leaders. The evolutionary theories of change emphasize the importance of the interaction between higher education organizations and their environments, with environmental pressures motivating and shaping change processes (Berdahl, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref23">3</reflink>]; Birnbaum, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref24">4</reflink>]; Kezar, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref25">21</reflink>]; Morgan, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref26">29</reflink>]). Evolutionary theories see organizations as part of an ecosystem in which context is important, and leaders need to manage external environmental pressures. In examining how universities can respond to external pressures, Clark ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref27">10</reflink>]) indicated that one strategy is for organizations to create structures that help them adapt. From the perspectives of evolutionary theories, starting or joining inter-organizational networks could be understood as an adaptive response of higher education institutions to external pressures. Institutional and neo-institutional theories also emphasize the interaction between organization and environment, indicating that external logics and influences can push institutions in various directions and influence institutional responses (Kezar, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref28">21</reflink>]; Powell et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref29">38</reflink>]). The intermediary organizations discussed by Ness et al. ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref30">34</reflink>]) and the interstitial entities discussed by Rhoades and Slaughter ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref31">42</reflink>]) and Slaughter and Rhoades ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref32">46</reflink>]) are examples of such responses. The development of OCNs to enable institutions to work together on addressing topics of shared interest may be partly understood as the response of higher education institutions to environmental pressures. For example, OCNs formed around issues pertaining to strengthening undergraduate education may help higher education institutions respond to demands from employers, parents, students, and funders for better teaching and stronger learning outcomes.</p> <p>Social cognition theories are also relevant to how networks may be used by institutional leaders to foster change (Kezar, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref33">21</reflink>]; Morgan, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref34">29</reflink>]; Weick, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref35">51</reflink>]). Social cognition theories emphasize that changing mindsets and collective schemas can aid in institutional change initiatives, particularly those focused on substantive change goals (often called second-order change). A key process in changing mindsets is sense-making, which can help organizational members be more receptive to specific change initiatives (Senge, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref36">44</reflink>]). Sense-making can be fostered through communication, conversation, and collaboration around common projects. These activities provide opportunities for participants to become exposed to new ideas, challenge their own perspectives, and create new future visions with others, all of which contribute to sense-making that can pave the way to change. Networks involving people from across institutions provide opportunities for participants to engage in sense-making as they participate in cross-institutional projects, discuss differing perspectives, and together create plans for network activities.</p> <p>Political theories also provide insights about organizational change (Kezar, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref37">21</reflink>]). These theories present conflict and resistance as a normal outcome when differing interests intersect (Bolman & Deal, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref38">5</reflink>]; Gumport, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref39">19</reflink>]; Kezar, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref40">21</reflink>]; Rhoades, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref41">41</reflink>]). Political theories emphasize the importance of coalitions and networks as ways to identify and connect allies who can work together to overcome resistance (Hearn, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref42">20</reflink>]). From this perspective, institutional leaders might turn to multi-institutional networks as strategic vehicles to help them handle resistance within their institutions and to gain legitimacy for their change goals.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-4">Networks as Levers to Scale Up Change</hd> <p>In addition to considering how networks may be useful levers in institution-level change, we note the increasing interest, especially from funding agencies and governmental groups, in how change goals can be scaled across higher education institutions. Single-institution change efforts have not been easily transferred without adaptation to other institutions (Coburn, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref43">11</reflink>]; Elmore, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref44">17</reflink>]; Kezar, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref45">21</reflink>]; Miller, et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref46">28</reflink>]). However, the change theories mentioned above as useful to institution-level change agents also provide ideas for external leaders, such as those in foundations and funding agencies, interested in supporting change efforts across institutions. For example, political theories point to the use of coalitions, networks, and social movements to connect allies and scale ideas, and social cognition theories highlight sense-making and organizational learning, which can be supported through collaboration and communication. Kezar ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref47">21</reflink>]) has reviewed various efforts to scale up change in higher education and encouraged researchers to develop more nuanced knowledge of scaling. By focusing on OCNs, this paper contributes to that call for deepening understanding of how institution-level change as well as scaled change across the higher education sector can occur.</p> <p>In terms of scaling up change, social movements, social networks, and communities of practice each convene people with common interests, provide support and legitimacy in the face of possible resistance, and encourage sense-making, resource-sharing, and the creation of shared vision (Kezar, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref48">21</reflink>]). Social movements are usually larger and less coherent and focused than networks, providing a broad arena in which many different groups and initiatives can be connected around advancing a general goal (Kezar, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref49">21</reflink>]; Plastrik, et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref50">36</reflink>]). As defined by Kezar ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref51">21</reflink>]), professional and social networks are "loosely connected groups of individuals that focus on common professional values, goals, and ideas," but which do not necessarily have a common purpose (p. 223). Such networks provide opportunities for knowledge exchange and learning, they offer opportunities for interaction across members that may encourage sense-making, and they can make risk-taking easier for individuals promoting change by providing the support of peers (Burt, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref52">9</reflink>]; Rogers, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref53">43</reflink>]; Tenkasi & Chesmore, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref54">49</reflink>]). Within the sciences, a number of such networks of individuals have emerged, connecting scientists based on discipline (e.g., American Society of Plant Biologists), an adherence to a reform agenda (e.g., Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities, SENCER), or policy advocacy (e.g., American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS).</p> <p>Communities of practice, also called learning communities, are a form of professional networks that have been used in higher education to gather colleagues with similar goals, such as around improving teaching and learning (Cox & McDonald, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref55">14</reflink>]; Cox & Richlin, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref56">15</reflink>]; McDonald et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref57">26</reflink>]). Communities of practice help faculty find colleagues who share their interests, provide avenues for professional learning as peers interact, and encourage participants' investment in institutional change goals. Kezar and Gehrke ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref58">22</reflink>]) studied four longstanding networks that began with National Science Foundation funding some years ago—Project Kaleidoscope (PKAL), the Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning Project (POGIL), Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities (SENCER), and BioQUEST; each aims to improve STEM education through programming and support for individuals. Kezar and Gehrke ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref59">22</reflink>]) labelled these versions of communities of practice, composed of individuals who are passionate about learning and working together to transform STEM, as "communities of transformation." Such communities emphasize fostering learning, increasing social capital, and driving processes of change.</p> <p>With interest growing in how to use inter-institutional organizations, and particularly networks, to advance and scale change efforts, questions abound about how such organizations develop and function as levers for change (Popp, et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref60">37</reflink>]). Some research in education focuses on networks comprised of individuals who share an interest in an aspect of higher education or in advancing a change goal, as illustrated by the networks mentioned above. However, some networks are explicitly comprised of organizational, rather than individual, members. For example, Bryk, et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref61">6</reflink>]) have discussed how institutions have worked together in networked improvement communities (NICs), particularly in the K-12 and community college areas, to encourage iterative rounds of efforts to address a specific goal. Research on the recent AAU STEM Initiative highlights the role of a national association in facilitating institutions working together on change goals concerning teaching and learning (Kezar & Miller, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref62">24</reflink>]; Kezar & Holcombe, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref63">23</reflink>]). Networks composed of organizations involve somewhat different dynamics than networks composed of individuals (Popp, et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref64">37</reflink>]). For example, in a network whose members are institutions, individuals are not representing their personal views but rather the intentions of their organization. Who can speak for the organization and how to manage situations where network activities may not be aligned or may compete with institutional activities are examples of two questions specifically relevant to networks comprised of organizations. While, overall, research on networks fostering change needs more attention, research on networks in higher education comprised of organizations (OCNs) is even less developed, a gap addressed in this paper.</p> <p>We developed Fig. 1 to situate OCNs in relationship to other forms of collaborations and networks. The horizontal axis shows that the membership of some networks is comprised of individuals (labelled "Individual Membership"), while some have organizational members (labelled "Organizational Membership"). The vertical axis shows that some networks focus on support for higher education across a variety of topics (labelled "General Support"), while others emphasize "Targeted Support" (such as focusing on improving undergraduate STEM education). For example, disciplinary associations (situated in the upper left quadrant) are composed of individual members and address many different goals and activities (e.g., promoting research, convening members in annual meetings), and these goals may not be change-oriented. In the bottom left quadrant are communities of practice, including professional and social networks and communities of transformation (Kezar, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref65">21</reflink>]; Kezar & Gehrke, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref66">22</reflink>])—that is, networks comprised of individual membership and usually focused on specific goals (e.g., connecting people with a focused interest, such as improving teaching in specific disciplinary areas such as STEM). University consortia are situated in the upper right quadrant; their membership is comprised of institutions of higher education and their goals are wide and diverse, including resource sharing, expanding student and faculty opportunities, improving program quality, and helping institutions respond to environmental demands, and they are not necessarily focused on change (Burley, et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref67">8</reflink>]). OCNs are situated in the bottom right; higher education organizations are the members, and the targeted goals are specific (e.g., improving undergraduate STEM teaching or preparing doctoral students as teachers). OCNs are the specific focus of this paper, as we see they are used to advance and scale change, but little research has focused on how they begin, develop, and function.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Quadrant Framework of Higher Education Networks</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-5">Network Development and Functioning</hd> <p>Prior research has documented how inter-organizational networks in public administration develop, identifying several key stages: formation; development and growth; maturity, sustainability, and resilience; and transformation or death (Paquin & Howard-Grenville, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref68">35</reflink>]; Popp et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref69">37</reflink>]; Provan & LeMaire, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref70">39</reflink>]). In their research on social impact networks, Plastrick, et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref71">36</reflink>]) posited that networks move through three stages: connecting (building trust and sharing information); alignment (defining goals and finding common ground); and production (organizing for joint action). They also identified eight design issues that such networks must address: purpose; membership; value propositions (benefits); coordination, facilitation, and communication; resources; governance; assessment; and operating principles. Based on their work on communities of transformation, Kezar and Gehrke ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref72">22</reflink>]) concluded that networks change over time, moving through stages and grappling with various challenges and issues (e.g., issues of leadership, communication, funding, and sustainability); similar issues about strategic partnerships were raised by Amey and Eddy ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref73">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>Informed by this related scholarship, we chose to focus this study specifically on how OCNs develop and the issues they confront as they develop. The specific questions guiding this study were:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Within the higher education context, how do networks composed of institutions (as compared to individuals) and focused on advancing organizational change begin, develop, and function?</item> <p></p> <item> Specifically, what characterizes their development over time (e.g., do they move through life cycle stages)?</item> <p></p> <item> What issues and challenges do they confront as they develop?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186106337-6">Design and Methods</hd> <p>This multi-year study, funded by the National Science Foundation, focused on six STEM-focused networks, selected because each is nationally known for its distinctive approach to improving undergraduate STEM education. Their selection for funding by the National Science Foundation through a robust peer review process served as a proxy that they were networks worthy of study. The literature distinguishes between "emergent" networks that are motivated by the interests and voluntary actions of the participants, and "formal" or "mandated" networks, that are formed in response to strong external incentives, such as Congressional action (Popp, et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref74">37</reflink>]). The networks studied are listed below. Five can be characterized as emergent networks and one as a formal or mandated network (Advanced Technological Education Network):</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The Advanced Technological Education (ATE) network was launched in 1993 with the goal to prepare a skilled technical workforce aligned with changing industry needs through explicit industry partnerships with community colleges (National Science Foundation (NSF), American Association of Community Colleges, EvaluATE, and ATE Central, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref75">33</reflink>]). The network functions as a network of networks with a range of hubs and non-identical networks at both the regional and national levels.</item> <p></p> <item> The Bay View Alliance (BVA) is a network of ten research universities in the United States and Canada committed to the mission of piloting, researching, and disseminating innovative approaches to student learning and teaching. Connecting member campuses through Research Action Clusters (RACs), the BVA identifies and evaluates "leadership strategies for cultural change to support and sustain the widespread adoption of instructional methods" proven to improve student learning (Bay View Alliance, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref76">2</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> The Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL) began in 2003 and grew to a network of approximately forty member universities organized around a mission to "enhance excellence in undergraduate education through the development of a national faculty committed to implementing and advancing effective teaching practices for diverse learners as part of successful and varied professional careers" (CIRTL, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref77">48</reflink>]). The network focuses on "future faculty," developing and disseminating resources and professional development opportunities for doctoral students to become excellent teachers.</item> <p></p> <item> The Network of STEM Education Centers (NSEC) was launched in 2013 to serve as a platform and space for the national convening of representatives from campus-based STEM education centers. Through in-person and virtual connection among members, NSEC promotes the sharing of resources and best practices and provides a space for members to collaborate around common challenges facing their work (NSEC, nd).</item> <p></p> <item> The Partnership for Undergraduate Life Sciences Education (PULSE) began in 2012 when forty PULSE Fellows convened with the support of the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The PULSE network seeks to bring about cultural change in Life Science departments to support the adoption of inclusive and evidence-based approaches to teaching and learning, pursuing the work through national and regional programming (PULSE, nd).</item> <p></p> <item> The Association for Undergraduate Education at Research Universities (UERU), until recently known as the Reinvention Collaborative, was originally established in 2000 as The Reinvention Center at the State University of New York, Stony Brook, before transforming into a member-driven, member-owned organization centered at Colorado State University. UERU's vision is to serve "as a catalyst for innovation to advance excellence and access in undergraduate education at leading research universities...by fostering research, learning, and the sharing of expertise and experience by and among member institutions; providing and supporting professional development for senior undergraduate academic affairs leaders and their teams; and collaborating with partner consortia and other higher education organizations" (UERU, nd).</item> </ulist> <p>As we studied each of these networks, we recognized the need to define more precisely the definition of OCNs, and the two defining axes described above (see Fig. 1) emerged as we examined our data. The emergence of a clearer definition led us to realize that some of the networks we had initially perceived as OCNs actually do not fully meet the definition. Of the networks studied, ATE, BVA, CIRTL, and UERU fit the definition. However, while NSEC and PULSE serve institutions, members can join each as individuals, rather than only through the membership of their institutions. While this refinement was the result of the research, the inclusion of NSEC and PULSE in the original design still provided important insights which helped us address the research questions.</p> <p>We employed a rigorous qualitative research approach to produce cases for each network studied and to guide cross-case analysis. Specific methods included participant observation at network meetings, as well as interviews, focus groups, and document analysis (Creswell, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref78">16</reflink>]; Merriam, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref79">27</reflink>]; Stake, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref80">47</reflink>]; Yin, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref81">53</reflink>]). Participant observation involved members of the research team being present, observing, and actively engaging in network meetings (both in-person and zoom-based meetings) over a six-year period. By participating in these meetings, we closely observed interactions, decision-making processes, and the evolution of network activities, and gained a level of detail and understanding of the nuance of network functioning that would have been difficult to obtain solely through interviews. Research team members kept field notes of what they observed and experienced in the meetings, which then became part of the data for analysis.</p> <p>Across the years of the study, research team members participated in well over one hundred network meetings, each ranging from one hour to several days in duration. The research leaders had some prior involvement in some of the networks. One researcher was a co-founder and, for some years, part of the leadership team of the CIRTL Network, and both lead researchers had attended some meetings of the various networks prior to the study. Across the years of the study, team members became well-known, engaged, and seemingly respected participants in each network. Participant observation as a method recognizes that researchers will interact with those studied, and, in fact, involvement enables the development of deep knowledge (Galleta & Torre, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref82">18</reflink>]; Klein, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref83">25</reflink>]). The perspectives of those researchers with deeper connections with a network was balanced by the interpretations of others on the research team without such long-term connections and by the involvement of network leaders in member-checking the findings that emerged. This study was focused on understanding how the networks developed and functioned, not on assessing the quality of their impact. Thus, network leaders knew they were not being evaluated, and they were eager to contribute to developing data and findings about networks by sharing their challenges as well as successes.</p> <p>We also gathered and analyzed documents about each network, including funding proposals, annual reports, meeting minutes, website materials, and other artifacts. We estimate that we read more than one thousand documents, since, as part of our roles as participant observers, we were included in mailing lists and regular communications from the networks. In addition to the many informal conversations that occurred during the network meetings, the team conducted 116 recorded in-person and online interviews with network founders, current leaders, staff, and key members knowledgeable about their network's functioning, history, leadership practices, stages of development, accomplishments, challenges, and unexpected issues. The initial protocol for the interviews focused on the network's purpose, structure, theory of change, history, and the potential for the research team to access documents and observe network activities. A follow-up protocol delved into the network's evaluation and success metrics, onboarding processes, leadership and governance structures, and approaches to equity and inclusion, including how these elements have evolved over time and their impact on the network's sustainability and progress. As the study continued, later interviews with network leaders, staff, and members were tailored to focus on specific network developments, including respondents' perceptions of accomplishments, challenges, and issues relevant to the development of the network.</p> <p>Formal interviews were transcribed and, using NVivo software, analyzed for themes and issues that explained network development and functioning. Data analysis involved an ongoing iterative process of data collection, analysis, and then further data collection and analysis to test emerging themes and add new data. Beginning in year one, for each network, team members drafted a case narrative/summary describing the network's purpose, history, design, life cycles, processes, outcomes, and future directions. These narratives were updated yearly, as more data were gathered and analyzed. The team met regularly to engage in comparative analysis across the cases, and to develop working hypotheses about network development and functioning. Further data analysis then enabled testing and probing to refute, refine, or expand the emerging themes and findings. By using a comparative, analytical approach, we identified common patterns, categories, and differences in the development and functioning of these OCNs (Creswell, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref84">16</reflink>]; Merriam, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref85">27</reflink>]; Stake, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref86">47</reflink>]; Yin, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref87">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>One strategy in qualitative research to ensure the quality and credibility of the data and analysis is member checking—an explicit effort to seek review and feedback from participants (Creswell, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref88">16</reflink>]). Thus, we provided summaries of the findings to the networks, and invited each network to send leaders to a zoom-based meeting in 2021 and to send a team of leaders and members to a two-day in-person meeting in Washington, DC in 2023 to review, discuss, and provide feedback, elaboration, or correction of the network cases, cross-case themes, and overall findings. At each meeting, each network was discussed as a case, and participants reviewed and responded to the cross-case analyses and study conclusions. Participants have provided very positive assessment of the study findings, requested copies of cases and findings to share with their own networks to inform their continuing work, and recommended that key themes and lessons be disseminated widely to guide funders and those initiating and leading networks. Network leaders' careful review and affirmation of the quality of the analysis helped establish the credibility of the study findings, and the development of the cases and examples contributed to the transferability of the work, enabling others to assess comparability to their own networks.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-7">Findings</hd> <p>Drawing on our multi-year study, we present a summary of our analysis of how the OCNs began, the stages of their development, and the critical considerations they confronted. The summary of the data analysis is followed by case studies of two networks to provide illustrative data in support of the summary findings presented.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-8">How the OCNs Began</hd> <p>The OCNs emerged as responses to opportunities, pressures, and problems in the environmental context affecting higher education institutions. Key factors in the national landscape that fostered the development of the networks we studied included the national call for greater use of evidence-based and inclusive teaching and learning practices; concerns that doctoral students, as future faculty, are often not specifically prepared for teaching responsibilities; recognition that scientific literacy is required for an engaged citizenry; and concern about preparing future employees for a changing workplace, including technological demands. Those who initiated the networks indicated that they could see issues in the environment to which they wanted their institutions to respond; that is, the context created fertile ground for the emergence of an OCN.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-9">Network Developmental Stages</hd> <p>The analysis of data gathered over six years led us to conclude that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the life cycle of these OCNs fell into four stages: Formation; Development and Growth; Maturity; and Transformation or Sunsetting. These stages parallel those presented in the literature describing life cycles of networks in other fields (Paquin & Howard-Grenville, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref89">35</reflink>]; Popp et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref90">37</reflink>]; Provan & LeMaire, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref91">39</reflink>]). In the Formation stage, the OCNs established a focus and developed a culture that shaped and defined the work they would do and how they would do it. In the Development and Growth stage, structures became more established, and membership and governance issues required attention. Key tasks in the Maturity stage included establishing sustainable funding and institutionalizing processes. At the Transformation or Sunsetting stage, the networks either concluded their work or changed in significant ways and started the cycle again. As presented in Table 1, a set of four "critical considerations" wove throughout the life of the OCNs: Purpose and Problem (the issue or problem for the network to address); Leadership and Governance (the leadership and decision-making processes to guide the work of the network); Membership and Scale (the criteria and processes for membership); and Funding and Sustainability (the resources needed to support network functioning and on-going viability and impact). As the networks evolved, the overall critical considerations were important at each life cycle stage, but these overarching issues took shape in different ways at each stage.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Organization Change Network Life Stage Model (inspired by Popp et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref92">37</reflink>])</p> <p>Table 1 Critical Considerations for Organization Change Networks</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Critical Considerations</p></th><th align="left"><p>Guiding Questions</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Purpose & Problem</p></td><td align="left"><p>- How does the environment influence purpose?</p><p>- How might the purpose change over time?</p><p>- What mechanisms can be used to pursue purpose?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Leadership & Governance</p></td><td align="left"><p>- What kinds of leadership approaches are useful for OCNs?</p><p>- What governance and representation processes work effectively?</p><p>- How might governance & leadership adapt over time?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Membership & Scale</p></td><td align="left"><p>- How do network purpose and membership criteria relate?</p><p>- When and how should the network grow?</p><p>- How can new member organizations best be onboarded?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Funding & Sustainability</p></td><td align="left"><p>- How can operational costs be funded over time?</p><p>- What are key challenges for the network related to sustainability?</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0186106337-10">Formation</hd> <p>The networks were initially formed when individuals from various institutions identified a need or opportunity in the environmental context and decided that a network comprised of institutions would enable a strong response. The data analysis showed that the initiators engaged in five interconnected tasks to establish their networks: (a) they responded to an environmental pressure or opportunity; (b) they scanned the environment to find appropriate partners; (c) they created and articulated a network narrative; (d) they formulated an initial governance structure, and (e) they secured initial funding.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-11">Responding to the Environment</hd> <p>In each case, the network founders responded to challenges, problems, or opportunities regarding undergraduate STEM education. They identified complex problems and envisioned how and why an OCN could be a possible response in ways that could simultaneously help their institutions internally and impact the broader landscape within which their institutions were situated.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-12">Scanning the Environment for Partners</hd> <p>After identifying a need and opportunity to form a network, the founding leaders identified and assembled potential partners, including institutions and organizations that could finance or promote the envisioned network. They developed ways to attract potential collaborators and convince them of the purpose, potential impact, and possible viability of establishing a network.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-13">Creating a Network Narrative</hd> <p>As part of their efforts to attract partners, network leaders created an initial network narrative, a story about the problem to which the network would respond (purpose) and how the network would approach its work (theory of change). The narrative explained how the emerging network interpreted the "problem of STEM undergraduate education" and its plan for addressing that problem.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-14">Securing Initial Funding</hd> <p>For the networks to move beyond ideation and launch as formal organizations, they needed to secure resources and support. The founders of each network secured a grant to start their network with a set of initial institutional members. They also worked with representatives of the institutional members to plan in-person convenings to further network planning.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-15">Adopting an Initial Governance Structure</hd> <p>As the networks moved from idea to existence, the founding leaders were the central decision makers, largely because the grants they had secured to support the start-up of the networks required someone to serve as Principal Investigator (PI). However, as the networks began to function, governing structures began to evolve. During the Formation stage, the founders primarily took a pragmatic approach to governance, engaging in decision-making processes as needed. Decision-making and governance processes were ad hoc and fluid to involve others as needed. Formal structures such as bylaws were absent at this early Formation stage.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-16">Development and Growth</hd> <p>Based on the data analysis, we identified seven critical tasks associated with the Development and Growth Stage of the networks' life cycles: (a) advancing the substantive work of the network; (b) refining the network narrative; (c) expanding membership; (d) transitioning from casual to more codified relationships; (e) facilitating a transition from an informal to formal distributed leadership approach; (f) institutionalizing key network structures (e.g., governance); and (g) expanding and solidifying financial models to support long-term sustainability.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-17">Advancing the Substantive Work of the Network</hd> <p>During the Development and Growth stage, each network developed initiatives and activities designed to advance the purpose and goals that had led to the formation of the network. Identifying the work helped establish each network's position in the broader landscape and gain the respect and legitimacy needed for advancing its purpose. In developing initiatives and programs, the network leaders often realized the importance of delegation and began disseminating administrative responsibilities to other network members. In this way, efforts to advance the network's goals led to developments in the formal structure and working processes of the network.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-18">Refining the Network Narrative</hd> <p>We observed that, after establishing the network, the network leaders and members continued conversations that refined network purpose and goals. To secure initial funding to support the network's creation, they needed to develop and articulate a strong narrative about the network's goals in relation to key problems in the broader context, which sometimes was grounded in theoretical or conceptual perspectives. Over time, the mission and purpose of each network continued to evolve, thus requiring the network leaders to refine their narratives. As the networks grew, their activities and portfolios expanded to account for new and sometimes more diverse members, new programs and initiatives, and emerging infrastructures. These activities, additions, and expansions provided opportunities for network leaders to clarify the narrative about mission, goals, and rationale.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-19">Expanding Membership</hd> <p>Each of the networks grappled with important membership-related lessons as they grew and as interest in their work expanded. Issues of importance to the network leaders were optimal network size, preferred characteristics for institutions to be eligible for membership, and ways to onboard and help new member institutions integrate into the network. Structural and interpersonal issues arose also, including how decisions would be made and communicated, how to help new members understand the culture and language used by those already in the network, and how financial issues would be managed and decided.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-20">Moving from Casual to Formal Relationships</hd> <p>As the networks grew, building trust and deepening relationships between people from the member organizations were important. Network leaders and participants employed a range of interpersonal as well as programmatic tactics to foster and codify relationships. We noticed that, in planning network meetings, the leaders were often intentional in creating space for network participants to build collegiality and develop a sense of community, foster interpersonal relationships across institutions, and engage in knowledge creation and sharing.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-21">Transitioning from Informal to Formal Distributed Leadership</hd> <p>Each of the networks began with individuals who had a shared vision about how the network could respond to the issues or pressures they wanted to address. Traditional top-down approaches to leadership were typical in each network in the early stages of formation. However, as network leaders looked to the future, they realized the need for more inclusive leadership models and pathways to support long-term sustainability, manage retirements or departures of founding leaders, and serve as professional development opportunities for aspiring network members. Thus, each of the OCNs engaged in intentional discussions and planning to identify potential future leaders and provide them with opportunities, experiences, and knowledge as preparation for leadership roles. These processes happened both informally and formally. Informally, network members came to know each other and encouraged talented colleagues to become involved in leadership opportunities. In some of the networks, the founders recognized the importance of leadership succession to the longevity of their network and worked on developing plans for graceful exit pathways out of their senior-level roles.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-22">Continuing to Secure Financial Support</hd> <p>Each of the OCNs was initially supported through external grant funding; however, the relevant funders expected the networks to find ways to be self-sustaining as the grants ended. Thus, most of the networks developed plans for institutional membership dues, usually to support network programming and convenings. However, a common discussion in each OCN concerned whether the amount set for dues or the need for expanded dues would be acceptable to the member institutions. Those participating in the networks were often not the organizational leaders who could approve institutional fiscal commitments. The financial pressures on institutions related to the global pandemic made these budget considerations even more salient in network planning. Thus, all the networks are actively involved in considering financial plans that may include multiple sources of income (e.g., grants, fees, dues, in-kind contributions) to sustain network operations and to support programmatic offerings.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-23">Maturity</hd> <p>As the OCNs moved beyond initial development and expansion, key issues became the sustainability and stability of their work. In particular, they focused on establishing strategies to promote longevity and stability, as well as flexibility.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-24">Balancing Internal and External Legitimacy</hd> <p>The network leaders reported their concerns about demonstrating their networks' continued value over time, especially when discussions arose about acceptable levels of institutional dues. Discussions within the networks focused on how best to define the value, benefits, and impact of membership to leaders of institutions considering the cost of renewing annual membership as well as to those at institutions considering membership. Individuals involved in the OCNs as representatives of their institutions were often enthusiastic about network programs and resources, but they were not always the institutional leaders who could commit budget allocations; thus, OCNs needed to be proactive about defining and justifying their work.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-25">Refining Membership and Governance</hd> <p>Although establishment of membership criteria, bylaws, and other formalized governance structures typically occurred in the Growth and Development stages, the OCNs continually refined their processes to better serve the needs of their member institutions. In the Maturity stage, OCN leaders and members made small revisions and changes to how their networks operated, often reflecting shifts in environmental issues or designed to signal important values of the network.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-26">Institutionalizing Processes</hd> <p>Institutionalization involved formalizing previously unwritten but mutually understood norms. Generally, cultural and behavioral norms specific to the network were established in the early stages of development, but the process often continued into the Maturity stage. In particular, explicit articulation of how network work was done was needed to help institutional newcomers understand network processes.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-27">Establishing Long-Term Financial Stability</hd> <p>While network leaders worked through other aspects of the Maturity stage, they also considered approaches to long-term financial sustainability. In preparation for the end of their NSF grants, the OCNs developed and deployed various long-term and short-term approaches to ensure post-grant fiscal health. Strategies included seeking new grants from NSF or other funders, developing fee-for-service resources, and increasing institutional dues.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-28">Transformation or Sunsetting</hd> <p>The networks we have studied are dynamic organizations that are constantly adjusting and facing choices and decisions in the context of changes in the interests of their member institutions and in the external environment. We observed that mature networks may continue their work for a number of years making modest adjustments, but at some point, may reach a point where continuity becomes insufficient or difficult. UERU is an example of an OCN that transformed several times across its history. While most of the OCNs we studied did not transform, the data suggested that, over time, they considered several options.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-29">Reorienting to Mission and Goals</hd> <p>Over time, continuing as a mature, resilient network committed to the network's mission was one option. The OCN leaders often scanned the environment for changing needs or the emergence of other competing networks, and assessed whether creative reshaping of network goals and initiatives was needed.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-30">Rebranding and Restructuring</hd> <p>As the environment shifted, some of the OCNS took time to review or rethink their brand and approach to leading change. In some cases, new leadership emerged for the next stage of the life of the network. Rebranding, as illustrated by the re-naming of the Reinvention Collaborative to UERU, was sometimes a means to clarify the network's mission and priorities.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-31">Spawning New Endeavors</hd> <p>An OCN may maintain its primary mission, while also adopting related spin-off ventures in response to changing environmental needs. CIRTL, for example, started professional development in change leadership for graduate students in addition to its focus on teaching preparation. Developing a related initiative, with its own leadership and structure, extended the impact of the network while maintaining its primary focus.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-32">Sunsetting</hd> <p>Another option, although not one chosen by the networks we studied, is sunsetting (or closing the network). We see sunsetting not as a failure, but as a potentially appropriate option in response to certain contexts. An OCN may have addressed the goal or effected the change it was created to accomplish, and thus be ready for a celebration of impact and a decision to conclude the work.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-33">Case Examples</hd> <p>The two cases below illustrate the stages of network development and the critical challenges discussed. CIRTL, which is an emergent network, is discussed first, with the developmental stages explicitly highlighted. ATE, a mandated network that includes individual networks within a broader network framework, is then presented. This case foregrounds the critical considerations that networks confront and shows how they must be handled throughout the life of the network. Although brief, the cases show how networks move through developmental stages while they grapple with critical issues concerning network purpose, leadership and governance, membership and scale, and funding and sustainability throughout the stages of network life.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-34">Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL)</hd> <p>The Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL), a network of approximately forty member universities, has focused on preparing doctoral students and post-docs to be excellent teachers since it began in 2003. CIRTL develops and provides resources and professional development opportunities, which are offered through cross-institutional courses as well as the activities of local learning communities at member institutions.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-35">Formation Stage</hd> <p>CIRTL began when faculty members at the University of Wisconsin invited colleagues from Michigan State and Penn State to join them in responding to a National Science Foundation grant competition to create national STEM education centers. The faculty initiators of CIRTL created the network to address the lack of preparation for undergraduate teaching careers provided in graduate school to doctoral students (especially two decades ago), and NSF funding supported the birth and formation of CIRTL with an initial five-year grant. Important work in the early years included sharing the CIRTL narrative (the story of CIRTL's purpose to prepare "future faculty" as excellent teachers), translating the guiding principles on which CIRTL was founded into a strong professional development curriculum, and beginning to create an inclusive decision-making process. With the goal of expanding, the CIRTL leadership team developed a process for identifying and inviting potential new institutional members.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-36">Development and Growth</hd> <p>Key issues in this second period, which lasted for approximately a decade, included expanding CIRTL's professional development offerings, clarifying specific learning outcomes, and establishing a network hub (CIRTL Central); institutionalizing a formal leadership team, creating bylaws and committees, and codifying the process through which member institutions would provide input into decision making; clarifying membership criteria, and the timing and process for membership expansion; and formalizing requirements for institutional dues to underwrite the network operational needs, while continuing to maintain existing funding and secure new funding. While CIRTL operated from its start with the leadership of an NSF grant Principal Investigator (PI) and four co-PIs, in 2013, the "PI model" was modified to add an elected leadership team comprised of leaders from member institutions. Informed by challenges in its earlier membership expansion, CIRTL developed a more robust institutional membership application process, including specific criteria, as well as an onboarding process to help new institutional members and their representatives understand CIRTL's culture. Securing grants to support specific components of the CIRTL curriculum rather than general operations was another priority.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-37">Maturity</hd> <p>In recent years, CIRTL is in the Maturity stage. Issues of network stability and fiscal health, leadership, and governance continue to be important. An ongoing priority is to assure senior leaders at member institutions of the benefits accruing to institutional members—and thus of the need for institutional dues. Attention to fiscal health involves continuing efforts to secure grant funding, maintain revenue from institutional dues, and explore other revenue streams. Continuing to refine leadership processes, roles, and structures has also been important, including designing and implementing a process to shift CIRTL's senior leadership from the founders to a new group of elected leaders. Additionally, in 2018, CIRTL adopted a form of decision making called "dynamic governance," which requires explicit input from designated representatives of the member institutions. Refinements continue also in the membership model, with a shift from admitting new institutions as a cohort every few years to a rolling admissions process with a few new institutions added yearly.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-38">Transformation</hd> <p>Based on our analysis, CIRTL has not reached a stage of transformation, defined as reorienting the network's mission and goals, rebranding or restructuring, or spawning new endeavors. However, acknowledging that the environment in which the network exists has changed significantly since the founding of CIRTL more than two decades ago, the network has recently updated its strategic plan. The plan provides a structure for discussion of seven strategic directions, including possibly expanding the focus beyond STEM education and addressing additional areas of professional preparation. Outcomes from the planned deliberations may result in transformation in some aspects of CIRTL's work and identity.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-39">Advanced Technological Education Network (ATE)</hd> <p>ATE is a mandated network of networks where individual networks move through the life cycle stages identified in the research, including, for some individual networks, sunsetting. This brief case highlights how some of the critical considerations identified in this study play out in the overarching network, while the individual networks within ATE experience the cycle of birth to sunsetting. ATE originated from the lobbying efforts of the now American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) seeking federal investment in two-year colleges, responding to an increasing need for technological expertise in the workforce. The first version of what became the Scientific and Advanced Technology Act (SATA), Public Law 102–476, was passed and signed into law in 1992, providing a funding stream through the National Science Foundation. In 2022, the program's future was authorized through the CHIPS and Science Act. NSF program officers and AACC staff have shaped the ATE network with community input for over 30 years.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-40">Purpose and Responsiveness to the Environment</hd> <p>The ATE network is distinctive with its longstanding funding, strong federal guidance, alignment of current industry needs with resource commitments, and strong academic-industry partnerships. The partnerships with industry keep the work current since the individual networks within ATE are formed in direct response to external contextual factors. Partnerships with other external networks, including the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Manufacturing Extension Partnerships and the Manufacturing USA Institutes, also foster responsiveness to changing environments. An annual principal investigator meeting hosted by AACC brings currently funded individual ATE networks together, focusing on community building and identifying emerging industry needs.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-41">Leadership</hd> <p>The funding model ensures ongoing shifts in leadership, with leaders of large individual centers playing an advisory role in convenings at the principal investigators' meetings. Building future leadership is an explicit goal of the overall network. Mentor Connect is an ATE program that assists faculty in grant writing and implementation. AACC, with NSF funding, provides further support through Mentor Links, focused on professional development and technical assistance, and the ATE Future Leaders Fellows Program is aimed at developing emerging leaders in ATE. The mentoring programs are led by current principal investigators, emblematic of the generative spirit of the overall network.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-42">Funding</hd> <p>At face value, over 30 years of federal funding is the key to the network's sustainability. The reality is more nuanced. ATE networks move through their life cycles with clear guidance from the grant solicitation, which is regularly updated to support current needs. There is clarity about the timeline of funding, including a possible final phase where a network can become a resource center or otherwise ensure sustainability of the work before moving those resources to the ATE Central repository so curriculum will persist after the network sunsets. For individual networks within ATE, we observed sustainability models that included providing training for affiliated industries for a fee after the NSF funding ceased.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-43">Legitimacy</hd> <p>ATE extends its reach and external legitimacy in multiple ways. The High Impact Technology Exchange Conference (HI-TEC) serves, with NSF support, as a venue to engage the broader technology education community with the ATE community. Supported by investment from the Department of Labor, the ATE Centers Collaborative for Technical Assistance emerged to provide technical assistance in response to industry needs. The legitimacy of ATE as a network has also been elevated through ATE's work on key reports on technical education with the National Science Board and the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-44">Sustainability</hd> <p>The overall ATE network is mature and resilient. It regularly reinvents itself to align with the environment, relying on a range of inputs and using the NSF ATE program solicitation to convey the most recent vision and approach. A distinctive culture within the overall ATE community has emerged that supports the mentoring of future leaders, preserves resources from sunsetting networks, and ensures new individual networks within the ATE umbrella meet the current expertise needed for industry technicians. Annual feedback is provided through Evalu-ATE, a funded hub to support evaluation across the ATE networks.</p> <p>Currently, NSF invests about $74 million annually into this network of networks using Congressionally-approved funds. Network agility and alignment with national needs are core to longevity. The agility is enacted through the ever-changing individual networks, which move through shorter-term life cycles, participate in the community of collaboration among the networks, and sunset or reinvent themselves (often by providing fees-for-service for training agreements with industries they have served). Our data revealed a strong focus on students, social impact, and meeting national needs provides cohesion and encourages cooperation across this network of networks.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-45">Discussion</hd> <p>The presence and use of inter-organizational networks to advance change in education and other social impact areas has been increasing in recent years (Kezar, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref93">21</reflink>]; Plastrick, et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref94">36</reflink>]; Popp, et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref95">37</reflink>]). As discussed in this article, Organization Change Networks (OCNs) in higher education can be distinguished by their target goals and composition from university consortia, disciplinary associations, and communities of practice. While inter-organizational networks are a growing presence, research on OCNs in education and other sectors focused on social impact, such as public sector management, is in early stages (Kezar, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref96">21</reflink>]; Popp et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref97">37</reflink>]). Thus, in this paper, we have focused on what defines OCNs in relation to other forms of networks in higher education and how they function and develop over time.</p> <p>We see the findings from this study making contributions to theory, practice, and research. First, we have advanced the conceptual knowledge pertaining to networks in higher education whose purposes are to advance transformational change. While we have studied four OCNs, we believe the extensive qualitative data collected suggest possible stages and critical considerations that may be relevant to other OCNs in higher education; the transferability of these findings could be studied with other networks. The theories of change discussed earlier in the article suggest reasons why OCNs may be increasing at this time. From the perspective of evolutionary, institutional, and neo-institutional theories, OCNs may serve as a vehicle for higher education institutions to respond to and manage external pressures. For example, the ATE network provides a highly structured way for community colleges to manage demands to respond to changing industry and employer needs and student expectations of higher education. From the perspective of social cognition theories, OCNs enable faculty to grapple with new ideas about teaching and learning and collaborate to create new paths forward. The Research Action Clusters organized by the BVA, for example, provide space and support for administrative and faculty leaders to engage in sense-making as they work together to envision, try out, evaluate, and revise new forms of teaching evaluation. Through the lens of political theories, OCNs may enable institutional change leaders to gain legitimacy for goals they have for their institutions. Participation in CIRTL, for example, gives faculty and graduate deans championing the importance of preparing doctoral students as excellent teachers, sometimes in the face of resistance from colleagues, the legitimacy provided by a network of peer institutions also forging new paths in doctoral education. The theories suggest reasons OCNs are gaining more presence in higher education and why more knowledge about them is relevant. Based on our multi-year qualitative research to illuminate issues likely to be salient in other similar networks, our findings provide new information about how OCNs in higher education may develop across four life cycle stages (Formation, Development and Growth, Maturity, and Transformation or Sunsetting). These stages and the general issues OCNs must handle parallel issues in networks in other fields focused on social impact. However, our specific contribution has been to identify critical considerations (Problem and Purpose; Leadership and Governance; Membership and Scale; and Funding and Sustainability) particularly important to networks situated in the higher education context. Another important finding is that the critical considerations are not constrained to only one stage of OCN development, but, rather, weave throughout the life cycle stages.</p> <p>The second contribution of this study is to practice and application, as the findings have implications for individuals starting or leading OCNs, institutional leaders, and policy makers and funders. The findings on OCN life cycle stages and what characterizes them, as well as the critical considerations weaving through the life cycle stages, provide ideas for other network leaders to consider in their decision-making and strategy development in response to opportunities and challenges that arise. For example, network leaders benefit from recognizing that, at the Formation stage, crafting a compelling narrative can help attract potential organizational members aligned with the OCN's goals, but that the narrative may need to be adjusted as the OCN moves through subsequent stages. The critical considerations of the Growth and Development stage and the Maturity stage remind network leaders to regularly assess governance, membership, and fiscal issues. For example, key leadership issues include establishing processes to manage leadership transition (which is especially important when the shift is from a grant PI leadership model to a more shared leadership model), creating decision-making processes that include member institution input, and managing the sometimes-differing interests of senior leaders at member institutions and the institutional representatives who are deeply involved in the network's work. OCNs also need to manage concerns from institutional leaders who are balancing the value of network membership with the cost of network dues. The fourth stage of Transformation or Sunsetting reminds leaders that sustainability relates to the network's ability to stay relevant to contextual challenges and, if needed, to reorient, rebrand, or spin-off new initiatives responsive to evolving needs and circumstances, or to decide to close (sunset).</p> <p>Expanded knowledge about OCNs also contributes to the work of funding agencies and policymakers interested in advancing significant change goals in higher education. The findings about stages and critical considerations can lead funders, for example, to expect grant applicants to demonstrate familiarity with the issues that their proposed network will likely need to navigate. We shared the findings about OCN life cycle stages and cross-cutting critical considerations at a convening of teams from the OCNs studied, representatives of funding agencies, and professional association leaders. Their interest led to immediate conversations about how the findings illuminated issues and decisions in the forefront of their work.</p> <p>Third, the study contributes to the creation of a research agenda for researchers and funders wanting to support further understanding of OCNs. We identify questions for such an agenda–including questions we will probe with data collected as part of this study but not taken up within the scope of this article, as well as questions for which we believe further data must be gathered. A few important questions to advance conceptual understanding and contribute to practice include, among others, the following:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What is the impact of OCNs on their member institutions? Kezar ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref98">21</reflink>]) observed that consortia can help institutions scale change, including creating space for learning, providing resources such as templates and models, and helping institutions focus on their change goals. Our observations align with Kezar's but questions of impact on member institutions need direct study.</item> <p></p> <item> What range of internal organizational structures do OCNs exhibit (e.g., centralized hubs; shared leadership committees; elected, appointed, or rotating directors), what are the benefits and constraints of each structural approach, and how do different structures relate to life cycle stages?</item> <p></p> <item> To what extent does conflict permeate the work of OCNs, and if it occurs, what is the impact and in what ways is it handled? Political theories emphasize conflict as deeply embedded in organizational culture and organizational change, and Kezar ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref99">21</reflink>]) suggested that a challenge to inter-organizational networks may be competition for resources and conflict. The OCNs studied did not provide evidence of institutional competition, but it is possible institutions disagreeing with OCN decisions, directions, or priorities decided to leave the OCN. More research is needed to understand what conflicts may emerge in OCNs and how conflict is handled.</item> <p></p> <item> How do OCNs interact with other groups in the broader higher education eco-system? An increasing number of groups and associations are addressing issues in undergraduate education. Understanding how these stakeholders across the landscape interact would provide insight into how OCNs impact the landscape (as well as their impact on their institutional members).</item> </ulist> <p>In an era when immense challenges face the academy, understanding OCN development and functioning offers useful insights for institutional leaders seeking options for collaborative pathways to support their work toward change goals as well as for funders and policymakers seeking ways to scale and advance transformative change in higher education.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-46">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors express appreciation for the contributions of Staci Starck and Heather Risselada, who facilitated project coordination and logistical details, and Sohyeon Bae, Matthew Devereaux, Nestor Espinoza, Matthew Ring, and Amelia Storer who assisted with data collection and analysis early in the project. Also, the authors convey gratitude to the anonymous reviewers who provided very helpful feedback on an earlier version of the paper. The authors acknowledge with appreciation the funding provided for the study by the National Science Foundation (NSF IUSE Grant 1725320). However, the authors bear all responsibility for the findings.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-47">Author Contribution</hd> <p>Ann E. Austin and Susan R. Singer conceptualized and designed the study. Data collection, analysis, and interpretation were performed by all authors. Ann E. Austin, Susan R. Singer, and Adam Grimm wrote the manuscript. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript and read and approved the final manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-48">Funding</hd> <p>The research reported in this article was funded through the National Science Foundation (IUSE Grant 1725320). However, the authors bear all responsibility for the findings.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-49">Data Availability</hd> <p>Case study summaries are available by request to the lead author. Interview transcripts are not available, per consent agreements signed by participants and approved in the Human Subjects Review.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-50">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186106337-51">Ethics Approval</hd> <p>The Institutional Review Board at Michigan State University reviewed the project and deemed the project to be exempt in accordance with federal regulations (IRB# x17-840e). The Institutional Review Board at Rollins College (Dr. Singer's location prior to her move to St. Olaf College) recognized the review and exempt designation made by Michigan State University.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-52">Financial Interests</hd> <p>The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to declare.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-53">Competing Interests</hd> <p>Ann E. Austin is a member of the Editorial Policy Board of <emph>Innovative Higher Education</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0186106337-54">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0186106337-55"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref73" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Amey, M. J, & Eddy, P. L. (2014). Creating strategic partnerships. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003443827.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref76" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bay View Alliance (BVA). (n.d.). About the Bay View Alliance. https://bayviewalliance.org/network/about/. Accessed 8 Oct 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref23" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Berdahl, R.O. (1991). Shared governance and external constraints. In M.W. Peterson, E.E. Chaffee, & T.H. White (Eds.), Organization and Governance in Higher Education. Ginn Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref24" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Birnbaum, R. (1991). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref38" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bolman, L. G, & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (6th ed.). Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref61" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bryk, A. S, Gomez, L. M, Grunow, A, & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America's schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref10" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bryson JM, Crosby BC, Stone MM. The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review. 2006; 66; s1: 44-55. 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref67" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Burley D, Gnam C, Newman R, Straker H, Babies T. Leveraging higher education consortia for institutional advancement. International Journal of Educational Management. 2012; 26; 3: 274-283</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref52" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Burt RS. The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior. 2000; 22: 345-423. 10.1016/S0191-3085(00)22009-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, B.R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of Transformation. Pergamon Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coburn CE. Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher. 2003; 32; 6: 3-12. 10.3102/0013189X032006003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coleman JS. Foundations of social theory. 1998; Harvard University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Committee on STEM Education, National Science and Technology Council. (2013). Federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) Education 5-year strategic plan. The White House.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cox MD, McDonald JCox MD, McDonald J. Faculty learning communities and communities of practice: Facilitating faculty growth. Faculty Learning Communities: Communities of Practice that Support, Inspire, Engage, and Transform Higher Education Classrooms. 2017; Stylus Publishing: 1-25</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cox MD, Richlin L. Building faculty learning communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 2004; 97: 5-23. 10.1002/tl.129</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elmore R. Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review. 1996; 66; 1: 1-27. 10.17763/haer.66.1.g73266758j348t33</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galleta A, Torre ME. Participatory action research in education. Oxford University Press. 2019. 10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.557</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gumport PJ. The contested terrain of academic program reduction. The Journal of Higher Education. 1993; 64; 3: 283-311. 10.1080/00221546.1993.11778433</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hearn JC. Transforming U.S. higher education: An organizational perspective. Innovative Higher Education. 1996; 21: 141-154. 10.1007/BF01243704</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kezar A. How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change. 2018; Routledge. 10.4324/9781315121178</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kezar A, Gehrke S. Communities of transformation and their work scaling STEM reform. 2015; University of Southern California</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kezar AJ, Holcombe EM. Leveraging multiple theories of change to promote reform: An examination of the AAU STEM initiative. Educational Policy. 2021; 35; 6: 985-1013. 10.1177/0895904820986767l</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kezar, A, & Miller, E. (2020). Using a systems approach to change: Examining the AAU Undergraduate STEM Education Initiative. In K. White, A. Beach, N. Finkelstein, C. Henderson, S. Simkins, L. Slakey, M. Stains, G. Weaver, & L. Whitehead, L. (Eds.), Transforming Institutions: Accelerating Systemic Change in Higher Education. Pressbooks. <ulink href="http://openbooks.library.umass.edu/ascnti2020/chapter/kezar-miller/">http://openbooks.library.umass.edu/ascnti2020/chapter/kezar-miller/</ulink>. Accessed 8 Oct 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klein, S. R. (2012). Action research methods. Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137046635</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDonald, J, & Cater-Steel, A. (Eds.). (2017). Communities of practice: Facilitating social learning in higher education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2879-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merriam SB. Qualitative research and case study applications in education. 1998; Jossey-Bass</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller ER, Fairweather JS, Slakey L, Smith T, King T. Catalyzing institutional transformation: Insights from the AAU STEM Initiative. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. 2017; 49; 5: 36-45. 10.1080/00091383.2017.1366810</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2018). Graduate STEM education for the 21st century. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25038</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). (2023). Diversity and STEM: Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities 2023 (NSF 23–315). National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315/. Accessed 8 Oct 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council. (2015). Reaching students: What research says about effective instruction in undergraduate science and engineering. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18687</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Science Foundation (NSF), American Association of Community Colleges, EvaluATE, and ATE Central. (2022). Advanced Technological Education Impacts: ATE @ 30. NSF. https://ateimpacts.net/downloads/36682/ATE%20Impacts%202024-2025.pdf. Accessed 8 Oct 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ness EC, Hearn JC, Rubin PGTandberg DA, Sonsler BA, Hanna RW, Guilbeau JP. The SHEEO and intermediary organizations. The State Higher Education Executive Officer and the Public Good: Developing New Leadership for Improved Policy, Practice, and Research. 2018; Teachers College Press: 163-192</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paquin RL, Howard-Grenville J. Blind dates and arranged marriages: Longitudinal processes of network orchestration. Organization Studies. 2013; 34; 11: 1623-1653. 10.1177/0170840612470230</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plastrik, P, Taylor, M, & Cleveland, J. (2014). Connecting to change the world: Harnessing the power of networks for social impact. Island Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Popp, J. K, Milward, B. H, MacKean, G, Casebeer, A, & Lindstrom, R. (2014). Inter-organizational networks: A review of the literature to inform practice. IBM Center for The Business of Government. https://<ulink href="http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/Management%20Popp.pdf">www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/Management%20Popp.pdf</ulink>. Accessed 8 Oct 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Powell, W. W, & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). (2012). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Provan KG, Lemaire RH. Core concepts and key ideas for understanding public section organizational networks: Using research to inform scholarship and practice. Public Administration Review. 2012; 72; 5: 638-648. 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02595.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Putnam RD. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. 2000; Simon & Schuster</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rhoades G. Rethinking restructuring in universities. Journal for Higher Education Management. 1995; 10; 2: 17-30</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rhoades G, Slaughter S. Academic capitalism, managed professionals, and supply-side higher education. Social Text. 1997; 51: 9-38. 10.2307/466645</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth dimension: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singer, S. R, Nielsen, N. R, & Schweingruber, H. A. (Eds.). (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. National Academies Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slaughter, S, & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. JHU Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL). (n.d.). CIRTL for the Nation. https://cirtl.net/cirtl-for-the-nation/. Accessed 8 Oct 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tenkasi RV, Chesmore MC. Social networks and planned organizational change: The impact of strong network ties on effective change implementation and use. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 2003; 39; 3: 281-300. 10.1177/0021886303258338</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weber EP, Khademian AM. Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration Review. 2008; 68; 2: 334-349. 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00866.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weick KE. The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1993; 38; 4: 628-652. 10.2307/2393339</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wenger, E, McDermott, R, & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yin RK. Case study research: Design and methods. 2002; SAGE Publications</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ann E. Austin; Susan R. Singer; Adam Grimm; Vicki L. Baker and Levi B. Shanks</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Ann E. Austin Ann E. Austin is University Distinguished Professor of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education at Michigan State University (MSU), and has served in recent years as Interim Dean of the College of Education and Interim Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Staff Affairs. With a Ph.D. in Higher Education from the University of Michigan, her research concerns organizational change, academic work and professional development, equity and inclusion in academic workplaces, teaching and learning issues, doctoral education, and STEM education. She currently serves as Co-Chair of the National Academies of Sciences' Roundtable on Systemic Reform in Undergraduate STEM Education.</p> <p>Susan Rundell Singer Susan R. Singer research focuses on leadership and organizational change to improve undergraduate STEM education. She earned B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in Biology from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Currently, she serves as President of St. Olaf College, Professor of Biology, and Chair of the National Academy ofSciences Board on Science Education.</p> <p>Adam Grimm Adam Grimm completed his Ph.D. in global higher education at Michigan State University in 2021. His research centers on networks and organizational change, exploring how collaboration within and across institutions can drive transformation in higher education. Adam has also taught and studied in the United States, China, and Korea, with a broader interest in the globalization of higher education and its policy implications.</p> <p>Vicki L. Baker, Ph.D. Vicki L. Baker is the E. Maynard Aris Endowed Professor in Economics and Management, Associate Dean of Strategic Partnerships & Innovation, and chair of the economics and management department at Albion College. She is also a co-founder of Lead Mentor Develop, an academic career and professional development consulting group that helps businesses, nonprofits and higher education in the areas of mentoring, faculty development and leadership. Her scholarly interests focus on the faculty experience, career advancement, and liberal arts colleges.</p> <p>Levi B. Shanks, Ph.D. Levi B. Shanks is the Assistant Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs at the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities in Washington, DC. In his role, he convenes, researches, and advocates on matters related to student affairs, student success, and workforce preparedness. His scholarly interests relate to institutional improvement networks, organizational change, and public higher education policy.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref83"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1475308
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Organization Change Networks (OCNs): An Emerging Framework for Understanding Their Development and Functioning
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ann+E%2E+Austin%22">Ann E. Austin</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9889-5815">0000-0001-9889-5815</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Susan+R%2E+Singer%22">Susan R. Singer</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Adam+Grimm%22">Adam Grimm</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Vicki+L%2E+Baker%22">Vicki L. Baker</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Levi+B%2E+Shanks%22">Levi B. Shanks</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Innovative+Higher+Education%22"><i>Innovative Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 50(3):715-741.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 27
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Science Foundation (NSF), Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: 1725320
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Organizational+Change%22">Organizational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Networks%22">Networks</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Organizational+Development%22">Organizational Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Group+Membership%22">Group Membership</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Leadership%22">Leadership</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Universities%22">Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intercollegiate+Cooperation%22">Intercollegiate Cooperation</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10755-024-09750-4
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0742-5627<br />1573-1758
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Organization Change Networks (OCNs) are increasing in use as a lever for fostering systemic change in higher education. OCNs are inter-organizational networks composed of institutional members that seek to advance targeted goals such as improving STEM education. This study presents findings from a six-year study of six STEM education-focused networks. Using extensive qualitative date, the results suggest that OCNs experience a four-stage life cycle (including Formation, Development and Growth, Maturity, and Transformation or Sunsetting), as well as manage a set of critical considerations (i.e., purpose; leadership; membership; and funding) that weave throughout the life cycles but manifest differently across stages. Offering a framework that situates OCNS in relationship to other kinds of networks in higher education, the article contributes to emerging conceptual understanding of OCNs as unique collaborative forms designed to advance significant change goals. Additionally, the findings provide ideas for higher education leaders considering institutional membership in OCNs, policy makers considering supporting them, and current and potential leaders of OCNs pertaining to navigating network developmental stages and addressing such considerations as leadership pipelines, scaling network size, and institutionalizing network processes. Finally, the article highlights further questions that should be examined about OCNS, such as how they impact their member institutions and interact with other organizations in the broader context in which universities and colleges are situated.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1475308
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1475308
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10755-024-09750-4
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 27
        StartPage: 715
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Organizational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Networks
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Organizational Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Group Membership
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Leadership
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intercollegiate Cooperation
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Organization Change Networks (OCNs): An Emerging Framework for Understanding Their Development and Functioning
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ann E. Austin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Susan R. Singer
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Adam Grimm
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Vicki L. Baker
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Levi B. Shanks
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0742-5627
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1758
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 50
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Innovative Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1