IDEAL: Institutions Developing Excellence in Academic Leadership

Full text

Institutions Developing
Excellence in Academic
Leadership (IDEAL)
A partnership to advance gender equity,
diversity, and inclusion in academic STEM
Diana Bilimoria
Department of Organizational Behavior, Case Western Reserve University,
Cleveland, Ohio, USA, and
Lynn T. Singer
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to describe the objectives, activities and outcomes of the National
Science Foundation ADVANCE project, Institutions Developing Excellence in Academic Leadership
(IDEAL) during 2009–2012. The goal of IDEAL was to create an institutional learning community
empowered to develop and leverage knowledge, skills, resources and networks to transform academic
cultures and enhance gender equity, diversity and inclusion in science, technology, engineering and math
(STEM) disciplines at six research universities in the northern Ohio region. Over the three-year period,
these institutions developed academic leaders and institutionalized gender equity transformation through
multi-dimensional and multi-level initiatives, improving the advancement and leadership of women faculty
in STEM disciplines.
Design/methodology/approach –The authors describe the objectives, activities and outcomes of the NSF
ADVANCE project, IDEAL during 2009–2012. The six research institutions included in IDEAL were Bowling
Green State University, Case Western Reserve University (the lead institution), Cleveland State University,
Kent State University, University of Akron and University of Toledo.
Findings –IDEAL’s outcomes included the institutionalization of a number of gender equity initiatives at
each university, an increase in the number of tenured women faculty in science and engineering disciplines
over three years across the six universities, and increases in the numbers of women in faculty and
administrative leadership positions. Out of 62 of the IDEAL participants (co-directors and change leaders), 25
were promoted or appointed to roles of leadership within or beyond their institutions during or after their
participation in IDEAL. A number of new institutional collaborations and exchanges involving the six
universities occurred during and emerged from IDEAL. An integrative model of the IDEAL program is
developed, describing the nested components of each institution’s gender equity transformation within the
IDEAL partnership consortium and the larger NSF ADVANCE community, and highlighting the dynamic
interactions between these levels.
Social implications –The IDEAL program demonstrates that systemic change to achieve equity for
women and underrepresented minority faculty in STEM disciplines must be rooted on individual campuses
but must also propagate among higher education systems and the broader scientific community. The effort to
develop, sustain and expand the IDEAL partnership model of institutional transformation (IT) in higher
education illuminates how innovative, context-sensitive, cost-effective and customized institutional strategies
may be implemented to advance gender equity, diversity, inclusion and leadership of women faculty at all
levels across the country.
Originality/value –This is an original description of a unique and distinctive partnership
among research universities to foster gender equity IT. The manuscript details the objectives, activities
and outcomes of the IDEAL program, established with the aim of broadening participation in the
STEM academic workforce and advancing gender equity, diversity and inclusion in institutions of
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:
An International Journal
Vol. 38 No. 3, 2019
pp. 362-381
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-7149
DOI 10.1108/EDI-10-2017-0209
Received 5 October 2017
Revised 10 July 2018
Accepted 10 August 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7149.htm
This research was supported by a National Science Foundation ADVANCE (Grant No. HRD-0929907).
Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are of the authors’
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
362
EDI
38,3

higher education. An integrative model is developed, illustrating the key components and outcomes of the
IDEAL program.
Keywords Women, Higher education, Sex and gender issues, Diversity, Gender equity,
Advancement and leadership of STEM women faculty, Institutional transformation, Inclusion
Paper type Research paper
More than 50 years after the passage of the 1963 Equal Pay Act and the deliberations of the
1963 President’s Commission on the Status of Women, women’s participation in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) remains an urgent topic (The National
Academies, 2007a, b). In academe, STEM disciplines have been especially intransigent to the
inclusion and advancement of women in the professional ranks, even as women’s numbers
have grown in undergraduate and graduate enrollment and as advanced degree recipients
(Etkowitz et al., 1994; Burke and Mattis, 2007; The National Academies, 2007b). With the
slow pace of improvement and studies indicating persistent institutional resistance and
barriers to change, the National Science Foundation (NSF) created the ADVANCE program
in 2001 (see http://nsf.gov/advance/). The program has become an integral part of NSF’s
multifaceted strategy to broaden participation in the STEM workforce and advance the
contributions of women in academic science and engineering (S&E).
The ADVANCE program recognizes that simplistic, ad hoc or piecemeal solutions cannot
eradicate systematic, historical and widespread gender inequities (Bilimoria et al., 2008).
Instead, a comprehensive transformation of the organizational systems, structures, processes
and practices that perpetuate inequity is needed (cf., McCracken, 2000; Meyerson and Fletcher,
2000; Ely and Thomas, 2001), by engaging the full organization through multiple, multi-level,
varied and simultaneously implemented change interventions (Bilimoria and Liang, 2012;
Hogue and Lord, 2007). ADVANCE encourages institutions of higher education and the
broader STEM community to address aspects of the academic culture and institutional
structure that may differentially affect women faculty. Since 2001, NSF has invested over
$270m to support ADVANCE projects at more than 160 institutions of higher education and
STEM-related not-for-profit organizations across the USA.
The structural, occupational, organizational, interpersonal and individual level factors
constraining the workforce participation, advancement, retention and leadership of
women and underrepresented minority (URM) faculty in STEM are well documented (e.g.
Burke and Mattis, 2007; The National Academies, 2007b; Rosser, 2004) as well as the
multi-level and multi-dimensional institutional solutions to redress them (Bilimoria and
Liang, 2012; Stewart et al., 2007; Hogue and Lord, 2007). What is missing is a context-
sensitive, cost-effective and customizable strategy for learning and knowledge sharing
about gender equity change and catalyzing institutional transformation (IT). Innovative,
resource-sensitive efforts to achieve equity for women and URM faculty in STEM
disciplines must be rooted on individual campuses, but must also propagate among
institutions and systems of higher education and the larger scientific community. To
address this gap, we established the Institutions Developing Excellence in Academic
Leadership (IDEAL) project to develop, implement and measure the success of a
partnership model to effect behavior and policy transformation at multiple universities,
positioning those institutions to stimulate change across post-secondary education in a
region and leverage the idea of equity as enhancing regional STEM economic well-being
and growth. In the following sections we describe IDEAL’s partner institutions, the
results of Case Western Reserve University’s (CWRUs) earlier ADVANCE IT program
which informed and guided the development of the IDEAL program, the theoretical
model preceding IDEAL’s IT efforts, IDEAL’s goal and objectives, initiatives and
outcomes over the period 2009–2012, and an integrative model describing IDEAL’s
components and outcomes.
363
Partnership to
advance
gender equity

Partner universities in the IDEAL consortium
An important element of the IDEAL consortium was the partnership intent of the
institutions involved. IDEAL’s intentional partnership of six higher education institutions
consisted of CWRU as the lead institution, and the following five public research
universities: The University of Akron (UA), Bowling Green State University (BGSU),
Cleveland State University (CSU), Kent State University (KSU) and the University of Toledo
(UT). All the institutions are in northern Ohio, with none more than 2 hours apart. Each has
a breadth of STEM offerings, and selective strengths in these disciplines. The five public
universities were selected because they are research universities in the northern Ohio region
and because they had not yet received NSF ADVANCE funding. This latter criterion was
important to disseminate ADVANCE insights, broaden the reach of ADVANCE throughout
the region, and develop a cost-effective yet innovative model of adaptation and
dissemination. More information about the characteristics of the IDEAL universities at the
start of the IDEAL program is provided in Table I, including the specific STEM units
targeted by each institution for IDEAL program interventions.
As Table I illustrates, although all the partner universities were doctoral granting
institutions with high or very high research activity, they differed on other dimensions which
posed potentialchallenges and opportunities for the adoption of various elements of the IDEAL
program. In particular, differences in the public or private nature of institutions and differing
undergraduate or graduate student emphases could have been challenging apriori.For
example, the lessons learned about the importance of modifying faculty leave policies from the
lead institution’s (a private university’s) earlier ADVANCE interventions may be more
challenging to implement in public institutions that may have multiple campuses and state-
wide governance structures. On the other hand, some of the IDEAL program elements, such as
enabling enhanced transparency of decision making and accountability of senior
administrative leaders, may be facilitated in public university settings that are predisposed
toward these features. Similarly, the amount, nature and desired outcomes of required faculty
instruction and research workloads may differ substantially between primarily undergraduate
and primarily graduate institutions, influencing the change interventions selected. To address
these and other institutional differences as well as leverage an individual institution’s priorities,
advantages and opportunities, the IDEAL program encouraged context-sensitive and
customized interventions addressing the specific situation and needs of each university. In
addition, the similarities and differences among the partner institutions provided opportunities
for the development of a strong partnership exchange and learning community within the
IDEAL consortium for the sharing of effective practices, concerns and outcomes.
Results of CWRU’s earlier ADVANCE IT project guiding the IDEAL program
IDEAL adapted and disseminated the successful academic leadership development and IT
methods developed by CWRU during its earlier five-year ADVANCE IT project, Academic
Careers in Engineering and Science (ACES) during 2003–2008 (https://case.edu/aces/). Led
by the same Principal Investigator and Co-Principal Investigator as in IDEAL, CWRU had
established its five-year ACES program in 2003 to strive toward gender equity through IT
at CWRU. Major accomplishments achieved through ACES included the creation of several
new positions: a vice president of Diversity, Inclusion and Equal Opportunity, an associate
dean for Faculty Development in the Case School of Engineering, two new endowed chairs
for women faculty in S&E with partial funding in place for a third, a manager of Faculty
Diversity and Development, and a new staff position in the Center for Women. ACES
initiatives resulted in the creation of new permanent programs such as an annual Provost’s
Leadership Retreat, a department chair leadership program, academic coaching and
mentoring programs for women faculty in S&E disciplines, distinguished lectureships to
bring prominent women and URM faculty to campus, small grant research funding
364
EDI
38,3

University Type, size and setting
a
Classification
a
Student
enrollment
a
Enrollment
profile
a
STEM units targeted through IDEAL
BGSU Public, large, primarily
residential
Doctoral University:
Higher Research
Activity
18,000 High
undergraduate
Eight departments in the College of Arts and Sciences: Biology,
Chemistry, Geology, Geography, Environmental Health, Mathematics,
Physics and Astronomy and Computer Science
CWRU Private not-for-profit, large,
highly residential, with
medical school
Doctoral University:
Very Highest Research
Activity
9,814 Majority
graduate
All 11 science departments in the College of Arts and Sciences
(Anthropology, Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Geological Sciences,
Mathematics, Physics, Political Science, Psychology, Sociology and
Statistics), all eight departments in the School of Engineering
(Biomedical Eng., Chemical Eng., Civil Eng., Electrical Eng. and
Computer Science, Macromolecular Science and Eng., Materials Science
and Eng. and Mechanical and Aerospace Eng.) and five departments in
the School of Management (Economics, Information Systems, Design
and Innovation, Operations, and Organizational Behavior)
CSU Public, large, primarily
nonresidential
Doctoral University:
Higher Research
Activity
15,500 High
undergraduate
All five departments in the College of Engineering (Chemical and
Biomedical Eng., Civil and Environmental Eng., Electrical and Computer
Eng., Mechanical Eng. and Engineering Technology) and six
departments in the College of Science (Biology, Chemistry, Health
Sciences, Mathematics, Physics and Psychology)
KSU Public, large, primarily
residential
Doctoral University:
Higher Research
Activity
22,800 High
undergraduate
Eight departments in the College of Arts and Sciences (Chemistry/
Chemical Physics, Computer Science, Geography, Geology, Justice
Studies, Mathematical Sciences, Physics, Political Science,) and the
College of Technology
UA Public large, primarily
nonresidential
Doctoral University:
Higher Research
Activity
26,000 High
undergraduate
All five College of Engineering departments (Biomedical Eng., Chemical
and Biomolecular Eng., Electrical Eng., Mechanical Eng. and Civil Eng.)
and five departments of the School of Arts and Science (Chemistry,
Theoretical and Applied Mathematics, Psychology, Geology and
Environmental Science and Biology)
UT Public large, primarily
nonresidential, with medical
school
Doctoral University:
Higher Research
Activity
22,000 High
undergraduate
All six College of Engineering departments (Bio Engineering, Chemical
and Environmental Eng., Civil Eng., Electrical Eng. and Computer
Science, Engineering Technology, and Mechanical, Industrial and
Manufacturing Eng.) and five departments in the College of Arts and
Sciences (Biological Sciences, Chemistry, Environmental Sciences,
Mathematics and Physics and Astronomy)
Note:
a
From the Carnegie Classification of Institutions http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/
Table I.
Description of partner
institutions at the
start of the IDEAL
program (2008–2009)
365
Partnership to
advance
gender equity

opportunities and a summer internship (pipeline) program for minority undergraduate
women S&E students), as well as the creation or revision of university faculty policies
including automatic pre-tenure extension and work release policies.
ACES outcomes included increases in the participation, advancement and leadership of
women as follows. The number of women serving as S&E department chairs increased from
two in 2003–2004 to six in 2008–2009. The number of women S&E faculty holding endowed
chairs increased from 8 in 2003–2004 to 15 in 2007–2008. While overall tenure stream S&E
faculty numbers declined over the five-year period, tenure stream women faculty in S&E
increased from 72 (18 percent) in 2003–04 to 78 (21 percent) in 2007–08. The number of women
faculty at the professor rank in S&E increased from 22 (11 percent) to 27 (14 percent) during
the five-year period. Several publications addressing facets of gender equity and IT emerged
from this project including Bilimoria et al. (2006, 2007, 2008), Jordan and Bilimoria (2007),
Bilimoria and Liang (2012, 2014), Bilimoria and Stewart (2009) and Joy et al.(2015).
The insights and publications emerging from the ACES program served as the theory of
change and effective practice interventions underpinning the IDEAL model.
Theoretical model of gender equity transformation preceding IDEAL
IDEAL adopted a dual (individual and organizational) focus for IT at each partner university:
empowerment of individual faculty and administrative leaders through enhanced mentoring,
coaching, networking, training and development as well as systematic improvement of the
systems, structures, processes and practices related to the recruitment, advancement, retention
andleadershipofwomenandURMfacultyinacademicSTEM.IDEALwasfoundedona
framework of organizational transformation constituting five elements as shown in Figure 1:
factors facilitating transformation (e.g. senior administrative support), transformational
initiatives (including multiple, multi-level, varied and simultaneously implemented change
interventions), measurement (e.g. tracking key indicators of equity, diversity and inclusion),
institutionalization (e.g. creation of new positions, structures and practices) and outcomes
(e.g. improvements in women’s workforce participation, advancement and leadership). This IT
theoretical framework was initially developed from CWRU’s ADVANCE IT project, and was
later expanded based on research conducted with the first 19 NSF ADVANCE IT awardees
Factors Facilitating
Transformation
Internal
▪ Senior administrative
support and involvement
▪ Transformational
champion
▪ Collaborative leadership
▪ Widespread and
synergistic participation
▪ Visibility of actions and
outcomes
External
▪ Legitimacy and support
from an external authority
▪ Network of change
agents in peer institutions
Institutionalization
▪ New positions and structures
▪ New and modified policies
▪ New and improved processes
and practices
▪ New supports/resources
Transformational Initiatives
▪ Initiatives to enhance the career
trajectories of women in
academic STEM
▪ Hiring initiatives
▪ Advancement initiatives
▪ Leadership initiatives
▪ Retention initiatives
▪ Initiatives to improve
Institutional Climate
▪ Micro (department) climate
▪ Macro (university) climate
Research and Evaluation in
Support of Institutional
Transformation
Gender Equity Outcomes
▪ Increased participation of
women and URM faculty at
all ranks and in leadership
▪ More equitable and
inclusive workplace for all
Note: Dashed boxes indicate the contingencies of institutional transformation
Sources: Modified from Bilimoria et al. (2008) and Bilimoria and Liang (2012)
Figure 1.
Framework of
institutional
transformation to
enhance gender equity
in academic STEM
366
EDI
38,3

(Bilimoria et al., 2008; Bilimoria and Liang, 2012). Scaling this model to a larger cross-
institutional scope, IDEAL’s initiatives adopted all of the institutional change elements to
achieve its objectives and enable desired outcomes at each partner university. Specifically,
IDEAL encouraged the selective adaptation and implementation (based on institutional needs)
of an empirically derived multi-level model of effective practices to engender institutional
change (see Figure 2) that emerged from a study of CWRU’s and other ADVANCE universities’
IT programs (Bilimoria and Liang, 2012).
Additionally, a critical new theoretical underpinning of the IDEALproject was the notion of
the learning community (Cox and Richlin, 2004; Holly, 2004; Richlin and Cox, 2004) consisting
of formal and emerging STEM academic leaders (partner university senior administrators and
faculty) who engaged in dialogue, implemented actions and shared successes and challenges in
order to transform academic cultures and enhance gender equity and inclusion in their
institutions. Through the learning community, leadership knowledge was disseminated and
alliances were created to effect institutional change. The establishment of a thriving,
collaborative learning community among leading research universities thus was intended to
drive diversification of STEM academic presence in the region, inform broader efforts to foster
science and technology careers and build capacity for a high tech regional workforce.
IDEAL goal and objectives
The goal of the IDEAL consortium was to seed IT at six leading research universities in the
northern Ohio region by creating a learning community of academic leaders empowered to
develop and leverage knowledge, skills, resources and networks to transform institutional
cultures and enhance faculty diversity, equity and inclusion in STEM disciplines. The creation
of the collaborative learning community encouraged participating institutions to review
assumptions and practices regarding women’s professional roles in STEM, and provided
resources to apply those lessons to transform their institutional cultures. Starting with
rigorous organizational self-examination and the formation of ameliorative strategies based
on evidence, IDEAL created an intercollegiate regional community of learners, researchers
and leaders to share information and ideas on achieving improved gender participation and
equity in academic STEM. The IDEAL learning community facilitated dissemination of ideas
University
Level
School and Department
Level
Individual Level
Senior Administration
Leadership Development
Accountability of Deans
Annual Monitoring of Gender
Equity Indicator Data
Distinguished
Lectureships
Family-friendly Policies
New Structures Supporting
Faculty Diversity
Minority Student
Pipeline
Student Gender
Awareness Training
Departmental Climate
Improvement Initiatives
Search and Recruitment
Training and Supports
Opportunity Grants
for Women Faculty
Institutional Commitment
Promotion and Tenure
Committee Training
Dept. Chairs’
Leadership
Development
Coaching,
Mentoring,
Networking,
Training and
Development of
women faculty a
t
all career stages
Source: Modified from Bilimoria and Liang (2012)
Figure 2.
Effective practices for
gender equity
transformation
emerging from Case
Western Reserve
University’s
ADVANCE
institutional
transformation
program (2003–2008)
367
Partnership to
advance
gender equity

and practices from the NSF ADVANCE institutions, especially from CWRU, but also allowed
further exploration of how to engender effective transformational change at universities.
There were three primary IDEAL objectives:
(1) create a regional learning community of academic leaders in northern Ohio that is
informed about the factors responsible for the underrepresentation of women and
minority groups in academic STEM and is committed to transforming institutional
cultures in these disciplines;
(2) develop a cohort of formal and informal STEM leaders at each partner institution
to implement, adapt and sustain customized change initiatives on individual
campuses; and
(3) assemble the senior academic leadership of partner universities (including provosts,
deans and IDEAL change teams) to disseminate best practices from ADVANCE
institutions, exchange regional institutional research, policies and practices and
evaluate change initiatives.
IDEAL partner university change teams, transformational theme and
change projects
The partner institutions were recruited by CWRU, the lead institution, during the NSF
ADVANCE proposal writing stage. The Provost of each university was contacted and
brought on board with the larger purpose of IDEAL and the need for gender equity
transformation in the STEM disciplines across the region. Each Provost was asked to
appoint a senior administrator or faculty member, designated an IDEAL co-director, to lead
the IDEAL project at that institution.
Each institution’s IDEAL change team consisted of the co-director and three change
leaders who were selected annually by the co-director over the project’s duration. Co-directors
generally were individuals in the Provost’s office or deans/associate deans of science or
engineering schools, or senior and respected faculty members within each institution. Change
leaders generally were department chairs and well-respected established or emerging faculty
of any gender in STEM disciplines. Co-directors annually selected and met with their change
leader team, selected an overall IT theme for their universities, selected the departments and
units which would receive IDEAL inputs on their campus, led the selection of annual change
projects to enact the transformation, coordinated team coaching meetings, implemented and
measured the effectiveness of annual change projects, engaged their university’ssenior
administration to provide resources and supports for successful implementation of the annual
change projects and served on IDEAL’s advisory board.
IT themes identified each university’s specific needs and priorities related to gender equity
in STEM and guided their IDEAL interventions. Change leaderswere charged with developing
and implementing annual change projects that advanced the IT theme (see Table II for a
summary of the IT themes and annual change projects implemented by each partner
university). Some partner universities added a fourth change leader to their annual teams to
further enable their institutional change. IDEAL provided small financial stipends annually to
co-directors and change leaders (approximately a total of $10,000 annually to each institution)
to enable prioritization and implementation of IDEAL activities on their campuses.
IDEAL also provided a team coach to each change team, to help facilitate project planning
and implementation and guide leadership development. The coach, who was assigned to the
same institution for the three year duration of the project, traveled to each partner university’s
campus twice a year for team coaching sessions. The coach advised on each change projects’
plans and implementation. Coaches were drawn from the pool of coaches who worked on
CWRU’s projects as academic executive coaches and other professional coaches.
368
EDI
38,3

IDEAL initiatives
IDEAL initiatives consisted of a leadership development program, plenary conferences and
customized gender equity transformation projects that advanced the IT theme at each
university. Change leader teams from the six partner institutions met four times annually
for collective leadership development sessions (i.e. as a learning community) and twice
annually with their IDEAL coach. The leadership development program was attended by
the change leaders from the six partner institutions and consisted of four half-day group
University
Institutional change
theme Annual change projects
BGSU Build intellectual
community and
collegiality around
diversity and inclusion in
STEM to foster
recruitment and retention
of women students and
faculty
Year 1 –conducted faculty climate survey and focus groups, created
IDEAL website
Year 2 –analyzed survey, implemented unconscious bias talk for
search committees
Year 3 –implemented a STEM department chairs survey, expanded
website and blog, began development of an NSF ADVANCE
Institutional Transformation grant proposal
CWRU Enhancing collegiality
and inclusion in science
and engineering
Year 1 –assessed faculty development needs by rank in College of
Arts and Sciences through a survey and focus groups, created
IDEAL website
Year 2 –implemented pilot projects for launch committees and
mentoring new faculty in School of Engineering and School of
Management
Year 3 –conducted faculty focus groups on university faculty
climate survey results to solicit recommendations for improvements
in School of Medicine
CSU Encouraging science and
engineering women and
URM faculty to actively
participate in institutional
policy-making committees
Year 1 –identified barriers to leadership; collected gender equity
indicators data
Year 2 –explored potential for faculty development and leadership
training, offered two faculty development seminars
Year 3 –submitted a Faculty Development Center proposal to Provost
KSU Enhancing the climate for
scholarly and collegial
community in the College
of Arts and Sciences
Year 1 –conducted College of Arts and Sciences faculty climate
survey, created IDEAL website, developed resources for department
chair leadership development
Year 2 –Conducted focus groups, offered seminars by external
distinguished speakers on gender equity and faculty development
Year 3 –Continued workshops, implemented mentoring program for
pre-tenured faculty, created a proposal for a Presidential Task Force
for Women in STEM Education and Research, submitted an NSF
ADVANCE Institutional Transformation grant proposal
UA Faculty hiring that makes
a difference
Year 1 –developed a profile of UA hiring with institutional research
data and interviews, created video about the importance of diversity
in recruitment at UA
Year 2 –created website of gender equity best practices to augment
HR training
Year 3 –focused on diversifying candidate pools for the Provost’s
new Strategic Hiring Initiative by providing guidelines for the
request for proposals
UT Creating a climate for
successful retention,
tenure and promotion
Year 1 –implemented a faculty climate survey, developed a proposal for
the Program for the Advancement of Women in STEMM (PAWS)
Year 2 –trained peer-advising teams for associate professors
Year 3 –School of Medicine launches PAWS, contributed to creation of
Provost’s new Advisory Committee on Faculty Development, submitted
an NSF ADVANCE Institutional Transformation grant proposal
Table II.
Institutional change
themes and annual
change projects of
IDEAL partner
universities
(2009–2012)
369
Partnership to
advance
gender equity

sessions featuring extensive cross-university interaction. The sessions were conducted
bimonthly in each of the three years of the IDEAL project with the physical meeting location
of the sessions rotating among partner institutions. In addition to making the burden of
travel more equitable for all participants, the travel to the various locations allowed for
additional interaction within the change leader teams and often with their co-director. In the
project’s final year, one leadership development session was conducted virtually –change
leaders from pairs of institutions in contiguous locations (BGSU and UT, CSU and CWRU,
and KSU and UA) met together, and the three locations were connected via tele-presence.
The format of the sessions included instruction, skill training, peer group exchange,
networking and group cohesion. Each session built on previous sessions as well as the needs
of individuals and institutional cohorts. Cyberspace connectivity, distance learning
technologies and sharing of reading materials were used between sessions to continue the
exchange of information, knowledge and discussion of emergent issues. Each half-day
session began with a 1-h working lunch that included structured conversations or
instruction, followed by a three and half-hour working session. The program content
disseminated the effective elements of NSF ADVANCE IT programs through instruction,
experiential activities, group coaching and action learning assignments between sessions.
Topics covered included institutional factors that slow women’s advancement in STEM,
unconscious bias, competencies of leading change, building alliances across campus offices,
developing leadership vision, the variables for success and persistence in academic STEM
and family-friendly policies. The sessions included readings, presentations and evaluations,
which were made available on the IDEAL website (http://case.edu/provost/ideal/).
Second, to reinforce institutional commitment to gender equity change initiatives and to
periodically bring the entire learning community together, IDEAL held three annual plenary
conferences. These conferences were attended by the partner universities’senior academic
leadership including provosts, deans, department chairs and key faculty as well as the
IDEAL change leader teams and IDEAL’s Advisory Board which consisted of senior
scientists and gender equity experts across the ADVANCE community and regional
community. Participants at each plenary conference discussed each institution’s
transformation efforts through presentations and poster sessions. A keynote speaker,
usually a national gender equity expert, started each plenary conference.
Third, change leader teams at each partner institution identified and implemented
annual change projects, and presented their ongoing results to the learning community
during leadership development sessions. Each institution’s change projects were chosen to
directly impact the STEM departments included in their IDEAL participation as well as
directly or indirectly impact the larger university. Following the insights of earlier
ADVANCE program evaluations and studies (e.g. Bilimoria and Liang, 2012), institutions
were encouraged to simultaneously implement multiple, multi-level and varied change
initiatives over the transformation period (e.g. concurrent implementation of initiatives such
as mentoring initiatives targeted at the individual change level, department chair leadership
development programs targeted at the unit change level and institutional policy
modifications targeted at the system change level). Change initiatives implemented by
IDEAL partner universities included faculty climate surveys, focus group and interview
studies, analysis of search and recruitment data, search committee training and bias
awareness programs, mentoring programs, university policy changes and campus-wide
faculty development initiatives. Table II summarizes the annual change projects of each
partner university in the IDEAL consortium over the three years.
IDEAL outcomes
The IDEAL program engaged in both formative (internal) and summative (external)
evaluation efforts. In addition, a number of institutionalization outcomes occurred in
370
EDI
38,3

which programs were put into place permanently for the future, as well as new
collaborative projects across the institutions were developed. The results of the formative
evaluation, summative evaluation and institutionalization and collaboration outcomes are
described below.
Formative evaluation results
All partner institutions engaged in formative evaluation efforts (participation counts and
immediate satisfaction/reported learning) to determine the effectiveness of interventions
and provide guidance for future efforts, although documentation was not even across
institutions. Variance across institutions occurred mostly where there was instability in the
co-director role.
In addition, each of IDEAL’s leadership development sessions was evaluated over the
three-year period to assess effectiveness as well as provide suggestions and areas for
improvement. In general, as presented in Tables III and IV, the leadership development
sessions received high evaluations, with ratings of most dimensions situated between 3 and
4 on a four-point scale (where 1 ¼poor and 4 ¼excellent). In particular, attendees reported
that the meetings helped them feel part of a regional learning community of academic
leaders. Improvements were made by rotating the location of the sessions among partner
institutions, bringing together co-located institutions so as to minimize travel time for some
sessions and conducting one session by video conference.
Team coaches, a component of the leadership development program, were scheduled to
meet with change teams twice per year between leadership development sessions 1 and 2
and again between sessions 3 and 4, but the frequency and actualization of the role varied
across the six campuses. For example, on some campuses, coaches were faculty members, at
others they were external consultants; in some cases, coaches facilitated key programs
(retreats and seminars), while in one case, the coach worked with change team members on
their own personal and professional development (i.e. personal coaching). While feedback
about coaches was generally positive, change leaders at three institutions did not perceive
the coach as playing a highly valuable role in advancing their IDEAL project’s outcomes.
Reasons provided for this included: the initial meeting occurred too late for the coach to
establish a strong connection with the team, the relationship felt more like reporting to
someone, rather than coaching, clarity about the coach’s role vis-à-vis the group was unclear
and/or the coach departed mid-year to take a position out of state and finding a new coach
was not timely. Not surprisingly, coaches perceived to be most successful had a greater
frequency and depth of interaction with their change team leaders. Generally, coaches also
indicated that it would be helpful to structure more coaching interactions into future change
team initiatives.
IDEAL’s plenary conferences were well-attended and highly evaluated, with high post-
event ratings (an overall average of 3.6 out of 4.0) from change team leaders and senior
university administrators who attended. The plenaries were valued for information sharing
and building connections across universities, considered by many to be one of the most
valuable components of IDEAL, for promoting visibility of the program and for effective
sharing of best practices. Topics for future plenary conferences provided as suggestions in
the evaluations were implemented.
Summative evaluation results
Summative evaluation was conducted by IDEAL’s external evaluator, who interviewed
leadership program participants and senior university leaders from each of the partner
universities to assess the impact of the overall program in each institution. The evaluation
addressed the overall institutional change that occurred through the implementation of
simultaneous change initiatives in the IDEAL units in each university over the three-year
371
Partnership to
advance
gender equity

Session 1
2009–2010
Session 2
2009–2010
Session 3
2009–2010
Session 1
2010–2011
Session 2
2010–2011
Session 3
2010–2011
Session 4
2010–2011
Session 1
2011–2012
Session 2
2011–2012
Session 3
2011–2012
Session 4
2011–2012
Overall rating 3.84 3.58 3.41 3.82 3.63 3.92 3.87 3.79 3.85 3.50 3.40
Provided helpful
information 3.90 3.46 3.41 3.82 3.45 3.18 3.82 3.93 3.90 3.50 3.55
Provided useful
strategies 3.75 3.23 3.29 3.74 3.63 3.16 3.63 3.71 3.70 3.33 3.30
Provided useful
opportunities to
network 3.30 3.33 3.23 3.77 3.77 3.77 3.92 3.64 3.60 3.83 3.65
Provided useful group
discussion 3.76 3.61 3.47 3.73 3.87 3.73 3.87 3.79 3.70 3.50 3.05
Note: Scale is 1–4, where 1 ¼poor and 4 ¼excellent
Table III.
Evaluations of IDEAL
leadership
development sessions
372
EDI
38,3

transformation period, particularly with regard to assessment of changes in the participation
of women in faculty ranks and leadership positions in the targeted departments.
To assess changes in faculty and leadership composition, comparisons were made
between the pre-IDEAL period (from 2008 to 2009 levels) and levels reported for the last year
of the IDEAL program (2011–2012). These comparisons are not meant to suggest causal
claims about the effects of IDEAL; however, it is possible to note trends concurrent with the
NSF grant’s duration and to highlight distinctions made between “intervention
constituencies”(i.e. primarily women faculty, but also URM faculty, to some extent) and
“non-intervention constituencies”(i.e. men faculty).
Comparing pre-IDEAL faculty levels (2008–2009) with the levels during the final year
of IDEAL (2011–2012), the numbers of female and URM tenure track faculty across the
IDEAL universities grew slightly, while comparable numbers of male and non-URM
faculty declined (see Figure 3). Figure 4 shows the breakdown of faculty in IDEAL units
by pre-tenured and tenured status. While there were declines in the overall number of
female and male pre-tenured faculty and male tenured faculty across the IDEAL
universities, there were increases in the overall number of female tenured faculty. It is
important to note that the 2007–2008 financial crisis and recession began at the same time
as the IDEAL program. As a result, each state university in Ohio had hiring freezes or a
general reduction in hiring between 2008 and 2011 which may have constrained potential
gains in the tenure track ranks. Despite this, IDEAL’s results show overall gains across
2009–2010 2010–2011 2011–2012
Informed you about the factors responsible for the underrepresentation
of women and minority groups in academic STEM 3.22 3.80 3.90
Increased your understanding of institutional cultures in
STEM disciplines 3.44 3.73 3.70
Increased your visibility and influence in your university 2.61 2.87 3.00
Increased your view of yourself as an academic leader 2.88 3.33 3.05
Increased your commitment to implement and sustain gender equity
change at your university 3.38 3.80 3.70
Helped you build stronger relationships and support systems within
your university 2.61 3.27 3.30
Helped you feel part of a regional learning community of academic
leaders in northern Ohio 3.61 3.67 3.35
Note: Scale is 1–4, where 1 ¼poor and 4 ¼excellent
Table IV.
End of year holistic
evaluations of IDEAL
leadership
development sessions
211
898
49
1,060
225.5
829.5
51.5
1,003.5
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Female Male URM Non-URM
2008 – 2009 2011 – 2012
Figure 3.
Number of tenure
track faculty
(pre-tenured and
tenured) in IDEAL
units by gender and
underrepresented
minority (URM) status
across partner
institutions
373
Partnership to
advance
gender equity

the consortium in the number and proportionofwomenfacultyinthetenuredranks,and
overall modest gains across the consortium in the number and proportion of URM faculty
in the pre-tenured and tenured ranks.
By institution, almost all of the public universities demonstrated decreases in the number
of female pre-tenured STEM faculty over the IDEAL program period, while one showed a
marginal gain in the number. The only private university, CWRU, showed modest gains in
this category (see Table V ). The reasons for these variations were not probed by the
evaluator and are complicated to speculate about, but it is evident that the constrained
budgetary environment and hiring freezes in Ohio’s public universities during the IDEAL
81
178 130
720
72.5
154 153
675.5
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Female Male Female Male
Pre-tenure Faculty Tenured Faculty
2008 – 2009 2011 – 2012
Figure 4.
Number of pre-
tenured and tenured
faculty in IDEAL
units by gender
across partner
institutions
Female % (No.) Male % (No.) URM % (No.) Non-URM % (No.)
BGSU
2008–2009 50.0% (8) 50.0% (8) 12.5% (2) 87.5% (14)
2011–2012 25.0% (4) 75.0% (12) 6.3% (1) 93.8% (15)
CWRU
2008–2009 35.0% (21) 65.0% (39) 5.0% (3) 95.0% (57)
2011–2012 44.3% (27) 55.7% (34) 9.8% (6) 90.2% (55)
CSU
2008–2009 39.5% (15) 60.5% (23) 2.6% (1) 97.4% (37)
2011–2012 46.9% (11.5) 53.1% (13) 4.1% (1) 95.9% (23.5)
KSU
2008–2009 32.1% (17) 67.9% (36) 5.7% (3) 94.3% (50)
2011–2012 44.1% (15) 55.9% (19) 5.9% (2) 94.1% (32)
UA
2008–2009 27.6% (8) 72.4% (21) 6.9% (2) 93.1% (27)
2011–2012 22.0% (9) 78.0% (32) 4.9% (2) 95.1% (39)
UT
2008–2009 19.0% (12) 81.0% (51) 4.8% (3) 95.2% (60)
2011–2012 12.0% (6) 88.0% (44) 6.0% (3) 94.0% (47)
Overall
2008–2009 31.3% (81) 68.7% (178) 5.4% (14) 94.6% (245)
2011–2012 32.0% (72.5) 68.0% (154) 6.6% (15) 93.4% (211.5)
Note: URM ¼underrepresented minority
Table V.
Comparison of
pre-tenured faculty
composition, pre-
IDEAL (2008–2009)
and at last year of
IDEAL (2011–2012)
374
EDI
38,3

program period (2009–2012) may have contributed to these findings. Despite the decline in
numbers of women pre-tenured faculty, the overall proportion of female pre-tenured faculty
showed a slight improvement (from 31.3 to 32.0 percent) over the whole IDEAL consortium,
likely because of the decline in numbers of all pre-tenured faculties. It is likely that the
proportions of women pre-tenured faculty differed across institutions because of variation
in the size of the pre-tenured faculty at each campus. However, as Table VI shows, the
proportions (and numbers) of female tenured faculty rose in all (and all except one)
university, suggesting that these universities primarily focused on the advancement and
retention (rather than recruitment) of their female STEM faculty workforce during the
financially challenging years. In summary, Tables V and VI illustrate that growth was seen
for women and URM STEM faculty, but at different career points. For women, stronger
gains were made in the tenured ranks, while for URM faculty, slightly higher growth was
found in the pre-tenured rank.
Additionally, there were positive increases in the number of female full professors,
endowed chairs, department chairs and associate deans in IDEAL units across the six
institutions (see Figure 5 and Table VII). All of these positions also showed small increases
in female faculty’s representation, ranging from a 1.0 percent (full professors) to 7.9 percent
(associate deans) difference in percentage composition, comparing 2008–2009 and
2011–2012 proportions by position. This change indicated that advancement and
leadership of women faculty in STEM disciplines was forwarded through IDEAL’s efforts.
For URM faculty leadership, there was a more complex picture, with gains seen at the level
of full professor but limited movement and modest gains or declines in other categories.
Following the metrics established in the external (summative) evaluation, primary
IDEAL goals were achieved for five of six universities ( for the sixth institution, key
Female % (No.) Male % (No.) URM % (No.) Non-URM % (No.)
BGSU
2008–2009 14.1% (12) 85.9% (73) 7.1% (6) 92.9% (79)
2011–2012 21.1% (16) 78.9% (60) 7.9% (6) 92.1% (70)
CWRU
2008–2009 14.6% (31) 85.4% (181) 2.4% (5) 97.6% (207)
2011–2012 17.3% (38) 82.7% (182) 2.0% (5) 98.0% (215)
CSU
2008–2009 17.1% (21) 82.9% (102) 8.1% (10) 91.9% (113)
2011–2012 22.5% (30) 77.5% (103.5) 7.1% (9.5) 92.9% (124)
KSU
2008–2009 18.0% (31) 82.0% (141) 4.7% (8) 95.3% (164)
2011–2012 18.6% (27) 81.4% (118) 3.4% (5) 96.6% (140)
UA
2008–2009 15.3% (20) 84.7% (111) 1.5% (2) 98.5% (129)
2011–2012 18.2% (22) 81.8% (99) 5.0% (6) 95.0% (115)
UT
2008–2009 11.8% (15) 88.2% (112) 3.1% (4) 96.9% (123)
2011–2012 15.0% (20) 85.0% (113) 3.8% (5) 96.2% (128)
Overall
2008–2009 15.3% (130) 84.7% (720) 4.1% (35) 95.9% (815)
2011–2012 18.5% (153) 81.5% (675.5) 4.4% (36.5) 95.6% (792)
Note: URM, underrepresented minority
Table VI.
Comparison of
tenured faculty
composition,
pre-IDEAL
(2008–2009) and at
last year of IDEAL
(2011–2012)
375
Partnership to
advance
gender equity

evaluation data were not reported, making goal achievement for this institution difficult to
ascertain). Key outcomes included changes in faculty hiring processes or outcomes
(BGSU, UA), modified composition of college-level service committees (CSU), more
positive climate indicators (KSU) and evidence of effective mentoring programs (CWRU).
Campuses that utilized direct measures of outcomes (e.g. changes in search plans,
composition of new hires or campus committees or climate survey indicators) as key
metrics presented a powerful picture of institutional changes made on campus during the
grant’s tenure.
According to change leader focus group discussions conducted during the external
evaluator’s final campus visits in 2012, the evaluator concluded that IDEAL was effective at
creating “a regional learning community of academic leaders in northern Ohio that is
informed about the factors responsible for the underrepresentation of women and minority
groups in academic science and engineering and committed to transforming institutional
cultures in science and engineering disciplines,”as well as “an intra-institutional community
of change agents at each campus.”Additionally, most change team leaders described a
multitude of other powerful impacts on their personal and professional development, which
they put into practice in their roles as faculty, search committee members and chairs.
Interestingly, 25 out of 62 of the IDEAL participants (co-directors and change leaders) were
promoted or appointed to roles of leadership within or beyond their institutions during or
after their participation in IDEAL.
Institutionalization outcomes and collaborative projects emerging from IDEAL
Although the specific nature of transformation efforts varied by campus, there were
indicators of durable outcomes from all partner universities’IDEAL projects. These
included institutionalization of climate surveys (BGSU, CWRU, KSU, UA and UT), faculty
development positions or offices (CSU and CWRU), mentoring programs (CWRU), search
committee workshops (UA) and participation in university-wide initiatives such as hiring
initiatives (KSU and UA). Evidence of the additional impact of IDEAL was found in that the
partner universities leveraged the transformational activities started by their IDEAL
projects by applying for NSF ADVANCE IT grants (KSU, UT) and planning for NSF
ADVANCE PAID or catalyst grants (BGSU, KSU, UA, UT).
Finally, a number of collaborative projects among the IDEAL universities emerged
from the IDEAL project. To Tenure and Beyond –a career development workshop series
for pre-tenure women in STEM from the IDEAL universities –was piloted in 2011 and
repeated in Fall 2012 for women STEM pre-tenured faculty across all IDEAL universities,
and institutionalized subsequently at CWRU for all second-year tenure track faculty,
female and male, across the university. What’s Next?, a career and professional leadership
12
9
0
2
16 16
12
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Endowed Chair Department Chair Endowed Chair Department Chair
Female URM
2008 – 2009 2011 – 2012
Figure 5.
Number of faculty
leadership positions in
IDEAL units by
gender and
underrepresented
minority (URM) status
across partner
institutions
376
EDI
38,3

development program for mid-career women faculty, was established at CWRU for tenure
track and non-tenure track women faculty. A dual career network, Higher Education
Recruitment Consortium was established across the IDEAL consortium in 2014. CWRU,
acting as the lead institution in the consortium, developed two NSF grant proposals which
were successfully funded and have kept together the IDEAL university partnership
model –the Northern Ohio Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate grant
over 2015–2019 for the advancement of URM doctoral students in STEM which includes
the six IDEAL partner universities plus Youngstown State University and Central State
University, and IDEAL-National (IDEAL-N) –a Partnerships for Learning and Adaptation
Networks–Institutions of Higher Education grant over 2015–19 which extends IDEAL’s
reach to include the northern Ohio universities plus four additional research universities
in Pennsylvania (Carnegie Mellon University, Duquesne University, Indiana University of
Pennsylvania and University of Pittsburgh).
Female URM
2008–2009 2011–2012 2008–2009 2011–2012
Full professors
BGSU 11.6% (5) 14.7% (5) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)
CWRU 13.5% (21) 13.8% (22) 1.3% (2) 1.9% (3)
CSU 11.1% (6) 15.0% (10) 5.6% (3) 4.5% (3)
KSU 9.9% (7) 9.6% (7) 2.8% (2) 2.7% (2)
UA 14.9% (7) 10.4% (7) 2.1% (1) 6.0% (4)
UT 7.0% (4) –1.8% (1) –
Overall 11.7% (50) 12.7% (51)
a
2.4% (9) 3.0% (12)
a
Endowed chairs
BGSU 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)
CWRU 19.0% (12) 19.1% (13) 0.0% (0) 1.5% (1)
CSU 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)
KSU 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)
UA 0.0% (0) 42.9% (3) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)
UT 0.0% (0) –0.0% (0) –
Overall 17.1% (12) 20.8% (16)
a
0.0% (0) 1.3% (1)
a
Department chairs
BGSU 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)
CWRU 26.1% (6) 21.7% (5) 4.3% (1) 0.0% (0)
CSU 0.0% (0) 9.1% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)
KSU 12.5% (1) 14.3% (1) 12.5%(1) 0.0% (0)
UA 0.0% (0) 9.1% (1) 0.0% (0) 9.1% (1)
UT 9.1% (1) 19.4% (7)
b
0.0% (0) 2.8% (1)
b
Overall 12.7% (9) 16.7% (16) 2.8% (2) 2.1% (2)
Associate deans
BGSU 33.3% (1) 25.0% (1) 33.3% (1) 25.0% (1)
CWRU 50.0% (3) 55.6% (5) 16.7% (1) 11.1% (1)
CSU 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)
KSU 20.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 40.0% (2) 25.0% (1)
UA 33.3% (1) 12.5% (1) 33.3% (1) 0.0% (0)
UT 16.7% (1) 47.1% (8)
b
0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)
b
Overall 26.9% (7) 34.8% (16) 19.2% (5) 6.5% (3)
Notes: URM, underrepresented minority.
a
Data were not reported for University of Toledo’s leadership
composition in 2011–2012. For full professors and endowed chairs, overall change is computed using data
from the other five IDEAL universities;
b
estimates for University of Toledo department chairs were made
through information available on university webpages
Table VII.
Comparison of
leadership composition,
pre-IDEAL (2008–2009)
and at last year of
IDEAL (2011–2012)
377
Partnership to
advance
gender equity

IDEAL integrative model
IDEAL’s components and outcomes are described in an integrative model presented in
Figure 6. In the following paragraphs, we highlight the key elements of the model.
Nested levels and dynamic interactions between levels
The IDEAL program brought six individual higher education institutions into a consortium
embedded within the larger NSF ADVANCE community. At the individual level, each
institution is depicted by the innermost circle in Figure 6. The IDEAL consortium is
depicted in the middle circle, representing the level of the alliance of institutions. The
outermost circle depicts the level of the scientific community, specifically the NSF
ADVANCE community. Both components and outcomes are described in terms of these
three nested levels. Importantly, the block arrow between the three levels for both
components and outcomes depicts the interactive, emergent and dynamic nature of the
levels. In other words, the components (outcomes) at each level are shaped by and in turn
shape the components (outcomes) at other levels.
Key components
Various components comprise each level. The key components at the individual higher
education institution level are drawn from Bilimoria and Liang (2012), summarized in
Figure 1: factors facilitating gender equity IT (including external and internal factors),
transformational initiatives (including pipeline and culture change initiatives),
institutionalization and research and evaluation in support of the transformation. At the
alliance level of the IDEAL consortium, key components include the learning community for
leadership development, institutional change teams, transformational theme and annual
change projects, cross-institutional exchanges, plenary conferences, team coaches and
research and evaluation. At the NSF ADVANCE community level, key components include
the institutional network, external resources and legitimacy from NSF, knowledge creation
and dissemination, sharing effective practices and research and evaluation.
NSF ADVANCE
Community
IDEAL Consortium
Higher
Education
Institution
Key Components
Outcomes
Individual Institution Level
Alliance Level
Scientific Community Level
Gender Diversity,
Equity, Inclusion
and Leadership
Outcomes
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
n
g
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
T
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
a
n
d
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
N
e
t
w
o
r
k
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
n
d
L
e
g
i
t
i
m
a
c
y
L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
h
a
n
g
e
T
e
a
m
s
,
T
h
e
m
e
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
C
r
o
s
s
-
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
E
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
a
n
d
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
e
n
a
r
y
C
o
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
T
e
a
m
C
o
a
c
h
e
s
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
n
d
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
E
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
W
o
r
k
f
o
r
c
e
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
B
r
o
a
d
e
n
e
d
P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
a
n
d
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
Figure 6.
IDEAL integrative
model
378
EDI
38,3

Outcomes
Outcomes also occur at each of the three levels. At the individual level, outcomes
engendered through IDEAL efforts include enhanced gender diversity, equity, inclusion and
leadership at all faculty ranks within each individual institution of higher education. At the
alliance level, IDEAL outcomes included new institutional collaborations and leadership
development and career advancement of IDEAL change leaders. At the broadest level, the
IDEAL program furthered desired NSF ADVANCE outcomes including broadened
participation, innovation and increased competitiveness of the STEM workforce.
Overall, the IDEAL model illustrates a multi-level and multi-dimensional approach to
gender equity IT. It is through the dynamic interaction between and within levels that
sustainable institutional change may be developed and sustained.
Limitations and future research directions
Our study data and methods had certain limitations. The small and specific nature of the
sample (six research universities in northern Ohio) prevented our conducting more
extensive statistical analyses, and it was difficult, if not impossible, to analyze meaningful
segmentations of the sample by university size and type. Consortia involving somewhat
larger samples, such as the IDEAL-N program (involving ten universities across two
geographic regions) that emerged from IDEAL, could be helpful in extending the findings of
the current study. Second, since the IDEAL program required selective implementation of
the annual change projects (as relevant for the needs and priorities of each university
partner), it was difficult to compare these across universities or to systematically assess the
factors facilitating or challenging their selection and implementation. Third, since the
IDEAL program emphasized the simultaneous implementation of multiple and multi-level
change projects at each institution, it was impossible to tease out the independent effects of
each change project or to assess their relative effectiveness in bringing about gender equity
change in each university. We encourage future research to design studies that assess the
effectiveness of specific interventions. Fourth, the institutional research and data collection
apparatus at each partner university varied greatly at the start of and during the IDEAL
program, making systematic data collection challenging and the strengthening of the
institutional research capacity of each partner university an unintended outcome of the
program. Finally, it was infeasible to compare the results of the gender equity
transformation of the IDEAL universities with a control group of similar institutions; doing
this would have further strengthened the conclusions and implications of the IDEAL
partnership model of gender equity related IT.
Conclusion
The 2009–2012 IDEAL program successfully brought together six research universities to
address issues of gender equity, diversity and inclusion relevant to increasing the workforce
participation of women and URM faculty in academic STEM. Despite variation in the partner
universities’type, enrollment size and instructional emphasis, evaluation results indicate the
positive value derived from the IDEAL program’s three components: the leadership
development program, the annual institutional change projects and the Plenary Conferences
facilitating further cooperation and collaboration among the regional institutions.
Some of the enduring lessons learned from the IDEAL program include that creating
communities of learning among institutions of higher education is a powerful method of
dissemination and innovation, leadership empowerment and development catalyzes
academic leaders to see themselves as change leaders equipped to engender institutional
change, successful institutional change to promote gender equity, diversity and inclusion
requires the implementation of a portfolio of simultaneous, varied and multi-level
initiatives and planning for the institutionalization of initiatives by universities is
379
Partnership to
advance
gender equity

essential and should be encouraged early in the intervention period. These lessons have
helped in the design and implementation of the new collaborations mentioned above that
have emerged involving the partner universities subsequent to the completion of the
IDEAL program.
IDEAL’s three-year multi-university partnership program has enhanced the depth and
effectiveness of STEM faculty leadership on each of the partner university campuses, and
established a collaborative institutional community of academic leaders to serve as a
community resource –a powerful force of cultural transformation and an incubator of
innovation (Holly, 2004; see also Cox and Richlin, 2004). The creation of this institutional
learning community continues to benefit not only the practices and policies of individual
universities, but additionally informs broader efforts to strengthen the STEM workforce
and foster STEM careers. The outcomes of the IDEAL project began the gender equity
transformation at the partner universities, which are being continued by subsequent
collaborative projects and exchanges across the partner universities. In conclusion, the
IDEAL program demonstrates that systemic change to achieve equity for women and URM
groups in STEM disciplines must be rooted on individual campuses but must also
propagate among higher education systems and the broader scientific community. The
effort to develop, sustain and expand the IDEAL partnership model of IT in higher
education illuminates how innovative, context-sensitive, cost-effective and customized
institutional strategies may be implemented to advance gender equity, diversity, inclusion
and leadership of women faculty at all levels across the country.
References
Bilimoria, D. and Liang, X. (2012), Gender Equity in Science and Engineering: Advancing Change in
Higher Education, Routledge, New York, NY.
Bilimoria, D. and Liang, X.F. (2014), “Effective practices to increase women’s participation,
advancement and leadership in US academic STEM”, in Bilimoria, D. and Lord, L. (Eds), Women
in STEM Careers: International Perspectives on Increasing Workforce Participation,
Advancement and Leadership, Edward Elgar, London, pp. 146-165.
Bilimoria, D. and Stewart, A.J. (2009), “Don’t ask, don’t tell’: the academic climate for lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender faculty in science and engineering”,National Women’s Studies
Association Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 85-103.
Bilimoria, D., Joy, S. and Liang, X. (2008), “Breaking barriers and creating inclusiveness: lessons of
organizational transformation to advance women faculty in academic science and engineering”,
Human Resources Management, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 423-441.
Bilimoria, D., Hopkins, M.M., O’Neil, D.A. and Perry, S. (2007), “Executive coaching: an effective
strategy for faculty development”, in Stewart, A.J., Malley, J. and LaVaque-Manty, D. (Eds),
Transforming Science and Engineering: Advancing Academic Women, University of Michigan
Press, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 187-203.
Bilimoria, D., Perry, S., Liang, X.F., Higgins, P., Stoller, E. and Taylor, C. (2006), “How do female and
male faculty members construct job satisfaction? The roles of perceived institutional leadership
and mentoring and their mediating processes”,Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 355-365.
Burke, R. and Mattis, M. (2007), Women and Minorities in Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics: Upping the Numbers, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA.
Cox, M. and Richlin, L. (2004), “Special issue: building faculty learning communities”,New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, Vol. 97, pp. 1-157.
Ely, R. and Thomas, D. (2001), “Cultural diversity at work: the effects of diversity perspectives
on work group processes and outcomes”,Administrative Science Quarterly,Vol.46No.2,
pp. 229-273.
380
EDI
38,3

Etkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., Neuchatz, M. and Uzi, J. (1994), “The paradox of critical mass for women in
science”,Science, New Series, Vol. 266 No. 5182, pp. 51-54.
Hogue, M. and Lord, R.G. (2007), “A multi-level, complexity theory approach to understanding gender
bias in leadership”,The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 370-390.
Holly, M.L. (2004), “Learning in community: small group leadership for educational change”,Educar,
Vol. 34, pp. 113-130.
Jordan, C.G. and Bilimoria, D. (2007), “Creating a productive and inclusive academic work
environment”, in Stewart, A.J., Malley, J. and LaVaque-Manty, D. (Eds), Transforming Science
and Engineering: Advancing Academic Women, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI,
pp. 225-242.
Joy, S., Liang, X.F., Bilimoria, D. and Perry, S. (2015), “Doctoral advisor-advisee pairing in STEM fields:
selection criteria and impact of faculty, student and department factors”,International Journal of
Doctoral Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 343-363.
McCracken, D. (2000), “Winning the talent war for women: sometimes it takes a revolution”,Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 78 No. 6, pp. 159-167.
Meyerson, D. and Fletcher, J. (2000), “A modest manifesto for shattering the glass ceiling”,Harvard
Business Review, January–February, pp. 127–136.
Richlin, L. and Cox, M. (2004), “Developing scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching and
learning through faculty learning communities”,New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
Vol. 97, Spring, pp. 127-135.
Rosser, S.V. (2004), The Science Glass Ceiling: Academic Women Scientists and the Struggle to Succeed,
Routledge, New York, NY.
Stewart, A.J., Malley, J.E. and LaVaque-Manty, D. (Eds) (2007), Transforming Science and Engineering;
Advancing Academic Women, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
The National Academies (2007a), Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing
America for a Better Economic Future, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
The National Academies (2007b), Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in
Academic Science and Engineering, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Further reading
Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering (2006),
Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and
Engineering, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Corresponding author
Diana Bilimoria can be contacted at: diana.bilimoria@case.edu
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
381
Partnership to
advance
gender equity