SEER Process
The SEER Framework is implemented through the SEER Process, which blends individual and organizational change activities. The process derives from literature on organizational theory (2,13,18,24), systems theory (20,25), network connectivity (3,11,12), and community and adult transformative learning (6,8,15,22), while purposefully and synergistically weaving in dialogic and diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice principles such as design justice (5), the theory of being (27), asset-based framing (19), appreciative inquiry (4), multi-contextualism (23,28), and cultural wealth (29).
The SEER Process
Phase
See
Goals
Change teams better see and are more aware of their own identities and perceive their sphere of influence accurately.
Change teams see the organizational and diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ) dynamics surrounding their change problem and change goals.
Change teams see the need and power of constituent dialogue in advancing change goals.
Steps
Exploratory sessions with topics such as:
Team-building exercises
Force field analysis (present, desired future, barriers, & drivers)
Institutional constituent identification and dialogue preparation
Mental models exploration
Organizational structures and cultures
People and power
Engage in organizational constituent dialogue (collect information, inform change strategies, identify barriers and supports, etc.)
Enact
Rooted in the activities for the seeing stage, change teams develop and implement shorter-term strategic / action plans that pay close attention to organizational and DEIJ dynamics towards the advancement of their longer-term change goal(s).
Change teams engage in productive dialogue with organizational constituents in pursuit of desired change goals.
Select specific target and scope of strategic plan
Identify initial desired outcomes and change activities
Identify levers of change for specific situation
Develop a theory of change
Develop a strategic plan
Engage in organizational constituent dialogue
Implement strategic plan activities
Evaluate
Change teams collect strategic data in a sustainable and equitable way to measure and understand the impact of their strategic actions.
Examine the relationship between proposed change activities and desired short-long-term outcomes
Develop a robust evaluation plan considering possible unintended behaviors and/or results
Collect and analyze evaluation data
Engage in organizational constituent dialogue
Revisit
Change teams deepen their organizational change capacity through revisiting the See, Enact, and Evaluate steps iteratively over time.
Review progress, debrief data collected, and discuss initial insights
Revisit phase 1 (SEEing sessions)
Revisit phases 2-3 and make changes to the Theory of Change, strategic plan, and evaluation plan (as needed)
Explore the potential for subsequent SEER Process iteration(s)
Engage in organizational constituent dialogue (share results, discuss the future)
Plan next year’s SEER Process implementation activities
The SEER process consists of four phases, which can be shortened or extended based upon the context of the change project. The See phase helps change teams create team unity, explore system and DEI dynamics, and learn to have productive and equitable dialogue with constituents connected to the problem(s) they wish to address. Change teams might engage in four types of constituent dialogue: (1) change team member one-on-one meetings, (2) change team facilitated meetings, (3) consultant facilitated meetings with constituent groups, and (4) consultant one-on-one meetings (without change team members present). The Enact phase systematically leads change projects through the development of a theory of change and strategic plan that is rooted in design justice principles and diverse constituent voices. The Evaluate phase begins with an examination of the relationship between proposed change activities and short to long-term outcomes to select an evaluation strategy that takes into account DEI principles and that effectively demonstrates progress. In addition, this phase involves the implementation of the time-realistic strategic plan (i.e., within the planning period) and the collection and analysis of evaluation data, with the option of the SEER consultants performing data collection and analysis functions. Lastly, the Revisit phase consists of leading change teams through a systematic review of progress (or lack thereof) that was made as a result of change activities, helping teams revisit prior phases to more fully “see” dynamics at work, and assisting in team planning for the next iterative cycle of SEER.
Inclusive Professional Framework (IPF) Connection
The SEER Process is informed by the Inclusive Professional Framework (IPF) developed by the National Change Initiative of the NSF Eddie Bernice Johnson INCLUDES Aspire Alliance (7), which has also been applied to STEM professional and disciplinary societies (16). The IPF centers the journey of building an equity mindset through the examination of identity and intercultural awareness and humility, and emphasizes cultivating trust and clear and transparent communication for the relational domains across campus roles and responsibilities. Through this individual effort, the IPF lens builds relational agency for organization change and expands change agents’ understanding of their sphere of influence. In addition, the SEER Process builds on the prior success of the Aspire Summer Institute (ASI) (1), an extensive week-long professional development program that helped teams of faculty and institutional leaders/staff to advance their own DEI mindsets and skills while also developing team-based action plans to implement DEI change activities on their campuses. The SEER process expands beyond the ASI by addressing the need for more sustained change guidance, greater depth of “sight” into the dynamics facing organizational DEI challenges, and further refinement and practice of dialogic principles. Thus, the SEER Process is meant to build upon prior success while improving the change capacity of STEM education constituents.
References
Beverly, S. P., Hill, L. B., & Gillian-Daniel, D. (2023). Advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion: Operationalizing the inclusive professional framework to develop STEM faculty. Paper session at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association (Chicago).
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. John Wiley & Sons.
Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American journal of sociology, 110(2), 349-399.
Coghlan, A. T., Preskill, H., & Tzavaras Catsambas, T. (2003). An overview of appreciative inquiry in evaluation. New directions for evaluation, 2003(100), 5-22.
Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. The MIT Press.
Cranton, P. (2016). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide to theory and practice. Stylus Publishing.
Dukes, A. A., Gillian-Daniel, D. L., Greenler, R. McC., Parent, R. A., Bridgen, S., Esters, L. T., El-Sayed, J. & Hill, L.B. (2023) The Aspire Alliance inclusive professional framework for faculty—Implementing inclusive and holistic professional development that transcends multiple faculty roles. In S. Linder, C. Lee, & K. High (Eds.), The handbook of STEM faculty development: American Society for Engineering Education.
Foster-Fishman, P. G., Nowell, B., & Yang, H. (2007). Putting the system back into systems change: A framework for understanding and changing organizational and community systems. American journal of community psychology, 39, 197-215.
Gillian-Daniel, D. L., Greenler, R. McC. Bridgen, S. T., Dukes, A. A., & Hill, L. B. (2021). Inclusion in the classroom, lab and beyond: Transferable skills via an Inclusive Professional Framework for Faculty. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. 53(5), 48-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2021.1963158
Gillian-Daniel, D. L., Troxel, W. G., & Bridgen, S. (2021). Promoting an equity mindset through the inclusive professional framework for faculty. The Department Chair, 32(2).
Halpern, D. (2005). Social capital. Polity.
Kadushin, C. (2012). Understanding social networks: Theories, concepts, and findings. Oxford University Press.
Kezar, A. (2018). How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change. Routledge.
Knezz, S., Gillian-Daniel, D. L., Calderón, C. I., Dukes, A., Greenler, R., & Macias, L. (2022). Improving gender diversity in STEM through an inclusive professional framework. In CohenMiller, A., Hinton-Smith, T., Mazanderani, F.H., & Samuel, N. (eds), Leading change in gender and diversity in higher education from margins to mainstream. New York: Routledge.
Knowles, M. S., Holton III, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2014). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. Routledge.
Leibnitz, G. M., Gillian-Daniel, D. L., Greenler, R. M. C. C., Campbell-Montalvo, R., Metcalf, H., Segarra, V. A., ... & Sims, E. L. (2022). The inclusive professional framework for societies: Changing mental models to promote diverse, equitable, and inclusive STEM systems change. Frontiers in Sociology, 6, 784399.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper & Row.
Manning, K. (2017). Organizational theory in higher education. Routledge.
Mathie, A., & Cunningham, G. (2005). Who is driving development? Reflections on the transformative potential of asset-based community development. Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d'études du développement, 26(1), 175-186.
Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Merriam, S. B., & Bierema, L. L. (2013). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
Moore, M. Z. (2022). Fostering a sense of belonging using a multicontext approach. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 24(3), 703-720.
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2015). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives. Routledge.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Broadway Business.
Swanson, D. J., & Creed, A. S. (2014). Sharpening the focus of force field analysis. Journal of change management, 14(1), 28-47.
Watt, S.K., Mahatmya, D., Mohebali, M., & Martin-Stanley, C.R. (eds.) (2022). The theory of being. Routledge.
Weissmann, G. S., Ibarra, R. A., Howland-Davis, M., & Lammey, M. V. (2019). The multicontext path to redefining how we access and think about diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEM. Journal of Geoscience Education, 67(4), 320-329.
Yosso*, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race ethnicity and education, 8(1), 69-91.