Evolving Equity Consciousness: Intended and Emergent Outcomes of Faculty Development for Inclusive Excellence

Abstract

As diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in higher education face increasing political resistance, it is critical to understand how equity-centered institutional change is fostered, and who is transformed in the process. This study examines the intended and emergent outcomes of faculty professional development initiatives implemented through the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Inclusive Excellence (HHMI IE) program. We analyzed annual institutional reports and anonymous reflections from four public universities in a regional Peer Implementation Cluster (PIC), focusing on how change occurred at individual, community, and institutional levels. Guided by Kezar’s Shared Equity Leadership (SEL) framework, our thematic analysis revealed that while initiatives were designed to improve student outcomes through inclusive pedagogy, the most profound outcome was the development of equity consciousness among faculty. Defined as a growing awareness of systemic inequities and a sustained commitment to address them, equity consciousness emerged as the most frequently coded theme across all levels of change. These findings suggest that equity-centered faculty development can serve as a catalyst for institutional transformation, not only by shifting teaching practices but also by building distributed leadership and deeper organizational engagement with equity. This effort also emphasizes that documenting emergent outcomes is essential for recognizing the holistic impact of sustained institutional change.

1. Introduction

As diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in higher education face growing political backlash, it has never been more urgent to understand how institutional initiatives shape lasting, systemic change. In science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields especially, longstanding disparities in retention and degree attainment persist for minoritized populations, despite decades of reform [1,2,3]. Initiatives are often limited in scope, fragmented, and rooted in a deficit-based perspective that places responsibility on students rather than institutions bearing the onus for supporting their students [4]. These systemic issues are multifaceted, requiring cross-functional collaboration that draws upon diverse expertise to develop enduring solutions.

However, higher education institutions are often resistant to meaningful change due to bureaucratic inertia, siloed governance structures, and deeply entrenched norms [5]. This resistance is further compounded by top-down reform initiatives that exclude faculty and staff from the decision-making process and lack intentional theoretical centering, resulting in limited buy-in and implementation challenges, which may make the initiatives less impactful in supporting minoritized students [6,7]. To address this concern, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) launched an Inclusive Excellence (IE) initiative entitled “Engaging All Students in Science”, hereafter referred to as “HHMI IE”, to support systemic, equity-centered transformation in STEM education through institutional responsibility and cultural change [8,9].

This paper examines the impact of these transformative efforts by examining both intended outcomes and emergent outcomes from HHMI IE faculty development initiatives. Intended outcomes explicitly include institutional aspirations and articulated goals that guide initial equity-centered faculty development efforts and are not always immediately measurable or specific, yet they are crucial in shaping direction and vision [10]. In contrast, emergent outcomes refer to observed impacts and changes that unfold organically, often unexpectedly, throughout faculty engagement. In this study, intended outcomes are those discussed as aspirations in institutional reports to HHMI, while emergent outcomes are those that surfaced through anonymous HHMI facilitator reflections and collaborative engagement across institutions. Understanding emergent outcomes and how they continue or diverge from initial intentions offers critical consideration for evaluating and sustaining equity professional development efforts in higher education, especially at a moment when such work is increasingly under threat. While the formal intention of this effort was to improve student outcomes through faculty training, our analysis revealed a more powerful and widespread transformation: the cultivation of faculty equity consciousness—a deeper awareness of systemic inequities and a sustained commitment to equity in teaching, collaboration, and leadership [11,12].

Our study focuses on a regional Peer Implementation Cluster (PIC) of four public institutions, hereafter referred to as the “PIC”, that participated in the HHMI IE initiative from 2019 to 2023. We frame our findings using the Shared Equity Leadership (SEL) model, which defines sustainable institutional change as the product of distributed, relational, and adaptive leadership across all levels of a campus community [13,14]. In this model, equity work is embedded in collective practice and shared purpose. Through SEL, faculty become not only equity-centered pedagogical practitioners but also change agents and leaders in their institutional contexts.

1.1. HHMI Inclusive Excellence Initiative in Science Education

HHMI has been committed to building the capacity of individuals and institutions to foster and sustain inclusion in the sciences [9,15]. The IE initiative emphasizes the importance of social justice within STEM disciplines and aims to equip STEM faculty and institutional leaders with the tools to dismantle systemic barriers that have historically marginalized groups. Former HHMI Division Director David Asai and colleague Cynthia Bauerle highlighted that while progress in STEM education reform has been made, gaps in degree attainment at both undergraduate and graduate levels persist [16]. They argue that true scientific excellence requires inclusion, and that institutions, not just individuals, bear the responsibility for cultivating environments that are equitable, supportive, and inclusive of all identities and perspectives.

To achieve lasting change, the HHMI IE initiative shifts the focus from narrowly tracking student performance to critically examining the institutional structures that contribute to disparities in STEM education [17]. This includes understanding how policies, departmental cultures, and pedagogical approaches impact student success. The initiative aims to identify institutional factors that sustain opportunity gaps and empower institutional leaders with the knowledge and skills to drive and maintain systemic reforms that champion inclusive excellence in STEM.

By fostering a culture of continuous evaluation and improvement [18,19,20], HHMI supports institutions in developing sustainable strategies to expand access to STEM education for students from diverse and nontraditional backgrounds. Institutional reforms initiated through this program are expected to extend beyond the grant period, becoming ingrained in policies and curricula.

1.2. Collaborating Across Difference: Institutional Contexts and the PIC Model

To support inter-institutional collaboration in the IE project, HHMI established the PIC by grouping institutions based on their geographic region. The goal of the PIC was to create a community that supported, learned from, and challenged itself to increase the collective understanding of and capacity for inclusion in STEM [21]. PIC events included faculty, administrators, and staff, with representatives from each institution participating in an annual in-person meeting with support from an HHMI Program Officer. Throughout the project, PIC members participated in information and resource sharing (e.g., journal clubs, invited speaker workshops, professional development activities) and regular online PIC discussions in which teams shared their institutional experiences.

In this study, four public higher education institutions in the western United States constituted the PIC: California State University, Los Angeles (CSULA) and San Marcos (CSUSM), Oregon State University (OSU), and the University of California, Merced (UC Merced). Of these institutions, three are Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs), one is urban, two suburban, and one rural; by Carnegie Classification, two are doctoral-granting institutions and two are master’s colleges and universities, with undergraduate enrollment ranging from 9,000 to 27,000 annually. Although institutional demographics varied, project leadership teams were more similar, including tenure-line and non-tenure-line members, drawing largely from the biology discipline, consistent with HHMI’s historical involvement in medical sciences. As projects progressed, more campus partners became involved in the PIC, with teams ranging from stable leadership to more fluid engagement with campus administrators, teaching and education research centers, and diversity offices.

1.3. Shared Leadership as a Model for Institutional Change

Kezar’s shared leadership framework offers a transformative approach to institutional change by redistributing power and disrupting traditional hierarchical governance models [22]. This is particularly significant in STEM disciplines, where cultural and structural barriers have historically constrained the impact of equity efforts. By broadening participation to include multiple stakeholders—faculty, students, staff, and administrators—shared leadership fosters reforms that are both legitimate to the participants and contextually appropriate.

Importantly, institutional change is not merely about adopting new policies but rather about embedding these changes into the organizational culture. Central to SEL is the development of networks of change agents, individuals who champion reforms at multiple levels, modeling equity practices, collaborating across roles, and embedding inclusive values into the day-to-day operations of their institutions [23]. Here, diverse participants of the PIC assumed such roles, distributing leadership to help address the persistent challenges in STEM, rather than relying on top-down policy reforms. As our programs progressed, we also witnessed how leadership can be both shared and developed, a core premise of SEL. For example, some who began as participants in teaching workshops or reflection groups grew into facilitators, administrators, and institutional leaders.

The SEL model also emphasizes adaptive learning, a process in which teams iteratively refine strategies based on feedback, which serves as another key mechanism for institutional transformation [13]. We saw this process unfold across our PIC institutions, through annual reflections, cross-institutional dialogues, and peer collaborations, which became mechanisms for continuous improvement and strategic alignment.

To analyze the impact of our HHMI IE programs, we applied SEL in tandem with a three-level change framework—individual, community, and institutional—that captures how equity-centered leadership develops and operates across scales [24]. At the individual level, we examined shifts in equity mindsets, skills, and leadership identity. At the community level, we studied relationship-building, collective learning, and the development of faculty networks. At the institutional level, we analyzed changes to policies, structures, and cross-campus collaborations. This multi-level approach enabled us to trace how faculty development served not only as a pedagogical intervention but also as a foundation for sustained institutional transformation.

1.4. Reframing Equity Work Through Emergence

Most assessments of professional development and institutional change define outcomes through predefined goals and benchmarks used to guide implementation and evaluation. However, this narrow framing often misses the full impact of equity work. In our study, we adopt the lens of emergent outcomes to surface the unanticipated, often transformative shifts that occur through sustained engagement with inclusive excellence initiatives.

Henderson, Beach, and Finkelstein first introduced the concept of emergent outcomes in assessing change strategies in STEM education, emphasizing that transformation (i.e., course, curricular, institutional) is not always predefined but develops alongside other prescribed outcomes [6]. More recently, Feola et al. expanded this framework to capture the complexity of intended and emergent outcomes for institutional transformation efforts in STEM education [25]. Similar conversations in pedagogical practice have explored emergent outcomes in student learning, particularly through Jesse Stommel’s work on “undoing the grade” [26,27], which challenges rigid assessment structures and highlights the unpredictable, student-driven dimensions of learning. Stommel argues that beyond the expected learning outcomes, students experience emergent outcomes (i.e., insights, skills, or transformations) that surface naturally through engagement with the material and the learning community.

While the current understanding of the value of emergent outcomes is evident through student learning and institutional-level change models, little attention has been given to how emergent outcomes may arise from equity-centered professional development for faculty. Given that faculty are positioned as key agents of change in institutional transformation [28,29], understanding how mindsets and practices evolve through professional development initiatives is essential to evaluate the long-term impacts of DEI change efforts.

Drawing from Kezar and Holcombe’s work on shared leadership and the Bangera et al. RISE change theory model, we examine the relationship between emergent outcomes and change at individual, community, and institutional levels [13,30]. To explore how equity-centered faculty development initiatives drive change across different levels of campus life, we investigated the following research questions:

• What are the intended and emergent outcomes of equity-centered faculty development initiatives and the PIC?
• How do these outcomes differ across individual, community, and institutional contexts?

By examining both what was planned and what emerged, we deepen our understanding of how faculty development catalyzes change, not only at individual levels, but across institutional cultures and leadership structures.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Progress Towards Inclusive Excellence Through Reflection (PIER)

To sustain and institutionalize IE, “Progress towards Inclusive Excellence through Reflection” (PIER) reports allow institutions to reflect on aspirational goals, assessment strategies, the impact of collaborating with the PIC, and general insights to promote widespread institutional change across STEM education [31]. The PIER tool is an integral component of the HHMI IE initiative, where each university submitted annual PIER reports to HHMI, which detailed the campuses’ programmatic goals and documented the strategies implemented to achieve those goals. PIER allowed institutions to consistently track their progress toward inclusive excellence, ensuring programs were successful in their efforts. By fostering critical reflection and structured evaluation, PIER serves as a powerful tool for sustaining inclusive excellence in higher education.

PIER identifies two key processes necessary for transformative institutional change: assessing and understanding institutional contexts and examining and challenging personal and institutional assumptions while acquiring and practicing new competencies. Institutional change is conceptualized in terms of first-order and second-order changes [32]. First-order change includes incremental improvements that refine existing structures, but these changes are often reversible and limited in scope. For example, when individuals adopt new pedagogical practices or develop and implement a new curriculum in a course, neither of which persist after faculty turnover. Second-order change, on the other hand, involves deep, systemic, and irreversible shifts in institutional culture, structures, and policies, ensuring long-term commitment to inclusion [33]. For example, an investment in the construction of an active learning classroom that creates opportunities for multiple faculty members to adopt more student-centered pedagogical approaches [34]. This conceptual framing maps closely to the SEL framework’s emphasis on second-order change as a condition for sustainable equity leadership. By prompting institutions to reimagine their aspirations in light of institutional realities, PIER advances the SEL goal of making equity everyone’s work.

2.2. Data Sources and Coding Approach

To assess institutional and cultural shifts toward inclusive excellence across participating HHMI IE institutions, we conducted a thematic analysis of two qualitative datasets. These datasets included annual institutional reflections submitted through the PIER tool and anonymous responses to a reflection prompt regarding emergent outcomes. Both sets of data were analyzed using a hybrid inductive–deductive coding approach, allowing us to capture both pre-structured intentions and unanticipated impacts of faculty development programming.

2.2.1. Dataset 1: Intended Outcomes from PIER Reports

For four years, each institution responded annually to the following prompt:

“Based on your understanding of your institutional contexts and its influence—either negative or positive—on your project, please define (or re-define) your current and future aspirations for inclusive excellence at your institution.”

These responses were analyzed as indicators of intended outcomes, representing each institution’s evolving strategic goals and understandings of inclusive excellence.

2.2.2. Dataset 2: Emergent Outcomes from Anonymous Reflections

The second dataset captured emergent outcomes and was derived from an anonymous reflection prompt sent to principal investigators and HHMI facilitators involved in the professional development programs across each PIC institution in the final year of the program:

“What are your emergent outcomes from participating in the HHMI Inclusive Excellence initiative and/or the PIC? If possible, please consider outcomes that have emerged that are relevant to you as an individual, your collective group at your institution, and at the institutional level.”

These reflections captured unplanned or unintended impacts, often expressed through more personal, experiential, or narrative formats. This dataset provided a complementary view of institutional change, surfacing ground-level insights not always reflected in formal reports.

2.3. Thematic Framework and Coding Structure

Thematic analysis was guided by a hybrid coding strategy. Deductively, we applied a three-level framework informed by the structures and practices in the SEL model [12], which we adapted to categorize outcomes into the following:

• Individual (Personal): Development of individual knowledge, skills, and capacity for equity work and shared leadership.
• Community (Collective): Changes in group learning, relationship-building, and collaborative engagement in DEI work. Faculty, student, or faculty–student community shifts are all considered.
• Institutional (Organizational): Shifts in structures, policies, practices, and systems that support inclusive excellence. Collaborative efforts within institutions or between institutions.

Within each level, we then conducted inductive coding to identify specific themes and code categories emerging from the data. This allowed us to maintain consistency across datasets while preserving the diversity and context-specific nature of institutional change. Using these three levels as overarching categories, we then applied inductive thematic analysis within each category to identify emergent patterns and themes that were not pre-specified [35]. Themes and code categories were developed iteratively through comparison within and across outcome types and change levels. Final themes were agreed upon through collaborative synthesis and reviewed considering the SEL framework to ensure conceptual alignment. This approach retained the depth of institutional narratives while supporting thematic consistency across responses. See the full codebook with themes, codes, and descriptions for intended outcomes in Table S1 and emergent outcomes in Table S2.

2.4. Coding Procedure, Validation, and Reflexivity

All data were imported into Dedoose [36], a web-based qualitative analysis software. Two researchers (JES and SEH) independently coded a subset of responses to establish shared understanding of codes and to iteratively refine the codebook. Before formal coding began, ChatGPT-4o [37], a large language model developed by OpenAI, was used to identify broad, preliminary themes from raw qualitative data. As a generative AI tool trained on diverse textual data, ChatGPT-4o can analyze patterns in language and summarize key ideas, making it useful for exploratory analysis in qualitative research. This initial step supported initial human sensemaking and helped orient the researchers to potential patterns. All coding, codebook development, and theme refinement were subsequently conducted by JES and SEH. ChatGPT-4o was also used as a third coder, offering feedback on theme alignment and identifying potentially overlooked patterns, serving as a form of AI-assisted triangulation [38]. As members of a faculty development team engaged in equity work ourselves, we approached the data with both insider understanding and critical reflection on our assumptions. Regular team check-ins helped surface blind spots and ensure diverse interpretations were considered.

The notion of reliability in qualitative research can be challenging due to differences in epistemological paradigms [39]. Rather than relying on statistical measures such as Cohen’s Kappa, which are more appropriate for structured and deductive coding frameworks, we ensured rigor through reflexive collaboration, triangulation, and iterative consensus-building. Coding consistency was supported through regular meetings, writing, and ongoing refinement of code descriptions and boundaries. Validity was pursued through alignment with a theoretically grounded change model, transparent documentation of analytic decisions, and the inclusion of representative excerpts that illustrate both the depth and diversity of emergent and intended outcomes [40,41]. This approach allowed us to maintain methodological integrity while centering meaning-making and institutional context, in alignment with our goals of capturing both structured aspirations and emergent narratives of inclusive excellence.

3. Results

The analysis of campus PIERs and faculty reflections revealed a broad and nuanced range of intended and emergent outcomes, which we organized using the SEL framework (Table 1). By mapping our project analyses to the individual, community, and institutional levels, we gained a deeper understanding of both what institutions initially aspired to do and the more enduring, often unanticipated changes that emerged through ongoing engagement in equity work [33]. Across the results, we present illustrative, unedited quotes that reflect the breadth of experiences across the four institutions. Not every campus is quoted in every theme, but all campuses contributed data to each major code group. We selected quotes based on clarity, diversity of perspective, and alignment with the theme to maintain coherence.

3.1. Intended Outcomes

The analysis of intended outcomes revealed several key themes aligned with the goals of the HHMI IE initiative. These intended outcomes represent the formal aspirations articulated by participating institutions and offer a snapshot of how inclusive excellence was originally envisioned in relation to faculty roles, student support, and institutional change across individual, community, and institutional levels.

Despite the differences in Carnegie Classification [42] and size of the universities in the PIC, all PIER responses across all years of the HHMI grant reflect similarities in major theme areas: “Faculty Development for Equity,” “Change in Teaching,” “Equity Consciousness,” and “Student-Centered Change.” The most prevalent of these, Faculty Development for Equity and Change in Teaching, reflect a shared commitment to improving instructional practices and equipping faculty with the skills and support needed to lead equity-driven change. These themes represent foundational strategies through which campuses aim to promote inclusive excellence, by shifting pedagogical approaches and fostering professional communities that center equity in teaching and learning at the individual and community levels. These forward-looking statements provide essential insight into how campuses envisioned change, even if not all efforts had yet materialized during the grant period.

Table 1. Themes that arose from qualitative coding were organized according to Shared Equity Leadership (SEL) model levels (individual, community, and institutional). Themes are highlighted in bold. Examples of themes strongly correlated with both intended and emergent outcomes (e.g., representing more than 2–3 codes) are noted with an asterisk (*). For codes and code descriptions, see the codebook in Table S1 for intended outcomes and Table S2 for emergent outcomes.

SEL Model Level	Intended Themes (Category Codes)	Emergent Themes (Category Codes)
Individual: Each person builds knowledge, skills, and capabilities to do DEI work and to share leadership	Equity consciousness * ○ Increased equity mindsets * ○ Encourage acts of inclusion as merit ○ Rethink student success Change in teaching ○ Improve teaching practices	Equity consciousness * ○ Increased equity mindsets * ○ Increased awareness of barriers ○ Feeling seen and valued ○ Hope in an unjust world Equity-centered collaboration ○ Relationship building Individual leadership capacity ○ Increased leadership skills ○ Increased confidence conducting DEI work
Community: Leaders learn with and from others in a group or team setting as they build relationships and community to support both DEI work and shared leadership.	Change in teaching ○ Change curriculum/courses Equity consciousness * ○ Change culture * ○ Build social justice capacity Faculty development for equity ○ Community of Practice Student-centered change ○ Identify student needs ○ Increase student engagement ○ Improve student success ○ Strengthen student identity ○ Faculty–student engagement	Equity consciousness * ○ Change culture * DEI affinity groups ○ Community centered on DEI research and skills ○ Community centered on DEI work
Institutional: Leaders create new systems, structures, and processes where SEL occurs (e.g., hiring, onboarding, and promoting diverse leaders. Incentivizing and rewarding the work)	Equity consciousness * ○ Identify barriers * Advancing institutional equity ○ Inter- and intra-institutional collaboration * ○ Build institutionalized programming ○ Build leadership ○ New systems and structures	Equity consciousness * ○ Support critical equity conversations * Equity-centered collaboration ○ Build leadership Advancing institutional equity ○ Inter- and intra-institutional collaboration *

Table 1. Themes that arose from qualitative coding were organized according to Shared Equity Leadership (SEL) model levels (individual, community, and institutional). Themes are highlighted in bold. Examples of themes strongly correlated with both intended and emergent outcomes (e.g., representing more than 2–3 codes) are noted with an asterisk (*). For codes and code descriptions, see the codebook in Table S1 for intended outcomes and Table S2 for emergent outcomes.

SEL Model Level	Intended Themes (Category Codes)	Emergent Themes (Category Codes)
Individual: Each person builds knowledge, skills, and capabilities to do DEI work and to share leadership	Equity consciousness * ○ Increased equity mindsets * ○ Encourage acts of inclusion as merit ○ Rethink student success Change in teaching ○ Improve teaching practices	Equity consciousness * ○ Increased equity mindsets * ○ Increased awareness of barriers ○ Feeling seen and valued ○ Hope in an unjust world Equity-centered collaboration ○ Relationship building Individual leadership capacity ○ Increased leadership skills ○ Increased confidence conducting DEI work
Community: Leaders learn with and from others in a group or team setting as they build relationships and community to support both DEI work and shared leadership.	Change in teaching ○ Change curriculum/courses Equity consciousness * ○ Change culture * ○ Build social justice capacity Faculty development for equity ○ Community of Practice Student-centered change ○ Identify student needs ○ Increase student engagement ○ Improve student success ○ Strengthen student identity ○ Faculty–student engagement	Equity consciousness * ○ Change culture * DEI affinity groups ○ Community centered on DEI research and skills ○ Community centered on DEI work
Institutional: Leaders create new systems, structures, and processes where SEL occurs (e.g., hiring, onboarding, and promoting diverse leaders. Incentivizing and rewarding the work)	Equity consciousness * ○ Identify barriers * Advancing institutional equity ○ Inter- and intra-institutional collaboration * ○ Build institutionalized programming ○ Build leadership ○ New systems and structures	Equity consciousness * ○ Support critical equity conversations * Equity-centered collaboration ○ Build leadership Advancing institutional equity ○ Inter- and intra-institutional collaboration *

3.1.1. Improving Teaching Practices

At the individual level, a high number of responses in the Faculty Development for Equity focused on “Improve Teaching Practices.” This suggests that all institutions recognized that faculty are a key driver of change in equity work. Efforts to enhance teaching practices and redesign curriculum were not viewed as isolated professional development activities, but as core strategies for embedding equity into the academic experience. Each PIER exemplifies this in different ways:

• “IE is demonstrated through faculty who demonstrate the knowledge and commitment to reflective teaching practices around more inclusive pedagogy and appreciation for the diverse perspectives students bring to the learning process.”
• “Our vision is that by connecting the DEI training to our scientific work, our faculty will gain new perspective in the redesign and delivery of our courses, and also respect the diversity of backgrounds in our students in this context.”
• “Faculty members are empowered to, and can successfully, identify the unique needs of students in their classrooms and address these through pedagogy and practice.”

Institutions recognize that positioning instructional improvement at the heart of their equity agendas allows change to begin in the classroom, where faculty have the most direct and sustained impact on student success.

3.1.2. Increasing Equity Mindsets

A strong response area at the individual level for all institutions centered on “Increase Equity Mindsets.” An equity mindset prompts faculty to move beyond deficit thinking (e.g., blaming students for underperformance) and instead examine how systemic barriers and instructional practices affect student outcomes. As an important intended outcome, it reflects an institution’s aspiration to evolve its culture and practices toward greater inclusion:

• “As a team, we have also embraced that moving mindsets is as important as shifting teaching practices as we strive for inclusive excellence in STEM education. While the latter provides the foundation, the former is essential to turn allies into advocates.”
• “…critically examine the ways in which faculty mindsets and educational practices may contribute to those inequities, and c) transformed those mindsets and practices that are detrimental to equity in achievement outcomes.”
• “The focus of our HHMI project is to enhance our equity mindset. This involves examining what equity looks like at our institution now and how it will look in the future.”

By fostering shared values and reflective habits, campuses signaled a commitment to embedding equity not just in policy, but in the everyday perspectives and actions of their faculty.

3.1.3. Cultivating Equity-Centered Communities

Findings at the community level highlight how institutions sought to cultivate equity-centered communities of practice to support student-centered change, collective learning, support faculty–student relationships, and foster professional networks to support ongoing reflection. At this level, the improvement in teaching and improving student outcomes was coded as “Faculty Development,” “Faculty Community of Practice,” “Change Curriculum,” and “Change Culture.” Some of these elements reflected the transactional nature of the intended work, as all campuses instituted faculty development and communities of practice as part of their key strategy in their equity work; the aforementioned elements also reflected a commitment to a collective approach. Elements of the larger themes for Equity Consciousness were infused in these areas as well:

• “Develop programming within the new Coffee Collectives that provides our professional development program alumni with the support they need for continued growth with respect to inclusive excellence.”
• “We want all Fellows to feel confident in the importance and impact of their IE work. Knowledgeable about IE practices and how to sustain IE practices. We designed the project so that our IE Fellows will continue to use practices developed during the IE Academy, and seek resources beyond IE to continue developing as an educator committed to equity and justice in STEM.”

This intention shows appreciation for faculty and staff’s time and space, and their effort to build trust in collaborative and reflective groups.

3.1.4. Promoting Student-Centered Change

A few institutions identified intended outcomes focused on student development and belonging, including “Increase Student Engagement,” “Identify Student Needs,” and “Strengthen Student Identity.” One quote effectively encapsulates this theme.

• “We hope to develop and institutionalize faculty–student learning communities for faculty meet and converse with students, and near-peer networks to encourage discussion about academic success, time management, perseverance, and the collective diversity of the backgrounds on our campus, in order to promote community building and a lasting culture of inclusion between faculty and students in STEM.”

These signal an intentional commitment to creating more inclusive, affirming, and responsive learning environments, particularly for students historically marginalized in STEM.

3.1.5. Building Institutional Programming and Leadership

Intended outcomes at the institutional level emphasized building the infrastructure, leadership, and strategic alignment necessary to sustain and scale equity work in STEM. Codes such as “Build Institutionalized Programming,” “Inter-/Intra-Campus Collaboration,” and “Build Leadership” reflect deliberate efforts to align equity goals with broader institutional planning and priorities. While institutional outcomes were present in most campus reports, they appeared at much lower frequency compared to individual and community, suggesting that campuses were initially more focused on building equity capacity through faculty development and collaborative teaching cultures.

• “Based on our understanding of our institutional context and its influence, there is a need to share HHMI findings and successes with administrative leadership, faculty, and campus in general. The ‘siloed’ context does not allow for widespread communication and conversation about equity-mindedness.”
• “However, our expanded goal to impact the entire institution is giving us the opportunity to examine other practices and policies across various units on campus (e.g., Administration and Finance, Student Affairs, etc.)…”
• “The HHMI project will bring together different programs with the aim of leveraging existing resources and building capacity to centralize and institutionalize programs and best practices across the campus.”

This may reflect the perceived feasibility of grassroots and mid-level change, as well as a recognition that sustainable institutional transformation requires strong foundations of shared commitment and practice before structural reforms can take hold.

3.2. Emergent Outcomes

Emergent outcomes revealed a distinct set of themes that were not explicitly outlined in grant goals but surfaced through participation in equity-centered professional development and subsequent reflection. These emergent outcomes offer insight into the lived experiences of faculty engaged in inclusive excellence work and illustrate how change unfolded across individual, community, and institutional levels in unexpected ways. Emergent outcomes highlight how faculty responded to and extended the initiative’s goals through personal transformation, collaborative practices, and expanded leadership engagement.

3.2.1. Developing Leadership

At the individual level, a major emergent outcome was the development of faculty leadership capacity. Many individuals who participated in professional development reported increased confidence, equity-centered mindsets, and transitions into leadership roles within their institutions. Codes such as “Increased Confidence in Doing DEI Work” and “Increased Leadership Skills” illustrate how faculty developed deeper awareness of systemic inequities and began to shift their practices in response.

• “Faculty have been especially receptive, and participants have embraced the opportunities for learning about equity-mindedness. There have been new insights about themselves as educators and shifts in their understanding of personal, cultural, and educational aspects of their teaching, and how they shape student learning.”
• “I think being involved in the PIC led me to become involved in other groups, such as ASCN, which is a national group of faculty that discuss various issues in higher education related to inclusive excellence.”
• “How to mentor and facilitate others to create a mass effect to change/create culture of I/E with our faculties, with administrators and ultimately to improve student success and student lives.”

This sense of cascading leadership was not an intended outcome of the project but emerged as faculty internalized the values of inclusive excellence and began to act on them.

3.2.2. Forming Supportive Communities

At the community level, the formation of informal, peer-led spaces became a significant and unexpected source of support. These informal communities of practice often developed organically, were characterized by trust, and provided opportunities for ongoing dialogue and troubleshooting. The following reflect the momentum that came from these relationships:

• “We started to get to know each other and a sense of community, and a sense that we could learn from each other, began to build momentum.”
• “An emergent outcome from that experience might be the valuable relationship building with my colleagues who also attended.”

Participants noted that these groups became essential for sustaining momentum and emotional resilience, especially in the aftermath of pandemic-related isolation. In some cases, they also served as a foundation for future research collaborations and ongoing scholarly activities.

3.2.3. Equity-Centered Collaboration

Another prevalent theme was equity-centered collaboration in which faculty reported increased engagement in joint research projects, cross-departmental teaching initiatives, and collaborative grant writing focused on DEI. This included faculty reporting deepening existing partnerships around research, teaching, and grant development, frequently extending beyond the extent of the initiative. Some emphasized that the relationships built through the shared work became crucial in sustaining equity efforts despite external pressures, noting they learned “ways to support one another in doing the hard work, even in the face of changes at institutions/national level around DEI.” Furthermore, these efforts were seen as instrumental in creating a shared sense of purpose and collective responsibility for equity efforts within institutions.

• “One particular emergent outcome for me, especially as a junior faculty member, includes learning how to collaborate with a group of faculty from various disciplines and working towards a common goal (while having fun doing it!)”

Faculty reported that participation in the initiative created structured opportunities to engage in sustained conversations about institutional change, conversations that had previously been siloed, informal, or avoided. Furthermore, the PIC structure, in particular, enabled cross-institutional exposure where faculty could appreciate the benefit of comparative perspectives to reframe challenges as shared and address them with greater empathy and strategy.

• “We all have such different experiences at different institutions or even in different colleges at our institution, and this breadth gives me a different perspective on approaching institutional change.”
• “Now, I see how others not only outside of my discipline but across university types have the same goals of equity.”

These insights sparked broader cultural shifts, not always codified in policy but increasingly present in campus conversations, committee work, and leadership engagement. While some of these efforts have yet to result in formal reforms, the increase in visibility and legitimacy of equity work across academic units suggests growing inertia for long-term transformation. Faculty frequently cited the networks and shared language developed through the initiative as tools for continuing this work beyond the formal grant period.

This outcome extended the initiative’s impact beyond individual faculty learning, fostering an ecosystem of peer engagement that strengthened professional networks and collective resolve, reflecting a shift toward more interdisciplinary, equity-centered academic communities.

4. Discussion

With DEI work facing growing resistance, it is vital to recognize the transformation it continues to make possible. This discussion explores how HHMI IE initiatives led to outcomes that extended beyond their original goals, revealing the deeper institutional shifts sparked by faculty development and equity-centered collaboration.

4.1. Emergent Outcomes: The Unexpected Impact on Faculty

One of the most significant findings from this study is the extent to which faculty, rather than students, became the primary beneficiaries of equity-centered development. Though faculty and classroom influence were the intended target of change, the degree to which the HHMI IE team leaders and facilitators as faculty described increased confidence, equity-centered leadership skills, and deeper engagement in institutional decision-making were unexpected. Many went on to assume formal leadership roles, including program directors, department chairs, and DEI administrators. This was a shift in leadership capacity building that was neither planned nor anticipated but has long-term implications for institutional change [32,43]. These findings suggest that the true impact of IE efforts extends beyond curriculum reform and student outcomes and fuels faculty as key institutional change agents [28,29].

4.2. Equity Consciousness Across Outcome Types and Levels

Equity consciousness was a theme that appeared across both intended and emergent outcomes and was represented at the individual, community, and institutional levels (Table 1). At the individual level, it was reflected in faculty narratives about increased awareness of systemic inequities and evolving understanding of their role in fostering inclusive learning environments. The individual level also showed the greatest number of references, particularly in emergent reflections. At the community level, equity consciousness was connected with shared learning, peer dialogue, and the cultivation of equity-centered spaces for collective growth. At the institutional level, it was evident in references to systemic change efforts and shifts in organizational awareness. Although equity consciousness was present in the intended outcomes, it was more frequently and richly described in emergent reflections, especially at the individual level.

4.2.1. Individual Transformation: Growing an Equity Consciousness

At the individual level, the primary intended outcome of these initiatives was to build faculty capacity for equity-centered teaching. The original program at each university was focused on delivering professional development and inclusive pedagogy training with a goal of supporting more equitable classroom practices. As a research team, we expected to see outcomes aligned with these intentions: improved teaching practices, increased student engagement, and perhaps stronger faculty confidence in DEI-related content.

However, as we engaged in our own analysis, especially through collaborative coding across multiple campuses, we began to notice a deeper, more pervasive pattern. Faculty were not simply applying equity tools; they were transforming how they understood equity itself. Themes consistently pointed to a shift in identity, awareness, and long-term commitment to equity work that extended beyond the classroom. As we refined our coding scheme, it became clear that what we were witnessing was the development of what we came to call “equity consciousness”: a growing awareness of systemic inequities and a sustained commitment to addressing them through teaching, collaboration, and leadership [11,12]. A similar observation was made, although in a more limited capacity, in another HHMI IE project in which few of the participating faculty described growing equity consciousness despite all participants implementing DEI informed pedagogical improvements or classroom actions [44]. Dali et al. had a similar finding in their study of DEI professional development for academic librarians, in which they suggested that the practical, actionable changes one makes are less emotional and easier work than changing one’s own critical or moral attitudes [45]. Yet, in our project, growing equity consciousness emerged as a commonly coded theme across all outcome types and levels of change.

Our finding aligns with Kezar and Holcombe’s SEL model, which emphasizes that sustainable institutional change is not driven by administrative mandates but through distributed leadership across the organization [12,46]. SEL positions faculty, especially those equipped with shared purpose, leadership skills, and equity consciousness, as essential agents of structural and cultural transformation. Dali et al. argue that equity consciousness is linked to sustained, lasting change and organizational impact [45]. The approach to cultivate equity-mindedness as a pathway to impactful, lasting change was also theorized by Dietz et al. in which they suggest that educational developers embedded within departments and programs can act as cultural influencers to harness the collective agency of faculty [47]. The emergence of our equity-centered faculty leadership as a dominant outcome in this project highlights the potential for professional development programs to be incubators for institutional change makers.

4.2.2. Community Transformation: From Faculty Development to Collective Agency

At the community level, the primary intended outcome was to foster faculty development around student engagement, identity, and support. However, a broader sense of collective agency among faculty emerged to impact capacity building, something that felt too far-fetched at the start of the grant. Faculty who initially engaged in and facilitated conversations around equity became active agents of change, forming peer-support affinity groups centered on DEI, and continued scholarly partnerships. Faculty reported that these spaces allowed for critical dialogue, peer accountability, and shared discussion of equity challenges. This finding may be explained by the notion that the IE programs at each institution fostered collegiality and a shift to a more equitable departmental culture, similar to that reported by Holmes et al. [48]. Once collegiality and shared values have been built through these processes, collective efficacy leads to agency [49].

Participants also described how collaboration, within and across institutions, deepened their commitment to equity. These relationships often extended into research, grant proposals, and long-term networks that shaped faculty identity and energized collective efforts. Faculty moved from passive participation in professional development to active roles in shaping campus DEI agendas and influencing policy. These changes suggest that the IE PIC became an Organization Change Network (OCN) similar to those described by Austin et al. [21]. Here, HHMI provided structural elements to satisfy formation elements of the OCN (i.e., funding, identifying a complex problem to solve), but the PIC members developed and grew the OCN through trusting and deepening relationships that produced formal distributed leadership to enact broader change.

This finding suggests that community-building efforts in IE initiatives not only create networks of practitioners but also inspire faculty to acknowledge their positionality in institutional change efforts. The emergence of faculty activism underscores the need to rethink professional development goals as a mechanism for empowering faculty to engage in collective, systemic action. This shift reflects SEL’s emphasis on shared responsibility and mutual leadership––change emerged from faculty working together across positional boundaries. This distributed approach proved essential to sustaining energy and ensuring continuity across institutional efforts.

4.2.3. Institutional Transformation: Collaborative Dialogue Advances Change

At the institutional level, the primary intended outcome was to strengthen collaboration, promote equity-driven change, and identify structural barriers. While all of these intended outcomes were realized, what emerged most strongly was enhanced communication within and across institutions. Faculty repeatedly described these initiatives as creating structured opportunities for deep, often difficult conversations about power, race, and equity; discussions that had previously been siloed or deprioritized [50].

The PIC structure facilitated ongoing cross-institutional conversations that did not always lead immediately to policy change, but served as necessary institutional scaffolding that allowed equity to become embedded into the social fabric of departments, divisions, and leadership teams. In SEL, this kind of discourse builds collective capacity and strengthens the culture of collaboration needed for long-term change [13,46]. It also reinforces the importance of developing relational infrastructure, rather than relying solely on policies, as a foundation element of equity work [47]. Faculty development programs, therefore, play a critical role in creating spaces where institutional transformation can be imagined, discussed, and initiated.

4.3. Rethinking Assessment: Capturing “Hearts and Minds” Outcomes

These findings raise important questions about how we assess the impact of inclusive excellence work. The PIER report process created space to articulate institutional goals and track progress, but it did not consistently capture the more profound faculty transformations––shifts in identity, leadership, and equity consciousness––that emerged through sustained, collaborative engagement.

PIER reports and similar reporting tools tend to focus on the “why”, “what”, and “how” of professional development: why faculty engage, what they learn, and how they implement changes in their teaching. However, they often fail to capture who faculty become as a result of these experiences—the evolution of faculty roles, values, and leadership identities that drive institutional change from within [51]. As one faculty member noted, “Our IE team changed the curriculum to focus more on hearts and minds and individual identity in our faculty academy.” This sentiment emphasizes the need for assessment models that account for both intended and emergent outcomes, particularly those reflecting shifts in equity consciousness.

Faculty and institutions do not operate in fixed systems; rather, they evolve in response to shifting priorities, student needs, and institutional and external challenges [22,51]. Traditional assessments of faculty development, which often prioritize quantifiable measures of impact, can overlook the ways that faculty respond to shifting needs. Recognizing emergent outcomes allows institutions to adopt a more flexible, responsive approach to evaluation, one that centers faculty agency and engagement rather than rigid metrics of change. These outcomes further illustrate the cultural and structural shifts necessary for equity work to evolve and sustain change at multiple levels [52]. This study reinforces the need for assessment models and faculty development programs that capture both intended goals and the broader, often unexpected transformations that emerge through sustained engagement, transformations that are relational, reflective, and deeply tied to cultural change [53].

5. Conclusions

Our findings underscore the profound impact that equity-centered faculty development can have on individuals and institutions to make lasting change. As faculty conceptions of equity shift, so too do their teaching practices [54], thereby supporting student success [55]––the ultimate goal of the HHMI IE initiatives. However, faculty can achieve more than implement equity-centered teaching practices; they can also develop confidence, skills, as well as networks that empower them to evolve equity consciousness, become institutional leaders, and advocate for equity system-wide. Recognizing the value of this shift is essential for designing future professional development programs that not only enhance equity-centered pedagogy but also build capacity for leadership and advocacy in higher education.

As we finalized this manuscript, the national landscape shifted dramatically. The HHMI’s decision to discontinue its IE program, which had committed USD 60 million to 104 institutions [56], reflects a broader trend of retreating from DEI commitments in higher education. As DEI initiatives face growing scrutiny and political pushback, the imperative to rigorously document, critically defend, and strategically invest in equity-centered faculty development has never been greater.

Sustaining equity-centered faculty development in the current climate will require a shift from dependency on external funding toward internal, institutional commitment. This work must be embedded in core structures, such as merit and reward systems, departmental cultures, and collaborative partnerships across and within campuses. While national policy trends pose real threats, our findings offer compelling evidence that systemic change is possible when institutions invest in the people doing the work. Equity-centered faculty development remains a vital, achievable pathway to advancing inclusive excellence and institutional resilience from within.

6. Author Use of Artificial Intelligence

This project made use of artificial intelligence (AI) in limited, transparent, and human-guided ways to support both the analytic and writing processes. ChatGPT-4o [43] was used initially to explore broad thematic directions from the raw qualitative data. This early AI-assisted step helped orient the research team to potential patterns, but it did not inform the construction of the final codebook, which was developed through traditional qualitative analysis by two human coders.

Following full human coding and consensus-building, AI was reintroduced to serve as a third coder. ChatGPT-4o was asked to independently apply the final codebook and synthesize overarching themes. This analytic triangulation was used to check for potential gaps and to validate patterns surfaced by the human coders. The AI-generated insights were reviewed by the authors and incorporated only where they aligned with the overall interpretive integrity of the study.

AI was also used in the final stages of manuscript development to assist with outlining, refining organization, and improving clarity. All content, interpretation, and writing, including theme generation, data analysis, and final framing, were conducted by the authors. AI was used exclusively as a tool to enhance reflexivity and clarity, not as a substitute for scholarly judgment or qualitative reasoning.