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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a valuable research study, and the paper provides good justification for the need for equity-focussed change at various levels: individual, community and institutional. The first half of the paper gives good background and justification for faculty development and equity consciousness as well as the difference between intended versus emergent outcomes.  The aims of the study and research questions are clearly stated; however I think there needs to be further elaboration on what are conceived as ‘outcomes’ in the paper. The research design and collection mechanisms are clearly outlined, but again the themes need to be further supported by relevant literature and examples. In addition, while the introduction and literature review very thoroughly cover the issues, there needs to be further justification and elaboration of the implications of the findings for students as well as faculty members. The implications of the change outlined in the last paragraph of the conclusion also need expansion. I have highlighted areas for detailed consideration in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A well articulated proposed article.

Terms are defined well at appropriate places.

The arguments flow coherently and cogently.

The referencing bears checking to ensure all citations follow the stylistic guidelines.

Stacked headings should be addressed.

Suggest revising the Table for easier readability.

Ensure that all acronyms, including the ones in the quotations, are stated in full at first use.

In 3.1.4. Promoting Student-Centered Change, the introductory sentence indicates multiple institutions and only one quotation is used. Suggest rephrasing to ensure match between overview and quotation.

At the outset, it is indicated that 4 institutions participated and yet there are often 3 quotations included. It would be good to address in explicit terms, perhaps at the outset, what drove the decisions about what quotations to include in the paper. Check punctuation around quotations (e.g. p. 16).

Suggest reviewing and adding transition sentences between sections where needed to enhance flow.

Appendix A formatting will need redone. Similarly for the Reference list, which contains some stylistic errors.

This is a well-conceived and timely piece and was a pleasure to read until the acknowledgement of the contemporary shift in DEI practices. It serves as an important reminder of the necessity of this work.

Thank you for being willing to share this work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The literature review provides a solid foundation for the research by connecting it to existing scholarship, especially in the section where you talk about efforts to promote DEI in higher education and STEM fields.
The methodology is clearly articulated, especially the explanation of the PIER tool and coding approach. The hybrid inductive-deductive coding strategy that you describe in such detail demonstrates that you have conducted a thorough qualitative analysis.
Your discussion of emergent outcomes is particularly compelling, demonstrating how faculty development initiatives have led to unexpected transformations in equity consciousness and leadership capacity. The introduction could be more focused. It is comprehensive, but contains several lengthy paragraphs that could be condensed to present the research questions and their significance more directly.ΤΗe discussion section should be linked to the existing literature. Although several key articles are cited, a more critical review is needed.

 I suggest adding specific examples from the data to illustrate the key findings. Although you describe the emerging themes well, additional references or specific examples would make your arguments more convincing.  

Several acronyms (such as PIC and PIER) are used before being fully defined. Always define acronyms when they are first used to ensure reader comprehension.

The formatting of references needs to be standardized—some entries have DOIs, while others do not, and there are inconsistencies in how author names and dates are formatted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some inconsistencies in wording throughout the text, particularly with regard to hyphenation and parentheses. For example, the phrase “equity-focused” sometimes appears with spaces around the hyphen and sometimes without.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is a compelling and timely contribution to scholarship on equity-focused faculty development in higher education. The authors provide a well-articulated analysis of both intended and emergent outcomes associated with faculty engagement in the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Inclusive Excellence initiative. Framed by Kezar’s Shared Equity Leadership (SEL) model, the article offers a thorough, multi-layered narrative about institutional transformation that goes beyond conventional metrics.

The strength of the article lies in its rich qualitative design, particularly its use of thematic analysis across multiple institutions. The application of a hybrid inductive–deductive approach allows the authors to explore both expected and unanticipated outcomes with impressive depth. Especially commendable is the authors' exploration of “equity consciousness” as an emergent theme—this concept is developed clearly, supported by robust qualitative evidence, and linked compellingly to broader institutional and cultural change.

The writing is consistently clear, engaging, and well-organized. Sections flow logically from one to the next, and there is effective integration of theoretical frameworks, including SEL and the literature on institutional change and professional development. The data presentation is transparent and compelling, supported by thoughtful participant reflections and well-structured tables. The authors also demonstrate exemplary reflexivity, acknowledging their positionality and the use of AI tools with transparency and responsibility.

Minor suggestions for improvement

Though the article references the dissolution of HHMI IE in the conclusion, this point could be elaborated upon slightly to address implications for the sustainability of faculty equity development under increasing political scrutiny.

In the methods section, the rationale for using ChatGPT-4o as a third coder is clear, but readers may benefit from a more direct explanation of how it affected the coding consensus, especially for those less familiar with AI in qualitative research.

This is a well-executed and meaningful piece of scholarship that makes a valuable contribution to the field of higher education leadership and equity studies. It should be of particular interest to scholars and practitioners working in DEI, STEM education, and faculty development.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf