University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Integrating the industry sector in STEM learning ecosystems: a multicase study

(USC Thesis Other)

Integrating the industry sector in STEM learning ecosystems: a multicase study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Integrating the Industry Sector in STEM Learning Ecosystems: A Multicase Study
by
Kimberley Crawford

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

December 2021

© Copyright by Kimberley Crawford 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Kimberley Crawford certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Anthony Maddox
Kathy Stowe
Courtney Malloy, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
The United States is trailing competing nations in science, technology, engineering and math
(STEM) education threatening the prosperity of our nation’s most vital industries.
Internationally, our students rank below other large or high-income economies in math and
science assessments while interest and proficiency in STEM-related careers is declining. The
adoption of new technologies such as automation, artificial intelligence and cloud computing are
compounding existing workforce demands creating a skills gap for American employers. Should
U.S. workers fail to meet STEM employers’ job needs, our nation could lose competitiveness in
the industries that provide its economic edge. This study focused on STEM Learning Ecosystems
(SLEs), a form of cross-sector collaboration and problem-solving innovation to strengthen the
STEM workforce, and the role that industry partners bring to them. This qualitative research
study focused on an in-depth analysis of five SLEs from the same network, interviewing 18
cross-sector participants. Analysis of the data indicated that the structure and configuration of
SLEs varied. The focus of the SLE’s also varied in garnering cross-sector input. There were two
types of industry partners: funders and dealmakers: those who funded initiatives and those who
were looking for sales opportunities within the SLE. Both types participated in activities that
served the interests of building a STEM-proficient workforce. Using the framework of social
exchange theory, the study evaluated the types of resources that sector partners valued. Industry
partners valued building social capital, involvement in student learning, and the workforce
development opportunities they gained from participating in the SLE. Further research is needed
to focus on the effects of funders and dealmakers in an SLE, on the types and frequency of
interactions between either type of partner, and their contribution to emergent solutions.

v
Keywords: STEM, collaboration, innovation, education, industry, business, workforce,
cross-sector, technology, science, SLE, learning, ecosystem, funders, dealmakers, skills gap

vi
Dedication
To my husband, Anthony, who found loving and unique ways to support and encourage my work
on this dissertation. I will love you until we are oaks.

To the memory of my sister, Meloney, who taught me that knowledge transcends any barrier.
Thank you for teaching me to prioritize education, challenge convention and fear nothing.

vii
Acknowledgements
This work would not have been possible without the 18 study participants and the
ecosystem network support personnel who volunteered their time to advance the research. Their
work is improving education, economic conditions, and our society. I appreciate everything they
shared and the possibilities that were created from the exchange.
I am grateful to the students of cohort 12 and the professors of the Organizational Change
and Leadership program at the Rossier School of Education. The exposure to these curious
minds has been a gift. I valued the collective leadership and improvements from the dissertation
committee. Dr. Courtney Malloy provided expert guidance as my dissertation chair. Committee
members, Dr. Kathy Stowe and Dr. Anthony Maddox enhanced the work with their experienced
perspectives and kind insights. From the program office, Dr. Anna Chang and Leivera Fonoti
assisted in the timeliness of my 2021 conferral. Dr. Guadalupe Garcia Montano was always
positive and supportive with her suggestions and comments. Study mates and friends, Dr. Maria
Silva-Palacios and Rene Prupes, were lifelines in a lonely process. Dr. Danette Nelson became a
close friend and confidante. As I sometimes struggled, I was spurred from academic angst into
conferral confidence as I saw my cohort colleagues each grow closer to their goals.
For over three years, my friends and family endured my pursuit of earning a Doctorate. I
thank my mother for her love and acceptance. My husband was a well-spring of patience and
food. His love, faith, and leadership were inspirational. To my closest friends – your caring and
support has been an ocean breeze that kept my sails full. I am grateful for your energy and
distractions. To the fur babies - blessings to Jack the Dog and Pepper Cat. You both passed away
during this work, but what a gift of caring love we exchanged. Tiki Cat has taken the mantel. She
thinks everything is purr-fect.

viii
Table of Contents
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice .................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 2
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 4
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 4
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ..................................................... 6
Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 7
Organization of the Dissertation .......................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ......................................................................................... 10
Introduction: Global Competitiveness Prompts Education Reform .................................. 10
Historical Examples of Global Competitiveness Motivating Education Reform ............. 12
STEM in Education ........................................................................................................... 17
Workplace STEM Skills and Support Providers ............................................................... 27
Cross-Sector Collaboration as an Innovative Strategy ...................................................... 32
Stakeholders in STEM Learning Ecosystems ................................................................... 37
Collaborating Challenges Amongst Education Stakeholders ............................................ 41
STEM-Focused Cross-Sector Collaborations .................................................................... 47
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 51
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 57

ix
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 58
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 58
Overview of Design ........................................................................................................... 59
The Researcher .................................................................................................................. 59
Research Setting ................................................................................................................ 60
Site Selection and Participants .......................................................................................... 61
Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 63
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 63
Ethics ................................................................................................................................. 64
Chapter Four: Findings .................................................................................................................. 65
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 65
RQ1: Structure and Focus of STEM Learning Ecosystem ................................................ 67
RQ2: Activities of Industry Partners ................................................................................. 74
RQ3: Value of Resources Exchanged ............................................................................... 86
Additional Insights ............................................................................................................ 95
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 98
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion ....................................................................... 100
Discussion of Findings and Results ................................................................................. 100
RQ1: Structure and Focus of SLE ................................................................................... 101
RQ2: Activities of Industry Partners ............................................................................... 105
RQ3: Value of Resources Exchanged ............................................................................. 107
Additional Insights .......................................................................................................... 108
Recommendations for Practice ........................................................................................ 111

x
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 114
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................... 115
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 116
References ....................................................................................................................... 116
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 172
Appendix B: Email Template ...................................................................................................... 174

xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Standard Occupation Classification Codes for STEM Occupations 24
Table 2: Comparing Skills Demand in 2018 and 2022 30
Table 4: Study Participants 67
Table 5: Comparing Regional STEM Learning Ecosystem Focus 72
Table 6: Industry Partner Activities from STEM Learning Ecosystem Engagement 79

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 56

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice
The United States is lagging behind competing nations in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM), and the resulting skills gap in our labor force can reduce
economic viability in these industries (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine, 2017). Moreover, a lack of diverse candidates may result in fewer new STEM
industries and innovations (National Science Foundation [NSF], 2020). Technologies such as
automation, artificial intelligence, and cloud computing have exacerbated the labor shortfalls in
select industry sectors (Giffi et al., 2018; World Economic Forum [WEF], 2020). In the
manufacturing industry alone, these shortfalls can climb to over two million workers by 2028
(Giffi et al., 2018). Addressing the shortfalls and increasing economic prosperity requires
increasing STEM interest among underrepresented populations, particularly Black, Indigenous,
People of Color (BIPOC) and women (Barone, 2021; Crabtree et al., 2019). While the focus of
this study is not specifically on underrepresented populations, the issue of STEM literacy
amongst all people in society has been elevated by the world’s most prestigious global economic
and business consortia, such as the WEF, the International Monetary Fund, and the Group of 20
(G20, 2020; Rold & O’Donnell, 2017; WEF, 2020).
Students’ academic performance is further evidence of the decline in the STEM-
proficient labor market. Math and science assessments rank our eighth-graders below other large
or high-income economies, such as Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, and
Russia (Mullis et al., 2019). The nation’s ranking in international math and science test scores
has remained relatively flat for the past decade (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development [OECD], 2016). The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, 2015,
2019) reported that only 22% of high school seniors demonstrated science proficiency in 2015
2

and math proficiency in 2019. Interest in STEM-related careers is waning amongst teens
surveyed by Ernst & Young. Boys’ interest in these careers dropped 12%, leaving 25% of boys
asserting an interest while girls’ was 11% (Junior Achievement, 2018). Because employers face
a shortage of qualified American-born applicants, international candidates educated and living in
the United States fill the need. Nearly 75% of international doctoral graduates remain in the
United States to work in STEM occupations that employers cannot fill with American-born
applicants (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics [NCSES], 2017). With U.S.
technology jobs forecast to increase by 9% by 2028 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS],
2019), there is a need for more BIPOC and women in STEM, and continued economic growth
and innovation requires improving STEM learner aptitude and proficiency (National Science
Board [NSB], 2015; NSF, 2019; WEF, 2018).
Context and Background of the Problem
This study focused on cross-sector collaborations (CSCs) and the value that industry
partners bring to them as an innovation to strengthen the STEM workforce. Sometimes referred
to as collectives, collaboratives, alliances, public-private-partnerships (3-Ps), collective impact or
initiatives, CSCs are typically regionally based organizations developed to solve complex social
issues (Bryson et al., 2006; Gray, 1989; Henig et al., 2015; Keast & Mandell, 2014). They are
formed with representatives from two or more societal sectors, such as K–12 education,
philanthropy, business, government, higher education, and community non-profit organizations.
Broadly, their mission is to collaborate to solve complex problems to benefit the sectors they
represent and society at large (Crane & Seitanidi, 2013; Kania & Kramer, 2011; Parkhurst &
Preskill, 2014). The problems they address vary, with some working on alleviating poverty,
3

racial inequity, economic disparity, lack of health care access, and other societal concerns (Crane
& Seitanidi, 2013; Walzer & Weaver, 2019).
Specialty collaborations for sector-based problem-solving in education have focused on
myriad initiatives. They include regional career pathway development, professional development
for business education, and parental programs to foster students’ aspirational interests (Harkins,
2018; Kania & Kramer, 2011). One approach, STEM learning ecosystems (SLEs), develops
STEM education collaborations (Traphagen & Traill, 2014). Two or more sector representatives
within a region form these collaborations with the intent of increasing STEM proficiency for the
workforce, the economy, and society at large (National Research Council, 2014; National
Science & Technology Council, 2018; President’s Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology [PCAST], 2012; Ralls et al., 2018; Traphagen & Traill, 2014).
Shortages in the STEM workforce primarily affect private sector businesses, motivating
industry partners to participate in SLEs. As part of a network of regional employers, they
understand their businesses’ needs, including their strategic direction, new hires’ competencies,
and their existing employees’ upskilling needs. Studies suggest industry partners should
contribute to innovating by adding to the disparate mindsets in a collaboration (Catmull &
Wallace, 2014; Dyer et al., 2011). Additionally, their core capabilities towards strategy and
customer focus align with the goals and mission of CSCs.
The Learning STEM Institute (LSI)
1
developed SLEs to proliferate a STEM for all
philosophy in education. Their collaborations focused on in-school or out-of-school STEM

1
Pseudonyms are used for this organization, its employees, and all study participants to maintain
anonymity.
4

programs. Members meet at networking events twice yearly (pre-covid) to receive coaching,
exchange information, share promising practices, and further collaborate, in person, to elevate
their regional SLE’s performance and effectiveness. Since 2015, three presidential
administrations have advocated for implementing ecosystems for assisting in STEM workforce
readiness. This dissertation focused specifically on examining SLEs within LSI’s network.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this project was to study the role of industry partners in select SLEs
within the network LSI created. While a total study population would focus on all CSCs
dedicated to STEM proficiency and workforce development nationwide, for practical purposes,
the sample consisted of five SLEs. As such, three research questions guided the study:
1. What are the structure and focus of the SLE?
2. In what ways are industry partners involved in the work of the SLE, and what are the
roles and activities of industry partners?
3. What non-financial resources are exchanged by SLE industry and non-industry partners,
and what is the perceived value of the resources exchanged?
Importance of the Study
Examining the SLEs’ performance in supporting STEM proficiency and the development
of STEM professionals will help ensure our economy prospers. Should U.S. workers fail to meet
STEM employers’ job needs, our nation could lose competitiveness in the industries that provide
its economic edge (National Research Council, 2012). These industries include air and spacecraft
machinery, pharmaceuticals, computer and electronics, software publishing, electrical
equipment, automotive, weapons, chemical products, and IT and information services (Galindo-
Rueda & Verger, 2016). Globally competitive firms in these industries employ 35% of the total
5

U.S. workforce with a higher than average median salary (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018a, 2018b;
Galindo-Rueda & Verger, 2016). The loss of just 5% of jobs in these categories could cost
billions in lost earnings and trade (Rothwell, 2013), posing a risk to our nation (NSB & NSF,
2020; Riemschneider, 2018).
The length of time employers wait to fill job roles is evidence of the eroding workforce.
Employers presently report STEM roles take longer to fill than other openings for both degreed
and sub-bachelor positions (Rothwell, 2014). For example, China graduates half a million
engineers each year, while the United States graduates approximately 99,000 (Yoder, 2014).
China’s larger population does not mitigate the competition the United States faces. Due to the
baby-boomer generation’s retirement rate and the increase in STEM jobs, the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017) calculate regional shortages of
workers proficient in these fields over the next decade. These predictions have increased
recruitment efforts in minority populations not typically represented in these industries.
Several researchers and policymakers continue to examine gender and racial-ethnic
disparities in STEM education and occupations to address the STEM pipeline (Estrada et al.,
2016; Fouad & Santana, 2017; Hrabowski & Henderson, 2019). Women represent 35% of STEM
degree holders but 29% of professionals in these fields (Orrell & Cox, 2020) while making up
47% of the total labor force (BLS, 2017). In addition to economic growth, engaging diverse
populations may yield greater innovation in working teams (Dyer et al., 2011; Hargadon, 2003).
However, research suggests the gap persists. While growth among women in STEM occupations
increased 6% between 1993 and 2017, it has not matched men’s (Burke, 2019). African
Americans and Hispanics are underrepresented in STEM careers and degrees in proportion to
their percentages in the general population, in contrast to Whites and Asians. However, while
6

Hispanic occupation growth has more than doubled from 2.8% to 7.5%, among African
Americans that growth increased slightly by 2.2% (Burke, 2019).
Tackling these issues is best done through collaboration among multiple groups
representing the affected populations and sectors to benefit the greater good (Committee on
STEM Education, 2018; Traphagen & Traill, 2014). To that end, CSCs innovate through their
partnerships’ diverse nature (Coenen et al., 2015). Thus, SLEs dedicated to STEM proficiency
and operating under an inclusive philosophy may encompass populations previously
underrepresented in these disciplines. As CSCs gain momentum as a problem-solving method,
emulating successful models may allow for broader geographic reach or solving different types
of complex and recalcitrant problems (Kania & Kramer, 2011; Surman & Surman, 2008). For
example, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy recommended SLEs as the
most effective method for improving STEM literacy and supporting a technologically competent
workforce (Committee on STEM Education, 2018).
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The theoretical framework used for this study is social exchange theory. According to
this theory, individuals representing an organization within a collaborative alliance value
resources differently as they work to share knowledge (Hung et al., 2011). Individuals trade non-
financial currencies like time, information, reputation, and energy, weighing each exchange’s
costs and benefits as they interact (Muthusamy & White, 2005). In a CSC, as individuals
collaborate, they share knowledge in a way that provides value and impacts their standing (Kolk
et al., 2010). Social exchange theory is viable in framing the problem because of the social
interaction that takes place within the SLE, the exchange of non-financial resources during the
7

collaboration effort, and the value participants place on contributing ideas to solve complex
problems (Hung et al., 2011; Muthusamy & White, 2005).
The research methodology for this dissertation was qualitative. The strategy of inquiry
used was a multicase study focused on an in-depth analysis of five SLEs. Interviews and
document analysis were used to address the study’s research questions.
Definitions
The following terms are used throughout this study. Their definitions are provided for
context and comprehension.
Common Core State Standards: This initiative was born, in part, from the concept that
students should receive the same standard of education regardless of which state provided them
with schooling. Driven by a 2004 report, a bipartisan organization, Achieve, stated that high
school graduates did not meet employer or college recruitment expectations. Adopted by all but
four states by 2011, the standards in English/language arts and mathematics became highly
politicized by 2015.
Cross-sector collaboration (CSC): Through this model, an alliance of individuals
representing two or more societal sectors is believed to have a greater impact on addressing a
recalcitrant issue when working together than members of one sector would have while working
alone. Other names adopted for this model are collective impact, cross-sector alliance, and 3-P.
Individuals in the CSC are referred to as members, partners, or participants.
In-school learning: Learning that takes place during the legal hours of instruction is
considered in-school learning. Each state sets statutory requirements for minimum student
contact. A set number of days and hours of instruction are applied to each grade level. During
8

these hours, educators are required to teach a specific curriculum, with testing revealing whether
standards are met.
Labor Market: A labor market refers to the human resources needed to match skilled
workers with appropriate employment. Labor availability, or employees, is considered supply,
compared to labor demand represented by employers.
Next Generation Science Standards: This state-led initiative was undertaken by the
National Research Council, the National Science Teachers Association, the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, Achieve, and the Carnegie Corporation of New
York. At the time of this study, 20 states representing over 36% of students nationwide had
adopted these science standards. Challenges to wider spread adoption include limited student and
classroom resources, professional development for teachers, and the new pedagogy itself.
Non-financial resources: Refers to resources contributed by CSC partners. These
resources can include that which the members value, such as the physical space where they can
meet and work together; the dedicated hours of labor to provide a specialty service; software,
hardware, or other necessary equipment; IT support, videography, or additional technical
assistance; marketing distribution channels, public relations, or media connections;
programmatic support; training expertise; apprenticeships; intern or externships; and expert
speakers or facilitators.
Out-of-school learning: Learning continues formally and informally outside of legally
mandated school hours. School-sponsored on-school-site learning activities may include before-
or after-school study clubs, field trips, community service learning opportunities, homework and
tutoring clubs, extra-curricular engagements sponsored by community, private sector, non-profit,
or civic groups. The aim of these activities is to add to the learners’ experiences, prepare them
9

for the real world, overcome perceived disabilities or adversity, and develop additional interests
and proficiencies.
Pedagogy: understood as the discipline of teaching that incorporates the theories of
learning, the environment in which learning takes place, and the students’ cultural background
and motivation. Not just the act of instruction, pedagogical methods consider learning strategy,
knowledge transfer, and ensuring efficacy as the learner comprehends.
Organization of the Dissertation
This study is organized into five chapters. This chapter provided the key concepts and
terminology commonly found in a discussion regarding STEM needs in the workforce and CSCs
amongst education stakeholders. An overview of LSI’s organization, goals, and network and an
overview of the social exchange theory framework were provided. Chapter Two provides a
review of the current literature surrounding the scope of the study, including STEM in the
workforce, issues of STEM proficiency in education, CSCs as an emerging method of problem-
solving, and industry and education collaboration. Chapter Three details the choice of
participants, data collection, and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are provided.
Chapter Five provides recommendations for future practice and research based on data and
literature.

10

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This literature review focuses on contributors to the interest and importance of STEM’s
expansion in the workforce through education (Dougherty & Lombardi, 2016). This review
begins with what led to the first appeal for collaborative action between society’s sectors and the
resulting achievements. The review then presents how STEM is defined, the STEM pipeline, and
challenges to that concept, including what constitutes a STEM career. A section on workplace
skills presents the research on the business community’s needs in the 21st century, including
formalized skill development and competencies. Finally, the nuanced approach of CSC is
examined. When successful, these collaborations influence sectors regionally and help to
develop more STEM college majors and professionals. Following the literature overview, this
chapter outlines social exchange theory (Homans, 1958), the conceptual framework used to
evaluate the SLEs within LSI.
Introduction: Global Competitiveness Prompts Education Reform
Select organizations rank countries based on categories like freedom, competitiveness,
ease of doing business, and commitment to development (Center for Global Development, 2020;
The Heritage Foundation, 2021; Schwab, 2018; The World Bank; 2019), using vast data that
compares them or, in some cases, is designed to spur improvements and policy setting (Gharib,
2019; Nikolic & Krajisnik, 2019). One index, global competitiveness, is defined by the WEF as
“the set of institutions, policies and factors that determine the level of productivity of a country”
(Schwab, 2018, p. ix) and by other ranking organizations generally as productivity (Flejterski &
Majchrzak, 2018).
Apart from 2012–2013, the United States has ranked in the top five countries in the
Global Competitiveness Index published by the WEF since 2008. The International Institute for
11

Management Development publishes the World Competitiveness Yearbook every 5 years. In a
similar analysis, until 2020, the WEF ranked the United States within the top four most
competitive countries. Countries typically take action to sustain a high position or climb in the
rankings (Høyland et al., 2012; Nikolic & Krajisnik, 2019).
To stay competitive, governmental leaders make policy and regulatory changes when
they perceive geopolitical and economic threats to their country’s global status (Flejterski &
Majchrzak, 2018; Nikolic & Krajisnik, 2019). Those changes address market economics and
education reform (The Brookings Institution, 2020; PCAST, 2017). The connection to education
and competitiveness lies in the history of activity and the timing of education reform summarized
in this review. The U.S. Department of Education’s mission also reflects this connection. The
department’s mission is “to promote student achievement and preparation for global
competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access” (U.S.
Department of Education, 2021a, para. 1). Though education is largely a state and local mandate,
the federal agenda creates national awareness of education’s importance, shares innovations, and
maintains foresight towards challenges and opportunities on a national and global scale (U.S.
Department of Education, 2021b).
This literature review begins by identifying key historical events since the mid to late
20th century that connect perceived threats to global competitiveness to calls for education
reform. Activities for reform were predominantly in preparation for workforce development and
business skills aimed at averting further economic erosion at the time and were perceived to
strengthen productivity. Included among factors that strengthen productivity are a skilled and
educated workforce, a well-supported diverse labor market, and sector support for innovation
(International Institute for Management Development, n.d.; Schwab, 2018). These factors are
12

also components in developing SLEs on a regional level (PCAST, 2017; Traphagen & Traill,
2014) to increase interest and proficiency in STEM. Leaders connect STEM proficiency as a
factor in high competitiveness rankings and because this proficiency can also result in prosperity,
high standards of living, and greater skill levels among a country’s or region’s citizens
(Kiselakova et al., 2019; Nikolic & Krajisnik, 2019; Schwab, 2018; The World Bank, 2019).
Thus, it is reasonable that education reform has been frequently called for historically.
Historical Examples of Global Competitiveness Motivating Education Reform
The literature provides multiple examples of American leaders calling for education
reform to advance STEM proficiency at a time of global competition and threats. With each
action, incremental improvements may have been made, but reform continues. Beginning in the
mid-20th century, four key events moved STEM reform forward in the popular discourse. Still,
complexities remain in increasing STEM interest (Gammon, 2021; Maltese et al., 2014).
The Cold War and Sputnik
The first event recognized as pivotal in advancing STEM began in 1947 with our
country’s involvement in the Cold War. After World War II, the Soviet Union posed a global
threat to America’s democratic system (Gardner, 2005; Scribner, 2012; UShistory.org, 2020).
Cold War technologies and innovations contributed to an interest in STEM, including the first
computer, nuclear artillery, aeronautics, and missile defense systems (ComputerHistory.org,
2020). When the Soviets launched the first unmanned satellite, Sputnik 1, in 1957, the rivalry
with the USSR intensified, and America conceded that our country needed to bolster its STEM
skills (Howell, 2018; Marlin, 1987; Powell, 2007).
The competitive threat posed by the Russians and our loss to them in the unofficial space
competition motivated Congress to enact the National Defense Education Act of 1958,
13

dedicating over a billion dollars to STEM education, college scholarships, and low-interest loans,
which sparked college enrollment nationwide (Powell, 2007; Senate Historical Office, n.d.). As
the Cold War ended, colleges multiplied and thrived. By the 1960s, enrollment in these
institutions rose by 120% (Gumport et al., 1997). Society saw education as a pathway to career
advancement. In response to the external international threat, the investment bolstered STEM
education to increase research and development to secure the country (Powell, 2007).
A Nation at Risk
In the wake of back-to-back recessions in the early 1980s, with a peak in unemployment
over 10%, there was great concern for the workforce, global competition from Japan, and
business resilience (Amadeo & Barnier, 2020; Gardner, 2005; Hill et al., 2012). President Ronald
Reagan was intent on shrinking the size of government and removing the Department of
Education from his cabinet. Sensing a political opportunity, incoming education secretary, Terrel
Bell, commissioned the now preeminent report A Nation At Risk (Bell, 1986; National
Commission on Excellence in Education [NCEE], 1983).
Written as a letter to the populace, A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) was a call for
society’s sectors to support a technologically proficient labor force and improve the quality of
America’s schools. The report called on educators to prepare learners for business and industry
needs, or society would face the risk of ineffective “scientifically and technologically illiterate”
employees (NCEE, 1983, p. 10).
A Nation At Risk was relevant for two main reasons. First, it is synonymous with the
beginning of the standards-based curriculum (Meadows, 2007). The report emphasized subject
minimums to prepare high school graduates for more challenging coursework in higher
education (Gardner, 2005). It set standards and expectations by specifying the number of years
14

students should study science, math, English, social studies, computer science, and foreign
language (NCEE, 1983). Second, it created a society-wide discussion on the role education has
in business. A Nation At Risk received extensive media coverage for months after its release,
spurring President Reagan to speak about the state of education in every public exchange (Bell,
1986; Gardner, 2005). While recognizing the connection between education and the needs of the
business community, the report did not provide specific skill recommendations for educators to
teach to students to ensure career success (Goldberg & Harvey, 1983; Meadows, 2007). The
commission emphasized lifelong learning and called on STEM-focused non-governmental
organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,
NSF, and other scholarly, scientific, and learned societies to support the educational system
(NCEE, 1983).
The New American School Development Corporation as a Cross-Sector Collaboration
Through the 1990–1991 recession, when unemployment was at 7.8% (Gardner, 1994;
Karlgaard, 2010), President George H. W. Bush directed his administration to address business
concerns with education reform (Gardner, 2005). With the cooperation of the Business Round
Table leaders and the National Governors Conference, the president introduced the New
American School Development Corporation (NASDC) as an industry-funded non-profit with a
5-year charter dedicated to raising standards and performance for all students (Bodilly, 2001;
Bodilly et al., 1996; Mecklenburger, 1992; Miller, 1992; Rundell, 1993; Whiting, 1993). At the
helm of the NASDC, the Bush Administration placed labor leaders and business executives who
connected education policy to workforce development.
The start-up of the NASDC was the equivalent of a CSC, bringing together
representatives from business, federal, state, and local government and their counterparts in
15

education and regional non-profits. School districts selected new innovative education
approaches, referred to as break-the-mold strategies, designed to scale across multiple school
systems, integrating community stakeholders. (Olson, 1993a; Whiting, 1993). Considered
progressive for its time, most program designs favored an interdisciplinary approach to teaching
(Kearns, 1993; Mirel, 2001; Rundell, 1992). Interdisciplinary teaching is a process by which
“learners integrate information, data, techniques, tools, perspectives, concepts, and/or theories
from two or more disciplines to craft products, explain phenomena, or solve problems, in ways
that would have been unlikely through single-disciplinary means” (Boix Mansilla, 2010, p. 289).
After implementation, a large and pivotal school district that adopted a NASDC design
failed, revoking its commitment to the design it had chosen, and others followed (Mirel, 2006;
Pogrow, 2002). The RAND Corporation, responsible for documenting the process, evaluating the
program elements, and measuring the outcomes (Kirby et al., 2002; Mirel, 2001), reported that
schools that failed lacked the capacity to embrace widespread, whole-school reform and that
public accountability measures prevented a break-the-mold education approach (Berends et al.,
2001; Kirby et al., 2002). Moreover, surveys revealed that parents were divided regarding the
issue of progressive teaching and the level of educational standards (ECS, 1996; Mirel, 2001).
Charter Schools and Magnets
The 2008–2009 Great Recession disproportionately affected disadvantaged areas (Baker,
2014; Goldhaber et al., 2016; Baldacci et al., 2002). Public school budgets were negatively
impacted, allowing for charter schools to proliferate as they marketed innovation to urban
populations in affected areas (Center for Education Reform, 2014; Halqachmi, 2013).
Stakeholders became increasingly open to charters, as they tend to bring in private funding along
with educational advancements (Wohlstetter et al., 2004a). Pressured by school choice advocates
16

in the 1990s, legislators passed laws allowing the creation and operation of charters during the
Bush Administration and simultaneous recessionary periods (Friedman, 2005; Grube &
Anderson, 2018). Magnets, a subset of charters, also grew in popularity (Wang & Herman,
2017).
Magnet schools are public schools operating within a traditional public education system
and subject to the same state regulations to which all public schools must adhere (Archbald,
2004; 2U, Inc., 2021). They present an alternative to traditional schooling in the focus and
specialization they provide for students (Magnet Schools of America, n.d.). These schools are
called magnets for the manner in which they attract students, as they market their specialized
courses so that families will choose something other than their geographically assigned school
site. All relevant and grade-appropriate courses are taught through the lens of the schools’
subject-matter focus. Subjects, or tracks, are centered on eventual vocations or careers (Wang et
al., 2017). Magnets that offer a STEM focus are considered successful in garnering and
maintaining interest among students (Castellano et al., 2003; Judson, 2014).
Beneficial in collaboration, magnets offer a compelling platform for business
partnerships because they show positive results for student achievement while inspiring career
interests (National Research Council, 2011). Soon after magnets were launched in the 1960s,
instances of industry sector support emerged with members of the business community
augmenting the magnet curriculum with real-world expertise (Shive & Rogus, 1979; Waldrip,
n.d.; Wang & Herman, 2017). Abowitz (2000) asserted that magnets exemplify the trend of
education becoming increasingly “careerist in orientation, with a utilitarian, economic motivation
attached to educational inquiry and achievement.” (p. 332). Below-average readers enrolled in
magnets performed better in standard math tests, earned more credits in higher education, and
17

showed more confidence in their career choices (Crain et al., 1999; Crain et al., 1992). President
Obama gave several back-to-school speeches at magnet schools and called for their proliferation
(NBC Washington, 2011; Strauss, 2016).
Summary
The recent history of STEM indicates that to maintain global competitiveness or when
there is an economic threat, our nation’s leaders look to education or its reform as the solution.
The Cold War started the National Defense Education Act program to make STEM education
more accessible. The threat of Japanese competition and the 1980s recessions called for higher
education standards. The NASDC was born from calls for reform left unanswered in the 1980s
and amid the threat of personal computing manufacturing and another economic downturn.
Finally, charter schools challenged the fundamental notion of school assignment, and STEM
magnets became prolific due to public funding scarcity that came with the Great Recession.
To stay globally competitive, sectors collaborate to maintain an educated and skilled
workforce because more highly educated workers correlate to higher productivity (International
Institute for Management Development, 2020; WEF, 2018). The next sections examine STEM in
education, how the pipeline concept is the foundation of most STEM policy, and how
employment skills are necessary for STEM’s expansion and adoption.
STEM in Education
The term STEM is now more widely recognized than 10 years ago, when 86% of the
public confused it with plant life and stem cells (Angier, 2010). With the acronym understood,
educators are challenged to find time for creatively teaching these topics while prioritizing
standardized curriculum (Buchanan et al., 2019). There is no standard for teaching STEM topics,
determining how to teach them, or applying them. Because STEM is an acronym for multiple
18

fields of study, curriculum designers combine several curricula or subjects (Mitts, 2016).
Varying teaching methods, funding disparities, lack of standards, and differing professional
development result in inequity and variability in offerings across school districts, statewide and
nationally (Breiner et al., 2012; English, 2014).
At every grade level, STEM teaching requires specialized professional development and
financial resources that not all schools can, or choose, to provide. In elementary school, at an age
when students are most open to exploring these subjects, teachers are not typically specialists in
them (Catterall, 2017). As students ascend to higher grades, teaching requires specialization as
students determine the math or science classes they must take to meet standardized testing
requirements (Kanny et al., 2014; NCES, 2016). The instructional level of support for these
students can be bifurcated between those who are proficient and aim to major in STEM fields
and those whose skills and confidence require remediation, both indicated by test scores
(Buchanan et al., 2019). The Common Core State Standards initiative presented in 2010 and
science curriculum through the Next Generation Science Standards from 2011 helped the effort
to standardize math and science curriculum (Soules et al., 2014). These initiatives did attempt to
set cohesive criteria for competency, though they were not unanimously adopted by all states.
Thus, in the absence of state and local funding, financial support can come from federal sources.
Federal Government STEM Support
Within the federal government, five main agencies influence STEM programs and
policies. Established by Congress, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP) is nominated by the president and subject to Senate confirmation (Granovskiy, 2018).
That individual may concurrently hold the role of Assistant to the President for Science and
Technology and co-chair of the PCAST. The assistant also manages the National Science and
19

Technology Council, but it is chaired by the president, coordinating policy across the federal
government departments and agencies. The Department of Energy funds PCAST, and the OSTP
administers it. The NSF supports research in the fields of science and engineering and funds the
Science and Technology Policy Institute, the federal government’s research and development
center. In coordination, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor,
and the Department of Education also influence STEM policy (Granovskiy, 2018; PCAST,
2012).
Different presidential administrations have taken different tactics regarding STEM
education. The Trump administration proposed programmatic and administrative reductions to
STEM education each year for 3 years (American Institute of Physics, 2020). Conversely, the
Obama Administration released a report that highlighted the shortage of one million stem
graduates by 2022 (PCAST, 2012), lobbied for budgetary increases and secured $1 billion from
private sources to fund Educate to Innovate, a business-led CSC, focused particularly on STEM
teacher recruitment, training and retention (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary,
n.d.). On average, Congress has appropriated $3 billion across all agencies in the form of aid and
grants to support STEM with half going to higher education and the rest to K–12 (Granovskiy,
2018; U.S. DOE, 2019).
STEM Defined
Even with the absence of a standard, the combination of the words in STEM provides a
foundation for a cross-sector dialog and integration of the fields. The subjects are related, yet a
broadly adopted definition has been accepted to meet all the sectors’ needs as they apply:
an interdisciplinary approach to learning where rigorous academic concepts are coupled
with real-world lessons as students apply science, technology, engineering, and
20

mathematics in contexts that make connections between school, community, work, and
the global enterprise enabling the development of STEM literacy and with it the ability to
compete in the new economy. (Tsupros et al., 2009, as cited in Mohr-Schroeder et al.,
2015, p. 10)
Along with its own department of education, each state has its own definition of STEM.
Some states developed their STEM policies and definitions after the Obama Administration
released the competitive Race To The Top grants program in 2009, which prioritized but did not
require a STEM component (Boser, 2012). Delaware and Tennessee were the first states to win
grants, fulfilling the STEM priority (Boser, 2012). In 2021, Delaware presented STEM as a
collaborative effort with a cross-section of societal stakeholders intent on equity, skill
development, and economic advancement (DelawareSTEM.org., n.d.). Tennessee applied to the
program with a mission to recruit and train STEM teachers in rural areas (Boser, 2012) and
highlighted STEM as a “key strategy… to strengthen Tennessee’s economic future” (Tennessee
Department of Education, 2018, p. 2.). California Department of Education (2014) chose a broad
definition to allow integration in course and program design. This description focuses on an
outcome that has been repeated by STEM CSCs, which is requiring students to span multiple
subjects with a demonstration of skills and knowledge:
K–12 STEM education encompasses the processes of critical thinking, analysis, and
collaboration in which students integrate the processes and concepts in real world
contexts of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, fostering the development
of STEM skills and competencies for college, career, and life. (California Department of
Education, 2021, para. 1)
21

Definitions allowing for this level of interpretation will yield varying results by state, school, and
classrooms (Breiner et al., 2012).
Connecting STEM learning to skills development and eventual economic prosperity is
now commonplace in motivating students to pursue STEM careers. In 2010, the PCAST
recommended the creation of 200 STEM-focused public high schools and 800 elementary and
middle-schools in minority and economically disadvantaged areas, along with national
leadership to ensure STEM expertise (PCAST, 2010). A decade later, an estimated 90 STEM-
focused high schools operate primarily in urban areas across the country (Community for
Advancing Discovery Research in Education, 2018). Though school site growth has been slow,
research continues to support the original assertion: students, including BIPOC youth and girls
attending STEM-focused high schools, are three times more likely to pursue a STEM college
major (Means et al., 2018, 2021). Increasing persistence is paramount to student success
(Bandura, 2012) as educators work to retain more students interested in STEM.
The STEM Pipeline
Education stakeholders and policymakers routinely refer to the pipeline metaphor when
emphasizing proficiency and creating a foundation for cumulative skills that lead to a hiring pool
of STEM professionals. The metaphor describes all learners who enter kindergarten and could
eventually enter the STEM workforce (NSB, 2015). Presumably, the pipeline narrows like a
funnel as these learners continue through primary and secondary school and enter the labor
market directly after high school or while they are in higher education. Visually represented as a
liquid flowing through a narrowing pipe, less of the population moves through the pipeline so
that only a few small drops, or people, flow out the end to become STEM professionals or STEM
proficient (Cannady et al., 2014; Hill et al., 2010; NSB, 2015; Sadler et al., 2012).
22

Presumably, STEM education reform and policy efforts may fix the pipeline’s leaks to
keep students in the funnel and move more students toward the funnel’s opening. Taking
calculus in high school or the first year of college (Redmond-Sanogo et al., 2016), scoring high
in math on the ACT or SAT (Mattern et al., 2015), and declaring a STEM major in one’s college
freshman year (Maltese & Tai, 2011) contribute to successful passage through the pipeline. The
U.S. Department of Commerce asserted that “a STEM degree is the typical path to a STEM job”
(Noonan, 2017a, p. 7), and 69% of college-educated STEM workers earned a STEM degree.
Students leak out of the pipeline when they are not supported to remain in it. Mattern and
researchers from American College Testing asserted that students are not adequately prepared
academically for what is required in math and science (Mattern et al., 2015). There is evidence of
pipeline leaks resulting in gender inequity. Because women fill almost half of all U.S. jobs, but
only a quarter of STEM jobs, many pro-female efforts aim to boost STEM proficiency and
interest amongst girls and women. They include legislative and policy changes, increased
funding, research, changes to the curriculum, college outreach, and targeted interviewing of
female candidates (Makarova et al., 2016; Noonan, 2017b; Sax et al., 2015; WEF, 2018).
Applying the pipeline analogy encourages policy efforts towards the inclusion of
underrepresented populations in STEM fields. Relative to their percentage in the overall
population (Humes et al., 2011), underrepresented groups do not have the same proportion in
STEM professions. These groups include African Americans, American Indians, Alaskan
Natives, Hispanics, and persons with disabilities. (Fouad & Santana, 2017). However, Asians,
while minorities in the U.S. population, are not underrepresented in the STEM population of
professionals (Beede et al., 2011). Moreover, Asian STEM professionals with bachelor’s degrees
command almost double the income of their Black counterparts (Espinosa et al., 2019; Humes et
23

al., 2011). A concerted effort to understand why the pipeline leaks more among underrepresented
populations and encourage participation in STEM fields has garnered interest, funding, and some
results (Estrada et al., 2016; Hrabowski & Henderson, 2019).
The Complexity of STEM Occupations
Determining the success of the pipeline policy requires counting STEM professionals
compared to degree holders or job requisitions. This process is confounded by how STEM
professions are delineated. The organization defining STEM (Graf et al., 2018) or the person
doing the work (Anderson et al., 2018) determines what constitutes a STEM occupation.
Standard Occupation Classification codes determine STEM occupations (Espinosa et al., 2019;
Noonan, 2017a; Office of Management and Budget, 2018). Table 1 presents these occupations.
This table does not provide a complete list of all STEM occupations, but it does provide
examples from each category. Notably, it excludes science and math educators, health care, and
social science professionals (Langdon et al., 2011).

24

Table 1
Standard Occupation Classification Codes for STEM Occupations
Code STEM occupation
category
Occupation or occupation example
11-3021
STEM managerial
occupations
Computer and information systems managers
11-9041 Engineering managers
11-9121 Natural sciences managers
15-10xx (multiple types)
Computer and math
occupations
Computer scientists and system analysts
15-2011 Actuaries
15-2041 Statisticians
17-1020
Engineering and
surveying occupations
Surveyors, cartographers, and
photogrammetrists
17-2xxx (multiple types) Engineers (i.e., civil, electrical, geological)
41-9031 Sales engineers
19-1010
Physical and life
sciences occupations
Agricultural and food scientists
19-2010 Astronomers and physicists
19-4031 Chemical technicians

The federal agencies that collect STEM occupational data are not aligned with each
other’s job classifications in STEM. The BLS narrowly defines STEM professions and uses the
Occupational Information Network classification system. Other agencies use the SOC
classifications as referenced in Table 1. The U.S. Census Bureau has a new classification titled
STEM-related and more broadly categorizes STEM fields (Anderson et al., 2018; National
Center for O*NET Development, n.d.).
The RAND Corporation surveyed respondents who self-identified whether they worked
in a STEM job based on their tasks, not the industry in which they work. More women self-
identified as working in STEM roles such as healthcare and education, while men who were
managers and salesmen self-identified as STEM workers. The government does not classify
either as STEM roles. Importantly, RAND’s findings indicate that promoting policies that urge
25

women to choose STEM degrees may not result in increasing their wages if women gravitate to
communal careers on the periphery of STEM, or STEM-related, and not in the core STEM
professions (Anderson et al., 2018; Redmond-Sanogo et al., 2016).
The Pipeline Fallacy
Some research asserts the pipeline is a fallacy and fixing the leaks and filling the funnel
does not increase the number of STEM degree holders linearly segueing to professions in these
fields (Cannady et al., 2014; Maltese & Tai, 2011; Redmond-Sanogo et al., 2016). Several other
variables contribute to career choices (Kanny et al., 2014; Maltese & Tai, 2011; NSB, 2015;
Sadler et al., 2012). The U.S. Census Bureau found that almost three-quarters of STEM majors
did not find employment in a STEM field (Hyer, 2014), and Carnevale (2011) reported that only
half of STEM majors choose careers in those fields. There are close to 10 million people
employed in a STEM classified occupation (BLS, 2019; U.S. Census Bureau, 2020b), and close
to 3 million college graduates are in a STEM job without obtaining a STEM 4-year degree
(Noonan, 2017a). They may have received their education through their employer, a short-term
certificate, or a second, advanced degree, evidencing of the pipeline’s non-linear nature. Maltese
and Tai’s (2011) literature review of pipeline educational experiences denote several
confounding variables (Salkind & Frey, 2019) that occur as students mature towards career
attainment. These variables include life experiences during enrollment, persistence, interest in
math and science, classroom experience, socioeconomic status, and sub-factors like parental
education level and family attitude towards STEM subjects and fields. These can alter the path
from education to a STEM career.
STEM Pathways
26

There are numerous pathways to a STEM career. The use of the term pathways has
become an approach to build the workforce, set policy, strategize economic growth, and promote
a way towards knowledge and proficiency (NSB, 2015; U.S. Department of Education, 2015).
Under the leadership of then-Vice President Joe Biden, the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act of 2014 created pathways as a framework for secondary, postsecondary, and
CTE education programs. They were to be enacted at all levels of government as CSCs along
with the business and non-profit communities (Concannon et al., 2016).
Broadly, a STEM pathway is defined as “high school course-taking, transition to higher
education, completion of a baccalaureate degree in a STEM major, school to work transition, and
workforce participation” (Tyson et al., 2007, p. 244). For example, one Austin, Texas, high
school lists separate pathways for robotics, biomedical engineering, aerospace engineering, civil
engineering and architecture, and computer integrated manufacturing, all with the intent of
moving interested students to a 4-year degree and career attainment (Akins Early College High
School, n.d.). The PCAST (2017) and other sector representatives have challenged the emphasis
on a bachelor’s degree as the only pathway to career success, stating it underestimates the need
for middle-skilled workers who can respond to the rapid rate of technological change. Called
sub-laureate or middle-skilled, they can perform job functions with 2-year certifications and
move with more fluidity in the job market (Couturier & Cullianane, 2015; PCAST, 2014;
Rosenblum & Spence, 2015). Manufacturers and service-related technology industries have
advocated for this option because it lowers education costs while still yielding ample
compensation and career growth (Businesswire, 2019; National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine, 2016a; Rothwell, 2015). Both 2- and 4-year postsecondary pathway
models increase interest and motivation in STEM (Coleman, 2020; Stipanovic et al., 2017).
27

Acknowledging the possibility that the pipeline analogy may be flawed, the NSB (2020)
urged the United States to adopt the pathway model to hedge against the non-lateral nature of
career transgressions. The board called for the deepening of “partnerships between educational
institutions and the business sector to prepare Americans for the industries of the future and
support reskilling and upskilling of incumbent workers so that they can better navigate rapid
changes in the world of work” (NSB, 2020, p. 16).
Workplace STEM Skills and Support Providers
While some stakeholders advocate pathways as an effective method for skills
development for which businesses and the eventual employees can benefit, identifying and
teaching those skills can challenge educators trying to meet the changing needs of industry
(Cappelli, 2015). The information age has spurred the knowledge economy where “organizations
that use their knowledge as a source of competitive advantage are called ‘learning
organizations’” (Hadad, 2017, p. 206). The knowledge economy has changed the nature of
business to cultivate workers who enable their organization’s competitive advantage through
knowledge, intellectual capital, and the development of learning organizations (Hadad, 2017;
Harris, 2001; Heffner et al., 2011). Individuals entering the labor market may be assessed to
ensure their skills fit into a learning culture. With the speed of technology changes and
innovation, SLEs emphasize continuous or lifelong learning to mitigate the chance of skills
obsolescence (Fischer, 2000; Laal, 2011; McCombs, 1991). However, opinions vary on which
are the most meaningful skills for students to develop for eventual career success in the
knowledge economy and on whether they will fit the culture in which they will work.

28

Support for the 4Cs in Soft Skills
There is no official or sanctioned source for the skills required in the workplace.
Researchers, institutions, policymakers, governmental agencies, human resource managers, and
influencers are some of the types of entities that have added their skills lists to the literature.
Additionally, several for-profit and not-for-profit organizations have built a business or service
around soft-skills training to support teachers and learners. Some of them are well-supported by
corporate funders. An emerging theme in soft skills is the four Cs (Bedir, 2019; Kivunja, 2015;
Levin-Goldberg, 2012): critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, and communication.
However, depending on the source, the corresponding skill is different. There are also categories
of skills, such as life skills, basic skills, and literacy skills (Laker & Powell, 2011; Robles, 2012).
Applied Educational Systems (AES), a for-profit business in Pennsylvania supporting
CTE, differentiates among learning skills, literacy skills, and life skills, indicating that they are
not the same as career readiness skills. (Stauffer, 2020a). For AES, the learning skills are the four
Cs (AES, n.d.). The literacy skills help students discern fact from fiction and whether a source of
information is viable or misleading. Finally, AES lists five life skills: flexibility, leadership,
initiative, productivity, and social skills (Zook, 2018). Their marketing material is absent
evidence to assert the efficacy of these particular skills.
Battelle for Kids (P21) has grown through mergers among several STEM networks and
consortia from across the nation. The framework presented by P21 is similar to that of AES with
the 4Cs, information, media, and technology skills, without calling them literacy skills and
combining life and career skills. These three skill categories rest on a foundation of critical
subjects, the 3Rs (reading, writing, and arithmetic), and 21st-century themes (P21, 2019). The
themes include global awareness, financial and entrepreneurial literacy, civic literacy, health
29

literacy, and environmental literacy. P21 added curiosity, caring, confidence, and courage to
critical thinking, creativity, communications, and collaboration, the last two they linked together.
The organization also added the categories of digital literacy skills and career life skills (Trilling
& Fadel, 2009).
In a 2006 survey of over 400 employers in which P21 participated, the most important
skills cited were professionalism/work ethic, oral and written communications,
teamwork/collaboration, and critical thinking/problem-solving (Casner-Lotto, 2006). Additional
skills included diversity, leadership, lifelong learning/self-direction, ethics/social responsibility,
and information technology application. The survey indicated that these applied skills are
considered more important than basic knowledge (Casner-Lotto, 2006).
Increasing and Declining Skills
Because of the speed at which technology innovates and its influence on the workforce,
the WEF, the same non-profit that ranks nations for global competitiveness, releases the Future
of Jobs Report every 2 years. In WEF’s most recent report, 313 chief human resource officers,
representing all major industries and over 15 million employees, were once again surveyed on
work roles and the skills required of them. WEF’s survey uses a skills taxonomy. In Table 2,
analytical thinking and innovation maintain their top ranking as technology predominates in
business practices. Skills that can be replaced by human-machine collaboration declined in the
ranking, like complex problem-solving and critical thinking.

30

Table 2
Comparing Skills Demand in 2018 and 2022
2018 Projecting for 2022 Declining, 2022
Analytical thinking and
innovation
Analytical thinking and
innovation
Manual dexterity, endurance,
and precision
Complex problem-solving Active learning and learning
strategies
Memory, verbal, auditory, and
spatial abilities
Critical thinking and analysis Creativity, originality, and
initiative
Management of financial,
material resources
Active learning and learning
strategies
Technology design and
programming
Technology installation and
maintenance
Creativity, originality, and
initiative
Critical thinking and analysis Reading, writing, math, and
active listening
Attention to detail,
trustworthiness
Complex problem-solving Management of personnel
Emotional intelligence Leadership and social
influence
Quality control and safety
awareness
Reasoning, problem-solving,
and ideation
Emotional intelligence Coordination and time
management
Leadership and social
influence
Reasoning, problem-solving,
and ideation
Visual, auditory, and speech
abilities
Coordination and time
management
Systems analysis and
evaluation
Technology use, monitoring,
and control

Note. From Future of Jobs Survey by World Economic Forum, 2018.
(http://reports.weforum.org/future-of-jobs-2018/). Copyright World Economic Forum. Reprinted
with permission.

Businesses Contribute to Skills Development
Employers and their foundations have also contributed to the skills discussion, though
their endeavors usually come from marketing efforts. IBM released its Tech Trends report
expressing concerns about the current skills gap in technology areas such as data analytics, cloud
31

security, and mobile applications (Lo et al., 2012). In 2016, General Electric partnered with MIT
and the Boston Celtics basketball team to create a mobile and online lab experience to develop
STEM skills in urban Boston schools (General Electric, 2020). A survey of manufacturers
revealed that 80% could not find workers with the critical thinking and technical skills to enable
their companies to succeed (Giffi et al., 2015). These activities and concerns from the business
community to improve education and hard and soft skills have not been met with formal policy
standards. While the Nation at Risk report (NCEE, 1983) attempted to prepare educators for the
needs of the 21st century, standardized skill development for college and career readiness has not
materialized.
Summary
There is no national standard for STEM K–12 education. Teaching STEM is complex
because it involves four interrelated fields and not subjects. Moreover, the difficulty of the topics
in these fields as a student advances in grade levels requires instructor proficiency that may not
meet industry standards. In the absence of statewide criteria, the federal government, while
supportive, provides a complicated structure of agencies to navigate. State-based and federal
policy to increase STEM interest has been set on the pipeline metaphor, assuming students
funnel into an interest in STEM degrees and professions but fall out during their academic
journey. Determining who a STEM professional is involves some controversy. Some self-
declare, regardless of how the federal government defines the occupation. Industry
representatives continue to tout the importance of workplace skills to support competitive
advantage. However, the exact nature of those skills is debatable, so they are difficult for
educators to teach.

32

Cross-Sector Collaboration as an Innovative Strategy
Because of the complexities surrounding the issues identified in education reform and the
challenges in developing a technologically proficient workforce, it is difficult to conceive how
just one stakeholder group could address these matters. When multiple sectors, represented by
the affected stakeholders, form collaborating alliances to focus on one or more issues, these
alliances are referred to as CSCs, aptly named for the work done in unity for a mutual cause
(Gray, 1989). Collaboration is defined by Margerum, (2011) as “an approach to solving complex
problems in which a diverse group of autonomous stakeholders deliberates to build consensus
and develop networks for translating consensus to results.” (p. 6). Similarly, Mattessich &
Johnson (2018) define collaboration as a relationship between multiple organizations committed
to a “jointly developed structure and shared responsibility; mutual authority and accountability
for success; and sharing resources and rewards.” (p. 5). They add this dynamic relationship is
between individuals representing the stakeholder organizations.
Collaboration is now a prevalent strategy used in multiple public and private sectors, as
their members come together to address recalcitrant social issues (Bryson et al., 2006; Henig et
al., 2015; Keast & Mandell, 2014). Sometimes called partnerships, collectives, alliances, or
collaboratives, CSCs are popular for tackling education reform and even more focused sub-
issues within education reform. Some examples are the proliferation of school choice, increasing
graduation rates, career pathway development, early childhood development, and STEM
proficiency (Grossman et al., 2014; Harkins, 2018; Kania & Kramer, 2013; Kezar, 2011;
Traphagen & Traill, 2014; Wohlstetter et al., 2005). They are often regionally organized,
encompass multiple stakeholders, and integrate numerous sectors because of the complexity of
33

the work required and the mutual benefit the sectors derive from that work (Grossman et al.,
2014; Henig et al., 2015; Kania & Kramer, 2011, 2013; Rivkin et al., 2014).
Collaborative networks have their roots in Europe, where they first started within
professional communities. They are prevalent in Italy and Denmark, where they are referred to as
collaborative industrial networks (Goetsch, 1994). Developed after World War II to increase
competitiveness within an industry or related businesses, these collectives were comprised
mainly of small and medium-sized companies (Goetsch, 1994). They continue there today in
many industries, such as IT, manufacturing design, and tourism (Durugbo, 2015; Filippetti &
D’Ippolito, 2017; Kelman et al., 2016). Successful in solving industry issues, such as supply
chain management and advancing process innovations, collaborative networks expanded across
sectors when regulatory issues broadened the inclusion of governmental agencies for other
problem-solving endeavors.
Problem-solving through change is the CSC strategy. By bringing together disparate, yet
affected sector collaborators and sharing best practices, they do what cannot be accomplished
alone (Selsky et al., 2014). Landmark work by Surman and Surman (2008) introduced CSCs in
the context of a constellation to reference the “magnetic attractor” (p. 26) that magnetizes the
multiple sectors that orbit the issue they come to serve. The term constellation is sometimes used
in the literature as a metaphor along with CSCs (National Science & Technology Council, 2018;
Parkhurst & Preskill, 2014; Stiver, 2019). The researchers posited that a constellation can only
survive with purpose and active leadership, creating a virtual organization within a complex
ecosystem (Surman & Surman, 2008).

34

Cross-Sector Collaboration Motivations
There are various reasons sector representatives participate in a CSC. Ultimately as a
method for solving problems, partners engage in one of a choice of multiple motivations
depending on goals, organizational structure, and resource usage (Gray, 1996; Gray & Purdy,
2014; Rubinstein et al., 2018). Gray (1996) noted that the motivation in forming CSCs and their
outcomes distinguishes how the partnership will develop and any ensuing conflicts.
Shared Resources
Access to shared resources, opportunities, and information is a common reason disparate
sectors band together to solve a problem. Combining and pooling funds, expertise, and personnel
brings partners together, even when their processes or end goals may not initially align (Bryan,
2004). At inception, the shared resources are mutually agreed upon, often informally, and may be
balanced with in-kind contributions from the forming partners (Gray, 1989). For example, one
sector representative may donate office space while another may provide information and
content experts’ personnel time. In some cases, a perceived imbalance of these contributions can
eventually lead to conflict. Without intervention, this behavior may manifest in withholding or
overestimating the value of resources, a change in power dynamics, or politicizing roles or goals.
Societal Problem-Solving
Complex societal improvements, such as those Gray and Purdy (2013) referred to as
“noble goals” (p. 207) or Huxham and Vangen (2005) called “the moral imperative” (p. 7),
require multiple sectors to come together as a CSC for strategy, planning, and resource
management. The complexity of the approach, goal setting, or outcome typically leads to some
degree of conflict (Gray & Purdy, 2014). One sector may be unduly burdened with the
responsibility of a particular issue or has a greater interest in solving the problem. If not part of a
35

CSC, without support and left to manage the problem-solving alone, a single sector could fail,
not only in its mission but as an organization serving others (Bryson et al., 2006). Members of a
CSC will often press on with their goals and agenda when they feel the good that comes from
their continued efforts outweighs the strife they may experience trying to solve problems in
isolation (Bryan, 2004; Gray, 1989).
Risk Sharing
In problem-solving, how a partner perceives a challenge may reveal how they perceive
associated risk. Sectors members will enter a CSC because of the perception of mitigating risk
and the impact of spreading risk among partners to dissipate its effect (Gray, 1989). Because of
the distinct backgrounds, strategies, and capabilities of the CSC participants, those who can
burden and alternate between risk factors at crucial times or, at the minimum, empathize during
risk management may weather conflict as it arises better than others (Gray & Purdy, 2014;
Huxham & Vangen, 2005; Jacklin-Jarvis, 2015).
Cross-Sector Collaborations for Education
Education reform has seen increased attention from the CSC model in the past decade. In
2016, Henig’s research team conducted a study to quantify education-based CSCs in the United
States through an internet scan. The researchers found 182 education-focused CSCs existed in
100 cities nationwide (Henig et al., 2016). Each of the CSCs had at least one K–12 school and
one other sector represented.
The rise in CSCs indicates that education and business leaders see potential in using their
agency to solve complex problems (Traphagen & Traill, 2014). Additionally, Crosby (2010)
reported that the rise in CSCs was indicative of how stakeholders believed they solve challenging
problems through their collective efforts rather than singularly. The phrase collective impact
36

became synonymous with CSCs in the education literature (Grossman & Lombard, 2015;
Grossman et al., 2014; Henig et al., 2016; Riehl & Lyon, 2017). Assembling the stakeholders
from the various sectors will vary by community, but business leader engagement is critical for
an education initiative’s success (Grossman & Lombard, 2015). Research indicates that in
successful education-focused CSCs, most business leaders were involved in strategizing and
advocating, not funding the endeavor (Grossman & Lombard, 2015; Rivkin et al., 2014). They
were primarily driven to participate in improving education in the community.
When leaders from representative stakeholder groups in K–12 education collaborate with
a mission to solve complex problems (Kania & Kramer, 2011; Parkhurst & Preskill, 2014), those
groups typically include select regional leaders and staff from K–12 education, philanthropy,
business, government, higher education, and community organizations. Collaborations form
regionally because the governance of public K–12 education is usually rendered from a district,
city, or county where the key stakeholders are based (Lyon & Henig, 2019; Marsh &
Wohlstetter, 2013; Stone & Stoker, 2015). While jurisdictional control is close to school sites,
education policy can be influenced by state and federal governmental entities. These
intergovernmental relationships exist among the federal, state, and local governments and add
complexity to the power dynamic within the stakeholder groups (Marsh & Wohlstetter, 2013).
This complexity suggests that the intricacies of the issues facing education require key
representatives from the intergovernmental organizations to participate in education-based
collaborations (Clarke, 2017; Lyon & Henig, 2019; Marsh & Wohlstetter, 2013; Stone & Stoker,
2015).

37

Stakeholders in STEM Learning Ecosystems
Because funding and administration of K–12 and public higher education are held at the
state and local level, SLEs are regional in focus but supported by PCAST and OSTP as a policy
for advancing STEM literacy. The White House supports SLEs as “vital to preparing a diverse
workforce…to lead and prosper in an increasingly competitive world driven by advanced
technology” (Committee on STEM Education, 2018, p. 1.). These collaborations are formed with
representatives from two or more societal sectors focused on increasing STEM proficiency for
education, the workforce, the economy, and society at large (National Research Council, 2014;
National Science & Technology Council, 2018; PCAST, 2012; Ralls et al., 2018; Traphagen &
Traill, 2014). Relevant stakeholders collaborate within and are part of the SLEs and include
representatives from the following groups:
● K–12 educators and administration (districts, public and private schools)
● parents or families of choice (non-blood relatives or someone other than immediate
family)
● students
● non-profit organizations (museums, science centers, zoos, libraries, education support,
and others that support STEM learning)
● institutions of higher learning or higher education (community colleges, technical
colleges, and universities, both private and public)
● government (agencies and branches differentiated by responsibility, accountability, and
resources)
● businesses or industry (Allan et al., 2014; Glossary of Education Reform, 2014; Smilor et
al., 1989; Werts et al., 2013; Zion, 2009)
38

Each of the stakeholders has a vested interest in a positive outcome or in the process of
developing STEM proficiency (Traphagen & Traill, 2014). Furthermore, each stakeholder group
has accountability to others to a certain degree, leading to their mutualism (Holland & Bronstein,
2008). While the following stakeholder organizations are comprised of multiple individuals and
departments dedicated to specific tasks and responsibilities (Dubnick, 2014), they are
generalized for descriptive purposes.
Educators and Administration
In a formal learning setting, teachers are accountable to students to motivate their interest
in a subject and to teach the material in a way that increases the students’ comprehension and
performance (Costigan et al., 2004; National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future,
1996). Educators in K–12 settings vary in their professional expertise and are sometimes
challenged to develop their students’ STEM proficiency if they lack it themselves (Al Salami et
al., 2017; Breiner et al., 2012; Rockland et al., 2010). Teachers with a STEM background tend to
segment STEM into separate subjects so that it is compatible with the manner in which they are
certified (Gardner & Tillotson, 2018; Farber, 2017). At all levels of education, SLEs can provide
educators with support. This can include in-classroom programs and professional development,
externships, equipment, instruction, and personnel resources to model the integration of STEM
fields and real-world applications (National Science & Technology Council, 2018; Ralls et al.,
2018).
Parents
Educators and most societal stakeholders expect parents, or the parental equivalent, to
support students’ education. What comprises support varies depending on the family’s education
experience and socioeconomic status (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
39

Medicine, 2016b). Parental support can influence students’ academic achievement, school
preparedness, motivation, and perception of learning (Gonzalez-DeHass et al., 2005; Jeynes,
2012; N. Hill, 2009). However, parents sometimes lack the confidence to urge their children to
pursue STEM careers because their own STEM skills may wane or cause anxiety (Soni &
Kumari, 2015). Participating in SLEs can help a parent understand the need for STEM skills as
their child navigates their career options (Castellano et al., 2003; Hemelt et al., 2018).
Students
Society perceives student proficiency to be a result of education outcomes (Alfassi, 2004;
Levin, 2000). With unemployment highest among the least educated (BLS, 2020b), students are
expected to enter the labor market with a level of proficiency reflective of their education,
whether from high school, a certification program, or a degree-granting institution. Generally, in
early development, a child is interested and eager to learn math and science skills (Su & Rounds,
2015), but age and gender seem to play a role in self-efficacy, with girls’ efficacy commonly
declining around adolescence (Hill et al., 2010; McBride, 2018; Neri, 2018; Sax et al., 2015).
Thus, SLEs may represent the institutions wherein a learner may choose to eventually work or
from whom they may receive mentoring and education support throughout their learning.
Non-Profits
Non-profits are support organizations that offer specialized expertise or learning
environments. They may be a regional agency that assists in workforce or economic
development. They may be a science center, museum, zoo, or planetarium, or program-oriented
like Project Lead the Way or FIRST Robotics (Charity Navigator, n.d.; Firstinspires.org, n.d.;
Zintgraff et al., 2020). For a K–12 student, a non-profit may provide education support in the
form of field trips, pre-kindergarten development, or after-school programs. For adults, these
40

same organizations host lectures, events, and special exhibits. The given organization’s income
could be based, in part, on ticket sales from those interested in STEM, as well as from grants and
donations from philanthropy and business interests, some of whom may be the same stakeholders
within the SLE. The mission-driven nature of non-profits often merges with schools to provide a
natural support structure (Wohlstetter et al., 2004a; Zintgraff et al., 2020).
Higher Education
Higher education can take the form of any formal education after high school. This
includes public and private institutions that offer CTE, community college courses, matriculated
classes, certificates, and 2- and 4-year degrees. Students in higher education specialize in a
particular subject expertise, honing their proficiency and skills to proffer to their eventual
profession. Higher education representatives may find themselves as intermediaries between the
needs of business and the output of K–12 education, managing the gap that exists between the
two (Klein et al., 2014; Siegel, 2010). Often required to remediate incoming students, college
and university representatives can collaborate in SLEs to offer STEM programs and influence
other sectors to increase math and science curriculum standards in K–12 school districts
(NCEE,1983; PCAST, 2012).
Government
Government is a complex stakeholder because of myriad funding sources, accountability,
and overlapping agency jurisdictions. As the primary funding source for public K–12 education,
the state government sets policy and budgets, with some exceptions (Chen, 2020). The federal
government provides a small amount of funding through Title 1 and special education grants
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2019c). Legislation funds STEM initiatives through
grants and budget appropriations, and state and regional governments create regional economic
41

development agencies to attract new business and increase workforce development opportunities
(Francis, 2016). Elected officeholders will volunteer time and earmark funds for STEM-specific
programs in their respective jurisdictions or areas of influence (Henig et al., 2015). Additionally,
the government is a major employer (BLS, 2016; BLS, 2020c).
Business
Private businesses employ approximately 85% of the working U.S. population (BLS,
2020a; F. Hill, 2020). They are the recipients of the graduating student’s skills and talents
(Cannady et al., 2014). If new employees are not technologically proficient or adequately
educated, business owners may need to use their own resources to educate their employees
(NCEE, 1983; WEF, 2016). Viewed as a funding source by other SLE stakeholders, some in the
business community have not been satisfied with their investment (Allan et al., 2014; Rivkin et
al., 2014). To take greater ownership, they participate as an architect in STEM education reform
(Grossman & Lombard, 2015; Smilor et al., 1989; Traphagen & Traill, 2014; WEF, 2018;
Zintgraff, 2020). Over 90% of education-oriented collaborations have at least one business leader
on their board (Henig et al., 2016).
Collaborating Challenges Amongst Education Stakeholders
Bringing together the varied methods of operations and cultures embedded within each
stakeholder group can stress engagement efforts. A history of mutual misunderstanding exists
amongst two primary stakeholder groups, business and K–12 educators, further complicating
cooperative efforts (Sondergeld et al., 2016).
K–12 Educators Misunderstand Business
Educators are somewhat reluctant to welcome community representatives to collaborate
for fear of scrutiny or criticism (Furco, 2013). Several studies commissioned by Harvard
42

Business School have explored the relationship between K–12 educators and business
representatives (Allan et al., 2014; Rivkin et al., 2014; Sommerfeld et al., 2014). Educators and
administrators generally viewed business leaders as challenging to work with and misinformed
about what the partnership required (Allan et al., 2014; Rivkin et al., 2014).
As the main representative of a school district, school superintendents have dynamic
responsibilities engaging diverse stakeholders as they guide both internal and external forces at
their districts towards success or at least working to avoid economic, organizational, or political
failure (Kowalski et al., 2011). Superintendents seek support from the business community in the
form of funding, skill development, and political advocacy (Rivkin et al., 2014). Businesses are
accustomed to writing checks and supplementing school funding, but some are only recently
learning how to partner for workforce development opportunities and skill development for
school-age children with career pathways in mind (Allan et al., 2014).
Business Misunderstands K–12 Educators
A majority of 7,000 business leaders surveyed revealed that they believed that K–12
educators and administrators were to blame for the U.S. lack of global business competitiveness
(Sommerfeld et al., 2014). Industry leaders are sometimes impatient with education reform
because they are accustomed to rapid results and accountability in their business practices (Allan
et al., 2014). A Harvard Business School study sought to identify barriers to engagement by
asking superintendents and business leaders to assess how education affected the business
environment (Rivkin et al., 2014). Superintendents positioned the K–12 education system as
strong and improving, while business representatives categorized education as weakening and
deteriorating. Superintendents and educators believe each other to be misinformed about the
43

realities of each other’s business. The survey further indicated that time and understanding were
lacking on both sides and were a barrier to engagement (Rivkin et al., 2014).
How Collaboration Conflict Manifests
In depicting CSCs, much of the literature addresses the challenges collaborations
encounter in maintaining their partnerships over time (Bingham, 2008; Bryan, 2004; Bryson et
al., 2006; Gerard & Kriesberg, 2018; Rubinstein et al., 2018; Seitanidi & Crane, 2014).
Difficulty adapting to change is the foundation for most resistance in CSCs. The resistance can
originate from an individual in a CSC or the collective culture of a representing organization
(Gray & Purdy, 2014). Culture, in this context, is “learned patterns of beliefs, values,
assumptions, and behavioral norms that manifest themselves at different levels of observability”
(Schein, 2017, p. 2). The individual representing the organization participating in the CSC may
also represent their organization’s cultural norms and values (Hofstede, 1980). Those norms and
values can clash with or assimilate into the CSC’s culture (Kolk, 2013).
Incentives and Disincentives
Different organizational types will have varying institutional incentives and disincentives
based on their cultural norms (Brodbeck et al., 2007). When CSC partner organizations’
representatives see more benefit to their self-interests than detriments, the partners would be
inclined to view their participation as an incentive. Conflict may occur when a partner feels
disincentivized from a particular activity or behavior by another partner or a CSC policy or
agenda (Nyaga et al., 2013). For example, a partner organization may view volunteerism,
encouraged by the CSC, as unproductive and consuming needed resources (Gray, 1989).
Perceptions of volunteering as negative could run counter to the CSC’s goals and cause conflict
44

among partners who may consider that type of in-kind philanthropy as an advantageous use of
resources.
Disparate Organizational Competencies
Core competencies reflected in the type of organization and accountability structure may
intensify conflict. When two, or more, distinctive sector types come together to collaborate, there
may be differences over how to accomplish agreed-upon goals and structure the accountability of
meeting those goals (Bryson et al., 2015; Gray, 1989). For example, strategically-oriented for-
profit businesses have different problem-solving tendencies than civic-minded government
institutions with formal accountability structures. Frustrations and assumptions may pre-date
their collaboration, making their disparate approaches more evident as the partners work together
(Senecah, 2018). Unless both sides appreciate each other’s practices, foundational structures, and
shared clients, collaboration could be problematic (Gray, 1989).
Ideological Differences
When sector partners hold deep ideological differences that are barriers to the mission of
the CSC, conflict may be insurmountable (Gray, 1989). Collaboration on an international scale
can cite the most examples, such as pitting democracy against communism or colonialism
against anti-imperialism (Demgenski & Elman, 2018). There are other issues-based
collaborations where fundamental dissimilarities can cause conflict. In K–12 education, the role
of religion and freedom of expression on school campuses is a contentious issue. Also,
environmental collaboratives can span issues that include the ethical treatment of animals, while
sector partners were prepared only to support clean air and water.

45

Individualism Counters Collaboration
Gray (1989) posited that American culture may view working in collaboration as a
weakness. Individualism is linked to a can-do spirit, freedom, choice, the birth of the nation, and
the exploration of the American frontier (Oyserman et al., 2002). In light of this, collectivism
and collaboration are seen as compromising to harmonize relationships (Markus & Kitayama,
1991; Oyserman et al., 2002). The independent view, linked to American culture, runs counter to
the dependent view found in other ethnographies. An individual participating in a CSC who
brings a strong independent mindedness to their interactions may unknowingly create conflict
among those who emphasize common fates, goals, and values (Oyserman et al., 2002).
Conflicting Loyalties
Discordant loyalties between a sector representative’s home organization and the CSC
may also create conflict. Communicating for an entire organization, or in some cases, an entire
sector may place a strain between their own opinions and those they serve (Bryson et al., 2015;
Kolk, 2013). These tensions can intensify when decisions are made. Allowing for adequate time
and precise communication are key factors for partners to accurately represent the needs of the
CSC to their home organizations and secure the information and resources that may be requested
of them (Gray, 1989).
Power Asymmetry
When perceptions of risk or resources are not equally balanced, and the commensurate
social relationships sway one-sidedly, the balance of power does so as well. Inequitable access to
agenda-setting, resources, and decision-making creates tension amongst CSC participants, not
only between those in the unbalanced relationship but also among those who witness it (Huxham
& Vangen, 2005; Jacklin-Jarvis, 2015). The inequity is known as power asymmetry (Kriesberg,
46

2018). Power asymmetry erodes trust, may spur opportunistic and exploitive behavior (Heuer,
2010; Nyaga et al., 2013), and can eventually lead to “collaborative thuggery” (Huxham &
Vangen, 2005, p. 222).
Collaborative thuggery is a behavior exhibited when partners are at cross purposes in
working to cooperate in the service of a common goal (Jacklin-Jarvis, 2015). Similar to a bully
or intimidator, a thug in a collaborative effort would attempt to push others around to get their
own way or demand a particular outcome. While this may seem counter-intuitive to the notion of
nurturing a collaboration, Huxham and Vangen (2005) asserted that collaborative thuggery is
pragmatic and offsets inertia, emphasizing that moving collaboration forward by any means is
necessary to prevent stagnation. This behavior is akin to the pseudo-transformational leadership
type (Bass, 1998; Eisenbeiß & Brodbeck, 2013) that Northouse (2016) described as exploitive,
manipulative, and dominating in the manner in which it transforms organizational participants. If
a sector partner were to resort to this behavior, this leadership style could be effective in the short
term (Barling et al., 2008; Huxham & Vangen, 2005).
Overcoming Obstacles or Conflict Resolution
Depending on the type of dispute, conflicts can fortify the partners’ efforts instead of
thwarting them (Rubinstein et al., 2018). Particular leaders may be identified to intervene and
transform the parties out of the impasse and into action (Gray & Purdy, 2014). Third parties not
associated with the CSC can also mediate a resolution (Kriesberg & Gerard, 2018). They may
engage CSC members in dialogues to uncover differences but may make no agreement as to how
to settle a dispute (Gray & Purdy, 2014). Reinvigorating why the CSC exists and the role each
actor plays can help each side discover empathic points of view. A negotiated settlement may
eventually emerge, which could be temporary or long-lasting, but is agreed upon by all parties
47

(Bingham, 2008; Gray & Purdy, 2014). In extreme circumstances, the mission or goals of the
CSC may change to avoid the loss of partnerships. In any collaboration, empathy and
understanding can strengthen this partnership and build deeper engagement (Weaver & Cajab,
2019).
Maintaining motivating factors can minimize obstacles or conflicts that arise. Feelings of
accomplishment can override conflict (Parkhurst & Preskill, 2014). Researchers found that
keeping meetings enjoyable while balancing the quality and quantity of contributions and
knowledge sharing was a motivating factor in maintaining CSCs. For example, when members
shared reputation feedback, knowledge sharing increased, while altruism and economic
reciprocity made meetings more enjoyable (Hung et al., 2011). Because the problem-solving
work is complex and meandering, finding ways to evaluate its impact may not be exact. Iterating
the CSC’s learning process as it produces results keeps partners motivated and focused
(Parkhurst & Preskill, 2014).
STEM-Focused Cross-Sector Collaborations
Having identified the stakeholders of STEM-focused CSCs and the conflicts that may
occur among them, a detailed view of STEM-focused CSCs now follows. Broadly referred to as
STEM networks, they are organized regionally. A STEM network can be defined as
a formal cross-sector partnership designed to advance access to and engagement with
high-quality science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning experience for
all – other subject areas may also be part of the mission, and shared goals and respect for
each stakeholder’s role and needs are central to the collaboration (Magliaro & Ernst,
2018).
48

The definition was purposely broad but apropos to enable the researchers to search and identify
the networks operating in support of STEM education and even workforce development, along
with their relevant stakeholders (Magliaro & Ernst, 2018).
Traphagen and Traill’s 2014 seminal report of 15 ecosystems defined SLEs with a
student focus, indicating that they encompass
schools, community settings such as after-school and summer programs, science centers
and museums, and informal experiences at home and in a variety of environments...A
learning ecosystem harnesses the unique contributions of all these different settings in
symbiosis to deliver STEM learning for all children. (p. 3)
While Traphagen and Traill (2014) identified promising potential in their nascence, in a cross-
section of demographies, they reported that the STEM ecosystems lacked a shared terminology,
experienced uneven power dynamics, and were hampered by a data shortage. The researchers’
recommendations included scaling strategies, twice-yearly convenings, and a data and research
exchange (Traphagen & Traill, 2014).
Scant research exists to support a literature review on the performance of SLEs. Most
research articles discuss the potential of an ecosystem or best practices in theory but have not
captured longitudinal data on the organizations (Kezar et al., 2019; Liou & Daly, 2020).
The literature supports that LSI’s ecosystems and others have since grown in number and
proportion.
STEM Ecosystems
The National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, as well as the White
House, the NSF, and state and local education departments, endorse STEM networks, in many
instances referring to them specifically as STEM ecosystems (California Department of
49

Education, 2014; Hillsborough County Public Schools, n.d.; National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine, 2016b; National Science & Technology Council. 2018; PCAST,
2010). In 2015, the Obama Administration invited a delegation from an SLE network, Microsoft,
Siemens, and the NSF to the White House to discuss the opportunities and challenges of SLEs
(C. Cohen, personal communication, February 28, 2017). The U.S. Department of Education had
advocated the policy of STEM for all, but the STEM ecosystem terminology was just being
integrated into national policy. In December of 2018, the Committee on STEM Education and
the OSTP released a report espousing the use of STEM ecosystems, explicitly naming them as
such, for the purposes of collaboration among the sectors to “provide all Americans with access
to high-quality STEM education throughout their lifetimes” (National Science & Technology
Council, 2018, p. 1). The report encouraged federal agencies to engage sectors in STEM
ecosystem collaborations, expand business and educator partnerships, increase diversity, equity,
and inclusion in STEM, and prepare the future workforce.
Since the federal government advocated STEM ecosystems, these networks have
proliferated. In 2018, Magliaro and Ernst inventoried and interviewed STEM networks to expand
the work of CSCs and their best practices. They identified 32 international and national
organizations based in the United States working to support regional CSCs focused on STEM.
Of those, 20 used the STEM acronym in some form. Some examples that connote the popularity
of STEM collaborations are represented in the naming of them, such as EcosySTEM, STEM
Collaborations, STEM Ecosystems, and STEM Hubs (Magliaro & Ernst, 2018). The remaining
networks used terminology in their naming that is akin to science, math, or technology. These
include Education Integrating Science and Math, Institute for Science Education, and Integrated
Cyber Education. The researchers identified another 187 statewide organizations, with the most
50

in California (14). Several states have more than nine STEM networks, including Massachusetts,
New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington.
Types of STEM Ecosystem Models
The increased use of the term ecosystem has helped drive “systems thinking” (Liou &
Daly, 2020, p. 2) so that the interconnected approach to STEM teaching and learning can apply
to work-life environments. Researchers have identified three types of STEM ecosystems or
networks, two of which integrate the sectors (Hill, 2019; Liou & Daly, 2020). The first is a
collection of individuals who informally gather in community to advance STEM education but
are not aligned to a specific organization. The second consists of multiple representatives of the
same sector, for example, all higher education or all private K–12 schools. The third type, and
the focus of this dissertation, is multiple sector representatives from organizations affected by
and relevant to education and the workforce. These stakeholders, previously referenced, include
K–12, higher education, business and industry, government, and non-profit (Hill, 2019).
Examples STEM Networks
LSI Network of Ecosystems. LSI is a network for STEM ecosystems across the United
States. While similar, no two SLEs are alike. They span rural, urban, and suburban geographies.
Some are administered in STEM-expert facilities, like zoos, or science centers, while some are
after-school or summer programs. The COVID pandemic has curtailed in-person meetings and
program engagement and has illuminated the need for increased digital access to every learner in
their home (Goldberg, 2021). Thus, LSI helps regional ecosystems take action to help provide
internet access to homes where there is none. Additionally, LSI has centralized videos and
discussion groups that share teaching ideas and home laboratories on their website and has
encouraged their SLEs to do so on their own websites, as well.
51

STEMx. STEMx is a multi-system support network based in Columbus, Ohio, serving 24
U.S. organizations. Launched in 2012 with 4 STEM-focused CSCs, STEMx found management
and funding from Battelle, a non-profit research and development firm (STEMx, 2021). Battelle
manages six Department of Energy laboratories and has created commonly-used technology such
as tamper-proof seals, security thread on paper bills, and dimples on golf balls (Boodhoo, 2011).
Concentrated primarily in rural areas, the STEMx partnership with Battelle enables learners
access to STEM facilities and experts who are geographically distant. Some of the entities of
STEMx are resource portfolios, such as the California STEM Network (n.d.).
Project Lead the Way. Project Lead the Way (PLTW) is a non-profit project-based
curriculum program for PK–12 for science and technology that schools contract for annually.
Existing teachers in the school participate in a three-phase professional development program to
teach the projects (Stebbins & Goris, 2019). All supplies, software, tech support, and the PLTW
learning management system are provided. Also, PLTW offers projects for inquiry and design-
thinking in all grades in elementary and middle school (PLTW, n.d.). Pathways for engineering,
biomedical science, and computer science are offered for high school in both English and
Spanish. The program can be considered costly for some schools, so it is not widely available in
less affluent areas (Utley et al., 2019). Additionally, it is not easily scalable and not considered a
STEM for all approach to teaching (Pike & Robbins, 2019). Those already STEM proficient or
gifted and talented students may be prioritized for the program (ChiefDelphi.com, n.d.).
Conceptual Framework
Social Exchange Theory
This study is informed by key concepts built into the framework of social exchange
theory. According to social exchange theory, sector representatives within a CSC value resources
52

differently as they share knowledge and contribute to the greater good (Hung et al., 2011).
Organizations participating in a CSC are comprised of individuals exchanging knowledge and
other resources of value (Kolk et al., 2010). They trade non-financial currencies like time,
information, reputation, and energy, perceiving the value and benefits of each exchange as they
interact (Muthusamy & White, 2005). The patterns and frequencies of those interactions can
determine the productivity, longevity, and cohesion of a CSC.
Social exchange theory considers how individuals value their interactions and how they
interact in their own self-interest amongst others (Lawler & Thye, 1999). The various
stakeholders have different agendas, core competencies, resources, and organizational cultures,
making the social exchanges during collaboration complicated. Social exchange theory is a
viable theory to frame the problem of practice because of the social interaction that takes place
within the CSC, the exchange of non-financial resources during the collaboration effort, and the
value participants place on the exchange of contributing ideas to solve complex issues (Hung et
al., 2011; Muthusamy & White, 2005).
History of Social Exchange Theory
American psychologists and sociologists first introduced social exchange theory in the
mid-1900s to explain human behavior in a relationship when one or the other is determining
exchanges of value, either financial or non-financial (Cook, 2015; Homans, 1958;
OnlineMSWPrograms.com, 2020; Redmond, 2015). Early theorist George Homans asserted that
relationships present a continuous give-and-take that revolves around costs and benefits decided
in the exchange and modification of behavior (Homans, 1958). Citing Schachter and Blau,
Homans (1958, 1983) proposed that exchange behavior in groups could be predicted. So
reinforcing is the behavior found in groups that it sets a social structure that “in turn becomes a
53

set of contingencies affecting their future behavior” (Homan, 1983, as cited in Homan, 1974, p.
37). These “group norms” (Schein, 2017, p. 4) are among the categories that help define culture.
The study of social exchanges grew popular in the 1960s and 1970s. Anthropologists,
sociologists, and psychologists have studied various concepts for their own applications and
purposes. Notably, Emerson (1962) introduced the concept of dependency and power in social
exchange theory, asserting that inequality between individuals or groups will accentuate the
power differential and characterize the relationship (Palmisano, 2001). Emerson also
hypothesized the nature of power used in the present or how it can be held as a potential use
sometime in the future. Building on power dynamics, Thibaut and Kelley (1959) asserted two
types of power, one that controls fate and one that controls behavior. Controlling fate can affect
outcomes while controlling behavior can change another person’s actions (Lawler & Thye, 1999;
Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Blau focused on microeconomics and the law of supply and demand,
even as it applies to non-financial resources (Blau, 1964; Cook, 2015). Blau wrote extensively
about collaborating towards common goals, interdependence, and the nuances of power and
leadership within the social exchange framework (Blau, 1964). The work of Blau and Homans
represent two different branches of social exchange theory. Behavioral concepts predominate
Homans’ literature, and economics shape Blau’s (Cook, 2015; Di Domenico et al., 2009). Both
are characteristic of collaborations.
Types of Exchanges
Three types of exchanges predominate social exchange theory. The first, a reciprocal
exchange, is relational between two people. If one person acts, the other would respond
accordingly (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Di Domenico et al., 2009). Reciprocity has moral
and cultural implications, as well. Some cultures assert Karma, a spiritual theory or justice to
54

perceived unjust actions. Those highly aware of social exchange may tend to keep an accounting,
maintain a “quid pro quo mentality” (Molm et al., 2007, p. 208), and commit a good gesture in
return, while those low in awareness may not (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). An imbalance can
result in a negative feeling of one party over-committing or out-giving, but the frequency of
positive exchanges can lead to solidarity and trust (Lawler & Yoon, 1993). As subtle as these
exchanges may be, it is essential to note that negative exchanges may lead to a lack of
commitment (Cook, 2015) when building CSCs.
The second type of exchange is a generalized exchange, which is considered indirect and
between three or more actors (Cook, 2015; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). If one actor receives
something of value, they would respond with an exchange to a third person, who would receive
the value of the benefit, not the one who initially did the giving (Molm et al., 2007). Generalized
exchanges can also be interceded by a tech company, such as Uber, Instacart, or GrubHub
(Cook, 2015). Giving blood or donating food are other more philanthropic gestures, but the end
recipient remains anonymous. While interdependencies exist, it does not engender a strong
feeling of solidarity but more of a hierarchy with low social attachment (Emerson, 1976; Lawler,
2001).
A productive exchange, the third type, is most akin to CSCs, as it is the most group-
oriented exchange. The collective benefits of what is produced are greater than one working
alone (Lawler, 2001). In CSCs, access to resources or conceiving of creative alternatives to those
resources can be a positive transfer of knowledge or consultation that takes place between
partners. Balancing the value these productive exchanges bring can determine the pattern of the
exchanges, which can strengthen or weaken the alliance over time (Di Domenico et al., 2009;
Lawler & Thye, 1999).
55

The conceptual framework in Figure 1 illustrates the influences of the various SLE
sectors on learners. The sector members exchange resources to influence and benefit the learner,
who represents all learners who require technological proficiency to excel in the workforce.
After receiving the resources from the social exchanges taking place amongst the sectors, the
learner eventually strengthens society because of their abilities. The value of the social
exchanges simultaneously bring the sectors closer in purpose and benefit a larger objective.

56

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

Note. This figure illustrates the symbiotic social exchanges between society’s sectors and
learners through an SLE.

57

Summary
The United States is determined to maintain its preeminence in global rankings.
Economic or external threats are historically met with attempts at education reform. With the
emphasis on technology and STEM proficiency, education is emphasizing methods to increase
student engagement. Challenges exist in teacher preparation and professional development.
Meeting industry standards for both hard and soft skills for occupations categorized as STEM are
complicated.
Cross-sector collaborations offer a regional approach towards education reform to
innovate initiatives of interest to relevant stakeholders. Using the CSC approach, stakeholders
have a new relational organization, which can allow for knowledge exchange, resource
contributions, empathy, and a renewed dynamism to their regional challenges.

58

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this dissertation was to study the role of industry partners in select SLEs
within the network created by LSI. This chapter provides an overview of the study design and
the research setting in which the study took place. A section describing the researcher’s
positionality is followed by the data sources and sampling. The instrumentation described
includes the use of social exchange theory, the framework used in determining the perception of
value that industry partners bring to the collaboration. The data collection and analysis process
and a discussion of validity, reliability, and ethics complete this chapter.
Research Questions
The research questions, previously noted in this dissertation, guided the methodology
discussed in this chapter:
1. What are the structure and focus of the SLE?
2. In what ways are industry partners involved in the work of the SLE, and what are the
roles and activities of industry partners?
3. What non-financial resources are exchanged by SLE industry and non-industry partners,
and what is the perceived value of the resources exchanged?
This research aimed to gather data to determine the value derived by business
representatives participating in SLEs through the framework of social exchange theory. The first
question focused on the structure of the organization, how decisions were made, and how
members engage and collaborate. The second question focused on ways business organizations
are involved in SLEs. The motivation of the business sector in general or specific corporate
partners in a CSC is sometimes questioned by internal participants and external stakeholders
when fomenting a trusting relationship. Learning what motivates industry participants is
59

fundamental to building trust and the ensuing power dynamics of the SLE’s organization. The
third question sought to uncover the expectations of non-business partners as well as the
perceived value associated with participating in an SLE. Because the business community is
often the source of funding for SLEs, and because they also provide non-monetary contributions,
this study gathered data to determine the types of resources provided. Each SLE was comprised
of various education stakeholders with disparate goals and agendas. Learning which resources
are most valued could strengthen business partnerships in other less effective SLEs.
Overview of Design
Data were gathered through interviews conducted in a qualitative multi-case study. A
case study is a unit to be analyzed, different from a narrative or phenomena (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The units shared commonality and boundaries. This study focused on regionally based
SLEs that have membership in the network managed by LSI. A qualitative methodology was
chosen because it allows for individuals to make meaning out of their experiences (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
The Researcher
My positionality was one of an informed outsider (Rowe, 2014). As the former K–12
education thought-leader and business development executive for a large technology company, I
advocated that our company’s employees participate in regional SLEs. Our firm contracted with
LSI who had geographical reach into the same regions as our company’s branch offices. I
attended three SLE network conferences and four regional conferences. Through that exposure, I
understood the impact the business sector has on an SLE and the effect SLEs have on a
community and educational organizations. Still, I was an outsider relative to the SLE members
whose data I collected. I appreciate the role that business has in society and the importance of
60

collaboration, but I am not an SLE member, and I no longer work for the technology company. I
was an adjunct professor in higher education for 6 years, and a guest speaker in high school
environmental classes, and middle school science classes, but I have not taught consistently in
K–12.
I am aware of the biases that can exist for underrepresented populations in STEM fields. I
understand the contribution my privilege in being White, female, and educated has made in my
professional journey. Though I do not hold a STEM degree, I have frequently been asked to
speak on the subject of STEM workforce development, led technology workshops, and recounted
my own unconventional career trajectory through the STEM pipeline.
Research Setting
This study included select SLEs within a network managed by LSI. The consulting firm,
LSI, has incorporated a non-profit that manages a growing network of SLEs across the United
States. Executive leaders steer the nonprofit, and the management team is comprised of several
directors and an in-residence manager. On an as-needed basis, LSI employs various consultants.
These consultants are professionals with varied backgrounds, skills, and experience.
The for-profit consulting organization brings together stakeholders in education to
improve STEM proficiency through a process designed to transform teaching and learning with
interdisciplinary and design-thinking methods. By cultivating partnerships of STEM educators
from the public and private sectors, LSI cultivates CSCs to support communities as they
experience opportunities and challenges in developing STEM-proficient learners and
professionals. The SLEs become part of a larger network which further engenders collaboration,
diversity, and innovation.
61

The performance goals at LSI have evolved. In the past, performance goals were centered
around SLE participation rates. More recently, the health of the ecosystems is the prime
consideration. The latest target is centered around a dashboard created for each SLE. An
ecosystem indicator tool cultivates data on partners, equity, engagement, and other relevant
measures. The dashboard provides a comparison model for improvement with transparency for
the collaboration partners.
Site Selection and Participants
The sampling approach was purposive, nonprobability sampling (Pazzaglia et al., 2016).
It was purposive because the participants had a unique understanding of SLEs and were chosen
because they were SLE participants. Purposive sampling is a type of nonprobability sampling
because it lacks the randomness of selection (Pazzaglia et al., 2016).
In the United States, economic opportunity and workforce development often correlate
with population growth (Bernstein, 2017). The research data in this study came from
interviewing 18 members of five different SLEs in five different regions. Three of the SLEs
selected were from high population growth states, meaning population growth changed 10% or
more since 2010. Two were from no- or low-population growth states, meaning population
growth changed less than 4%, did not change, or declined since 2010. The U.S. Census Bureau
(2021) tracks changes in population growth.
Instrumentation
The interviews provided data to study the structure and focus of the SLE, the roles and
activities of industry partners, and the value of the exchanges made during collaboration. The
interviews were designed to be semi-structured (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Predetermined and
open-ended questions made the best use of the constrained time and allowed for comparing the
62

answers (Patton, 2002). The inquiry began with situational questions about the subject’s role and
experience in the SLE, then led to their perception and opinion about the SLE's structure and
effectiveness. Further questions explored the respondent’s perception of the value of the non-
financial resources exchanged within the SLE.
As needed, I probed for deeper meaning and examples. This emergent design process
allowed for slight changes as the topic was studied (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
The purpose of the research was to study the role of industry partners in select SLEs
within the network LSI created. Social value theory was the framework used to develop the
research questions, which provided the basis for the interview protocol. Initial questions were
designed to uncover how the member was participating in the SLE and how they felt about that
participation. Later questions were intended to discover the meaning they attributed to their
contribution and the contribution of the organization they represent. Appendix A presents the
interview protocol.
Data Collection Procedures
Each SLE director suggested sector members within their organization, and the
researcher sent them emails (Appendix B) inviting them to interview and providing an
information sheet. Each interviewee had participated in the SLE for at least a year and was
employed in their company or institution for at least a year. The interviews took place over three
weeks. Each of the interviews took an hour, scheduled at the subject’s convenience. All
interviews were conducted remotely, using the Zoom.us software platform with video and audio
recorded simultaneously. Zoom provided a transcription of the interview with timestamps
intermittently throughout the recording. Each interview transcription was checked for accuracy
63

by comparing the transcription to the audio that was recorded. All research subjects permitted
recording, after the researcher asked for consent.
Data Analysis
Transcripts from interviews were coded and analyzed using the software application
ATLAS.ti, developed for the qualitative analysis of textual data. Initial codes called a priori
codes, short two- or three-word descriptions, were developed from the topics that emerged from
the literature review (Gibb, 2018). These codes, along with open coding and in vivo coding
which were derived from reviewing the data, began to elucidate patterns that led to the creation
of categories (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The codes for each transcript were added to a
codebook. In grouping the first level of codes, themes emerged to make meaning from the data
(Gibbs, 2018).
Validity and Reliability
Member checking improved the trustworthiness of the data collection (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this method, the researcher solicits feedback from
respondents to check the validity of the interpretation of answers provided. Member checking
was conducted during the interview. When interpretation can be confounding, or at least unclear,
asking the participant to reflect on the meaning of their response provides accuracy or credibility
in the data collection.
Additionally, the use of an audit trail determined if the results were consistent with what
data were collected. An audit trail ensures the equivalent of external reliability for the qualitative
paradigm. Documenting the process of how data are collected helps achieve confirmability.
Through journaling and other record-taking, I connected what they were investigating to the data
the subjects provided (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
64

Ethics
I was trained through the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative for certification
by the institutional review board (IRB) to mitigate ethical issues. The certification assisted in the
pre-review required by IRB, the administrative body responsible for maintaining the rights of
human subjects in research. The IRB considered this research study exempt or low risk. The
participants were not required to sign a consent form but received an information sheet stating
the nature and purpose of the study as well as other key information about their participation.
Informed consent empowers study participants when they are made aware that their
involvement is voluntary, they may stop participating at any point, and they are made aware of
any aspect of the research that will harm them (Glesne, 2011). Therefore, participants received
an information sheet that detailed the purpose of the study and the nature of voluntary
participation. Study participants were asked for their permission to record the interview and
assured that their confidentiality would be maintained in the dissertation. Data were secured both
physically and electronically. Electronic data were secured on an encrypted cloud network. The
online data collection platforms, such as Zoom and ATLAS.ti, were secured with passphrases in
accordance with the University of Southern California’s Information Security Office’s
passphrase guidelines. Physically derived data were secured in a locked file within locked
premises.

65

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this research was to study the role of industry partners in SLEs within
LSI’s network. Qualitative data were collected through 60-minute interviews with 18 participants
to answer three research questions. Social exchange theory provided the framework used in this
multi-case study to determine how other sector members value the non-financial contributions
that industry partners bring to the collaboration. This chapter begins by providing an overview of
the study’s participants, followed by findings from the analysis of interview data based on the
research questions. This evaluation and the resulting findings were guided by the following three
questions:
1. What are the structure and focus of the SLE?
2. In what ways are industry partners involved in the work of the SLE, and what are the
roles and activities of industry partners?
3. What non-financial resources are exchanged by SLE industry and non-industry partners,
and what is the perceived value of the resources exchanged?
Participants
This study collected data from 18 individuals from five regional SLEs. Three of the SLEs
were in high population growth areas, and two were in no- or low-population growth regions.
The average U.S. population growth by state was 7% from 2010 to 2020 (U.S. Census Bureau,
2021). High growth was considered to be any growth over 10%. No- or low-growth was 4% or
lower since 2010.
Because SLEs are regional, they are often referred to by the name of their region, though
they may have a formal name that incorporates the name of that region, for instance,
Southeastern Kentucky STEM Ecosystem or Ventura County STEM Network. To preserve their
66

anonymity, and in keeping with the analogy to STEM, the SLEs were assigned pseudonyms
matching regions recently identified on the planet Mars. They are listed in Table 4.
The term partner was used as a synonym for professional relationship by 16 study
participants. This term will be used throughout the presentation of the results. Four industry
partners were interviewed and are listed with gender-neutral pseudonyms and referenced
throughout with gender-neutral pronouns to further maintain confidentiality. An industry partner
was not interviewed for each SLE, though sector members in every region discussed the industry
partners, their roles and activities, and the value of the non-financial resources they exchanged.
Pseudonyms were created for each participant interviewed. Table 4 indicates the SLE’s
pseudonyms, the participants’ pseudonyms, the participants’ employment sectors, and their
region’s growth categorization. Tempe and Tharsis are both in low- to no-growth regions, while
Cimmeria, Arabia, and Sirenum are in high-growth regions.

67

Table 4
Study Participants
Region growth type SLE Member Sector
Low/No growth
Tempe
Faith Higher Education
Holly (Dir) K–12
Tom K–12
Tharsis
Chris Industry
Jan K–12
Vince (Dir) K–12
High growth
Arabia
Alex Industry
Grace (Dir) K–12
Pat Industry
Zack K–12
Cimmeria
Diana K–12
Lee Industry
Rachel (Dir) Higher Education
Tatum Higher Education
Sirenum
Gary Higher Ed
Marc Government
Pam K–12
Sean (Dir) Higher Ed

RQ1: Structure and Focus of STEM Learning Ecosystem
Finding 1: STEM Learning Ecosystems Vary in Their Structure and Configuration
The first finding was that the organizational structure and configuration of SLEs varied.
Of the 18 participants, five held leadership roles, akin to a director or the like, for the regional
SLEs highlighted in this study. The leaders of Arabia, Tempe, Cimmeria, Sirenum, and Tharsis
reported that they received full-time compensation for their work, but four were compensated by
an overarching organization to whom the SLE reported. Arabia was the only SLE not part of a
68

larger organization. The other four SLEs were part of another organization, either another non-
profit or a governmental agency, not differentiated here to maintain confidentiality.
All five SLE leaders reported that their organization’s board of directors included
members of the industry sector, but cross-sector representation was not evident on their boards.
Three had boards made up of a majority of industry partners. These were Arabia, Sirenum, and
Tharsis. The other two, Cimmeria and Tempe, had boards with a balance of sector
representation, not heavily leaning to any one sector.
Industry Partner-Based Boards of Directors
Boards comprised mainly of industry partners perceived they acted expediently because
of their structure. Alex, an industry partner member of Arabia remarked, “There’s a level of
accountability about getting the work done in a measurable way when your board is made up of
the business community.” Three other members of an SLE with the industry sector predominant
on the board referenced the speed with which activities were accomplished and how quickly the
SLE has grown compared to others. The freedom to act expeditiously was also related to an
industry-based board by Sean, the director of Sirenum: “We’ve been able to make a lot of
progress because we have a small and supportive board and so they’re not throwing up a lot of
barriers. They let the staff drive what the organization does.” Both Arabia’s and Sirenum’s
directors indicated that because they had more business representatives present on the board,
there were less meetings to consider decisions and more staff-driven decision making, without
overstepping the parameters of their roles.
Cross-Sector-Based Boards
Study participants from SLEs where the board has cross-sector memberships believed
they had greater collaboration than those whose boards did not have cross-sector representation.
69

Cimmeria and Tempe had boards with a balanced complement of sectors, not heavily leaning to
any one sector, though Tempe’s director noted that on their board, K–12 education was not
currently represented. While 11 participants characterized their SLEs as being collaborative, all
three members of Tempe and two of the four members of Cimmeria specified collaboration as a
key attribute of their SLEs’ success. Tatum, a member of Cimmeria since its inception, noted,
“It’s extremely collaborative. Decisions have been made that our organization will run
collaboratively, that there will not be a hierarchy of up here they’re going to tell us how things
go. We’ve avoided that at all costs.” Similarly, Faith, a member of Tempe, said, “I feel like
there’s a real air of collaboration.” She believed collaboration to be a part of the regional culture.
The two other members of Tempe’s SLE commented that the individuals in that region were
collaborative in nature.
Committee Structure
Committee structure was referenced by at least one member of each of the five SLEs.
Committee structure was noted as building culture and consensus but slowing down decision-
making and SLE output. The three SLEs with industry-sector-based boards, Arabia, Sirenum,
and Tharsis, had minimal to no structures. The two SLEs whose boards had a balanced
complement of cross-sector representation, Cimmeria and Tempe, had several committees in
which their members participated. Tempe’s SLE had an executive subcommittee which aided
their large board in decision-making. Cimmeria and Tempe, structured their organizations with
multiple issues- or program-based committees formed by volunteer cross-sector representatives.
Tatum from Cimmeria stated, “decisions have been made that our organization will run
collaboratively.” Both had committees that focused on the collaborative support they believe is
required in an SLE: supporting educators, college and career readiness, out-of-school time
70

activities, counselors, equity and work-based learning. Members of Cimmeria and Tempe
reported high levels of collaboration at the committee level which eventually resulted in
decision-making at the board level. Holly, Tempe’s director, got her start in the organization
working on committees:
My passion for STEM and then the need for our district to have enhanced resources were
the reasons why I joined in committee work. Over time, I was just so inspired with the
groups coming together, trying to make a difference within the region in a wide variety of
ways, that I stuck with the committee work and really engaged as much as I possibly
could.
Five participants from Tempe and Cimmeria related that working in a committee is a way to get
familiar with the organization’s culture and gain subject-matter expertise within their SLEs. Lee,
an industry partner member of Cimmeria, said, “When it first started, they’d assign everybody
out to the committees. We’d think, ‘Oh, I’m specifically going to do this.’” Interviewees noted
that the work accomplished in the committees helped its members track the process in which
consensus was built prior to board decisions.
In contrast to how committees assist members in building collaboration, of the 18
interviewed, four respondents from two SLEs without committees in their structure thought the
use of a committee structure slowed the pace of decision-making and activity. A director from an
SLE where committee structure was minimal said, “I will own that once I’ve flushed out from
the group what the problem is, we just we charge forward and I make a lot of the decisions
myself, based on what...I know the expectations are of my board.” Similarly, speaking of his and
his staff’s work, Sean remarked, “What we’ve been doing is more governing by action. Let’s do
it. If you want to play, you can, but why sit around and meet [to] talk about it all the time?” He
71

felt that when the SLE expands to support other regions in the state, the level of accountability
may demand a robust committee structure, but for now, there has not been a need to create it.
Industry partner Alex remarked, “The board is very results-focused. It’s easy to fall into a trap of
studying and thinking about stuff. I think [this SLE] does stuff.” Similar to the effect of industry-
sector boards, the same four interviewees perceived the absence of committees resulted in
streamlined output. Tharsis was new to the SLE model, and its leader said that there were few
committees. Decisions were leadership and board-based.
Finding 2: The Focus of the STEM Learning Ecosystem Varied in Garnering Cross-Sector
Input
Members of the SLEs provide input into regional STEM education to improve their
region’s workforce pipeline. Although all interviewees said their SLE’s efforts were developing
their region’s workforce pipeline, they depicted two different paths to doing so. Two SLEs,
Arabia and Tharsis, focused on teaching and learning to develop a technologically proficient
workforce of quality STEM professionals. The three others focused on economic development
and how to cultivate the workforce pipeline.
In Tharsis’ low-growth region, their SLE focused on teaching and the student’s
enjoyment in learning STEM without input from industry and workforce preparedness. They
recently won a large career development grant. Their director remarked, “Our position does not
incorporate any thought towards the desires of business.” Tempe, whose members focused
primarily on economic development, K–12 personnel were not represented on the board to
cultivate career pathways in that level of learning. In three of the five SLE’s in this study, the
work of STEM reform was being accomplished without the representation of all the sectors
72

present in the regions where they were operating. The SLEs’ focus, board complement,
committee structure, and growth orientation are listed in Table 5.

Table 5
Comparing Regional STEM Learning Ecosystem Focus
SLE Focus Board Committee structure
Arabia Teaching/learning Majority industry No
Tharsis Teaching/learning Majority industry No
Tempe Economic Development Cross-sector, no K–12 Yes
Sirenum Economic Development Majority industry No
Cimmeria Economic Development Cross-sector Yes

73

STEM Learning Ecosystem Focus: Teaching and Learning
Focusing resources on students and teachers is the mission of two of the five SLEs in this
study. The seven members of Arabia and Tharsis all conveyed that the education of the learner is
vital to creating a STEM-proficient workforce. Grace, Arabia’s director, said their SLE’s mission
was to “bridge the gap between the workforce needs and what we’re producing in K-20.” Jan, an
educator member of Tharsis, acknowledged that STEM interest begins “with high-quality
experiences in math, science and beyond, and how it connects to every single thing that we do.”
The seven participants agreed that teaching elements of STEM was the most efficient way to
increase the number of STEM professionals.
Holly, a member of Tempe, indicated that shared input from industry partners was critical
for educators to prepare students for their careers:
What we’ve heard loud and clear from the businesses is that the soft skills, education or
employability skills. It’s called so many different things, but that the need for teaching
those kinds of skills in K–12 or in college or both was a huge need for employers in the
region and something very overlooked in K–12. As soon as the business members started
mentioning that to educators, they all started nodding and saying, “You know, that makes
complete sense.”
Additionally, they reported that working in collaboration with society’ sectors in an SLE
strengthened the teaching and learning outcomes.
STEM Learning Ecosystem Focus: Developing the Regional Economy
Cimmeria, Sirenum, and Tempe focused on the needs of industry to grow the local
economy and increase the number of STEM professionals. Tempe’s director, Holly, explained
that STEM was added to economic development “after they were into it for years trying to make
74

a difference keeping businesses here and attracting businesses in. They kept hearing that talent
development and having enough talent was a huge barrier to their success.” Cimmeria is in a
high-growth region, but its formation was requested by industry representatives. Tatum, a
member of Cimmeria, opined that the goal of the ecosystem was
to make STEM matter at all levels, K–12 [and] government and, most importantly,
industry because, ultimately, whether we acknowledge it or not, everything everybody
does in education is to result in a job. Bottom line. I love the concept of education for
education’s sake, but I don’t think that it’s legit. I think its education for a career, for
production, for meaning.
Tatum’s comment is aligned with the focus of Cimmeria’s mission statement, which is the cross-
sector connectivity of building a STEM-based economy. The 11 members of the three SLEs with
this focus all acknowledged the inter-connectivity of the task of economic development. Tom, a
member of Tempe, noted, “economic development is impacted by so many things like public
transportation, public housing, basic needs, education, and it all intersects.” All 18 interviewees
related the connection between business and education, but Zack, an educator member of Arabia,
made the economic connection between the two very simple: “If our businesses don’t do well,
and our economy doesn’t do well, people are going to move out. That’s going to directly impact
our school district, as far as our tax base, as far as our student enrollment.” Arabia is located in a
high-growth state, but not all regions there are experiencing growth. Their members were
addressing a variety of needs without cross-sector input.
RQ2: Activities of Industry Partners
All participants discussed the activities of the industry partners in SLEs. The data
analysis revealed two main types of industry partners and their underlying reasons for being
75

involved in their SLEs. They were either business opportunists or business sponsors.
Additionally, four categories of activities emerged in response to this research question. The
activities centered around the functioning of the SLE, student learning, teacher preparation, and
workforce development. Details of these types and categories are depicted in this section.
Finding 3: Two Types of Industry Partners: Funders and Dealmakers
The terms “business partner” and “industry partner” were used synonymously by all
participants to generalize the sector partner. This study found two main types of industry partners
engaged in SLEs: those who donate funds and those who sell or make deals. The term
“dealmaker” will be used to distinguish the type of industry partner in the finding. When an
industry partner was engaged in philanthropy, six of 18 interviewees referred to them as funders.
Seeking Philanthropy
Ten participants depicted business sponsors as those who sought initiatives to fund or
sponsor that benefitted the mission of the SLE and their members. Of the four industry partners
in the study, all remarked that they benefitted either the students or the workforce in their
communities. Pat, who works for a for-profit company, asserted how their SLE was initiated:
“We built it with our own dollars. We created the vision and the platform and kind of our
localized movement based on what we thought had to be done.” Pat added that everyone in the
community has a responsibility, but some are more vocal or able to support more than others.
Lee, a leader in a corporate foundation, participates in an SLE, but cannot assist in aiding the
company’s business opportunities due to rules placed on foundations by the Internal Revenue
Service. Clarifying their boundaries, Lee noted, “One of the goals of industry to be involved in
STEM is to build a pipeline, but we can’t specifically. We can’t set up, say, an internship
program.” Still, Lee’s firm seeks to build name recognition through goodwill so students will
76

consider working for them in their future STEM careers, and the company will command a
positive community reputation. According to Lee,
It’s kind of a strategic thing that when you go into a community and they see that
[our company] or whatever company does these kinds of things and education,
then people, if they are looking for a job, for instance, they would say hey [they]
must be a great place because they do all this education.
Name and reputation recognition are some of the returns on investment that Lee indicated the
firm is looking to gain from their participation in the SLE. Sean, Sirenum’s director
acknowledged other types of returns on investment that business partner’s may be seeking,
They want the visibility. They like the [signature event they are involved in] because it’s
a way to get more people to be aware of what they do. They like [the program that
engages students] as well because it’s a strategy that they can interact directly with a kid.
Sean, and the other SLE directors, reported that they value business sponsor participation and
make an effort to create valuable funding initiatives.
Cultivating Business Opportunities
All SLEs had dealmakers. The dealmaker’s agenda is to leverage a business opportunity
and make a sale. Rachel, Cimmeria’s director, acknowledged, “They’re basically representatives
from these organizations that sit on our committees, and they provide their expertise and their
knowledge.” Still, she questioned their eventual motives. These industry partners shared that
their ensuing participation was meant to generate business opportunities, differentiate their
businesses from the competition in the marketplace, and try to benefit financially while engaging
with the members of the collaboration. Chris, who works for a for-profit company, views SLEs
as a way to distinguish themselves in a competitive field, “Well strategically speaking, I wanted
77

to differentiate myself versus someone [else who did this type of work], so I found that there was
a lot of funding opportunities and community partnerships. That’s what I like to do.” Chris
engaged with an SLE to partner with a number of different organizations and smaller, highly
focused collaboratives that they met through their SLE. Because of the nature of the STEM
product offering, Chris believes the firm brings value to the members of the SLE if they were to
engage in a sale from them.
Rachel conceded, “They do bring value. They know STEM education very well, but we
are very wary of them not taking advantage of our mailing list or pushing their own agenda at
meetings and things like that.” She indicated that the “vendors,” as she also called them, had
taken their mailing list and used it for marketing. She felt protective of the SLE members,
particularly the education sector. Conversely, five educators in the study said their participation
was usually welcomed.. Zack, an educator, said, “If a business comes in and they’re doing it for
anything besides the benefit of the kids, I think we can see through that, but for the most part, I
think businesses want to help.” He added that schools should take a leadership position in
helping businesses understand their role, how to be in-kind partners and open lines of
communication. Another educator, Pam, cited procurement controls that hedge against
impropriety:
We have really strong protocols in place, meaning that there’s only certain ways to get in
and if you don’t follow those ways then we appreciate being in a relationship with you,
we appreciate you being at the table with us, but that does not mean that you now have
this line of business with us.
When businesses provide the products and services that deliver value, industry partners and other
SLE members have found methods to connect. Alex, an employee in a for-profit business that
78

also has a corporate foundation, positions themselves as consultative. They indicate that because
STEM products and services are not mandated in school curricula, the company participates in
multiple SLEs across the country to market its offerings to open-minded education leaders. Alex
shared that
On a regular basis, for the benefit of [the SLE], we do a foundation contribution from our
own foundation to reduce the cost to those districts so, then they can do more with less
funds having to be committed to it just because we believe so much in the way that [the
SLE] operates.
Alex is not alone in regularly engaging with and providing programs to SLE education members.
As a result of their SLE partnership, Chris reported that they had over $20 million in funding and
a statewide initiative from which the firm could profit. Chris saw significant alignment that
brought opportunities within their marketing territory.
Finding 4: The Activities of Industry Partners’ Serve the Interests of Building a STEM-
Proficient Workforce
The focus of the second research question was, in part, to determine the activities of
industry partners. The interviews of 18 sector members from five SLEs revealed four categories
of activities: involvement in the functioning of the SLE, involvement in student learning,
involvement in teacher preparedness, and workforce development, also known as career pathway
development or career readiness. Details and examples of the findings are delineated in this
section and noted in Table 6.

79

Table 6
Industry Partner Activities from STEM Learning Ecosystem Engagement
Involvement in
SLE functioning
Involvement in
student learning
Involvement in teacher
preparedness
Involvement in
workforce development
Meetings &
committee work
Exchange value
Network
STEM camp
volunteering
Event judge
Computer
refurbishing
Fab lab/Tinker
support
Mentoring
Business externships
CTE training and
providing materials
Career panels
Project creation

Career panels
Mentoring
Technical advisory
commissions
Job shadowing
Marketing/PR
Economic advisory

Involvement in SLE Functioning
Interviews with the five SLE directors provided data as to the activities of industry
partners related to the functioning of their organizations. All five indicated that industry partners
served on their board of directors and contributed financially and with in-kind contributions of
time and resources of value. Three directors reported that industry partners pay to be on the
board, as this funding contributes to the activities of the non-profit SLEs. Additionally, where
there is a committee structure, industry partners serve on committees and have a voice in the
collaboration. Acknowledging the different types of needs in an SLE, Lee conveyed,
When you’re in an industry in an ecosystem, you see what other partners there are, what
niche you can fill, or what gap you can fill. Not everybody needs to duplicate
everything… the funder part of it talks to the doer part of it.
In SLEs with a business-sector-heavy complement on the board of trustees, business partners
considered their participation on the board to be collaborative.
80

Industry partners exchanged value by strategizing need, relationships building and
exchanging information, all of which will be detailed in research question three. All five SLEs
were engaged in network building to either grow their membership within the region’s industry
sector or encourage greater collaboration.
Involvement in Student Learning
As previously referenced, focusing resources on STEM learning is the mission of three of
the five SLEs in this study. Three SLE directors remarked that industry partners prefer to engage
with students. Chris, who works at a for-profit firm, said, “We have a shared mission to expose
kids to STEM and provide quality instruction.” Another industry partner supported the
sentiment, citing a Pentagon report that indicated that “STEM education in K–12 was essential to
our national security.” Education leaders shared multiple stories of collaborating with industry
partners and the positive effect it had on students. “We’ve got businesspeople that are
practitioners of some of the skills,” Zack said, “and anything we can do to harness their expertise
and let them share that with our students is very advantageous to us.” Twelve study participants
reiterated the importance of industry partners sharing their knowledge and expertise in the
classroom or hosting off-site events with educators and students. Holly indicated it was valuable
when industry partners offered up new opportunities that would not have previously existed.
If a school had to just come up with something like that, and then they’re going to have
educators telling the story, not somebody that does that job telling the story, I’ve not
heard anybody complain, “Oh, they’re helping again.”
Business partner engagement was equated to credibility and leadership.
Three interviewees from separate SLEs referenced an internationally recognized program
that recruits business participants to mentor students to become STEM ambassadors in their
81

communities. The program matches STEM professionals with interested schools and emphasizes
leadership skills. Tatum, from one of those SLEs, noted that the impact on the learner is evident:
“Industry sees more and more that the teaching of STEM, that concept of STEM, it impacts their
workforce.” Tatum’s region, focused on economic development, uses the same program as the
SLE focused on STEM teaching and learning. Both reportedly value the results.
Additional industry partner activities in this category include volunteering at STEM
camps as judges for competitions in robotics or science fairs and supporting tinkering
laboratories where students engage in prototypes or engineering design. One SLE regularly
hosted a STEM camp where they gave refurbished business computers to the student attendees.
Involvement in Teacher Preparedness
Even with the pandemic restricting teaching-time, and resistance to outsiders in the
classroom, members of three SLEs indicated that industry partners engaged in teacher
preparedness to assist in student learning. Activities included sharing expertise, industry
knowledge panels, donating materials, and externships. Member of two SLEs referenced the
term externship to convey the way industry engages and prepares teachers for the integrated
learning demanded of STEM professions. Rachel explained how an externship works:
We take teachers and put them into STEM businesses for the summer. The teachers come
back saying, “Not only am I learning STEM skills, but I’m learning the soft skills that I
didn’t realize were so important for my students to know.” The businesses are really
appreciating it, too, because they’re also learning so much about their local education
system, so businesses like it, and the teachers really love it. They’re bringing back new
skills, and they’re getting paid over the summer.
82

Diana, an educator, thought the connections made with industry were valuable, indicating that
nothing happens in isolation, and the professional development she gained from industry helped
her with the interconnections she needed to make in the classroom. All eight educators
mentioned the importance of integrated teaching and learning, or project-based learning, for
motivating STEM engagement.
A challenge raised by 11 of 18 participants is that performance-based tests or standards to
which teachers must adhere prevent creative STEM engagement and project-based or
interdisciplinary teaching methods. Jan, an educator, called for more industry-based programs
but acknowledged the concerns that teachers have: “If I focus on project-based learning, I could
probably lose my job because, based on this test, it may demonstrate that I’m an ineffective
teacher.” This type of concern was shared by five educators in this study. Because of the
emphasis on standards-based teaching, two industry partners indicated that when they wanted to
engage with teachers, they had been rebuffed. Alex, an industry partner, told of resistance to
professional development from educators due to time constraints and the COVID pandemic:
“You hear so much from administrators of ‘I don’t want to impose this on my teachers.’ I think
there’s so much teacher push back right now, exacerbated by having to teach both remote and
on-site during the pandemic.” Another reason for keeping industry partners from teacher
engagement was a perception of entrenched resistance to technology. From one education leader
in the study,
We have the training. I just can’t tell you how effective that is, and how much our
teachers are buying into that at this point. I think as time goes by, there will be more of an
awareness of that, especially as we get a younger workforce.
83

Taking some of the onus off of the educators, three participants indicated that resistance lay on
the side of industry. Pam explained that business leaders did not always see the return on
investment, “On the business side of things that I’m not seeing the bang for my buck. Hey, it was
fun, but did I get any more employees? It’s not maybe immediate enough.” All 18 participants
indicated that industry is investing in SLEs to address the workforce quality and shortage.
Prior to the pandemic, all industry partners reported that they engaged with teachers and
education administrators to participate in CTE training, equipment donations and training, career
panels, and input on project-based learning modules.
Involvement in Workforce Development
All study participants perceived that there is a shortage of STEM-qualified candidates for
hire and a perception that the STEM pipeline is either leaking or not adequately stocked. As a
result, all four of the five SLEs in the study cultivate input from regional industry partners
because their members believe their participation will benefit either education or, eventually, the
local workforce in their communities. Three SLEs, Cimmeria, Sirenum, and Tempe, were
specifically chartered to focus on economic development. This means that the thrust of their
accountability lay in creating career pathways and benefiting the local economy. The other two
SLEs, Arabia and Tharsis, offer workforce development activities, as reported by seven study
participants. Zack, a member of Arabia, conveyed two examples of how industry originated the
need for this type of activity in his region. In one situation, “We had developers who wanted to
come into our community and build, but they pulled out because of our graduation rate.” He
conveyed that this motivated industry representatives to support pro-industry interests when the
local school superintendent came up for election. In another example, he said the leaders of a
local manufacturing plant approached the school leaders and asked them to partner in training
84

STEM-interested students in an advanced manufacturing program. “We’ve started that academy
in our school district, and this past year we graduated the first certified graduates in industry
certifications.” Another region confirmed that industry partners are motivated to participate in
workforce development activities due to hiring shortages. According to Sean, a member of
Sirenum,
You take [nationally recognized STEM employers A and B]. They really truly care about
that workforce. Or [another nationally recognized STEM employer]. They truly care
about workforce development because they really want to have kids filling those jobs and
they’re [the businesses are] struggling.
All study participants referenced the need for career preparedness in their regions and how
industry was either getting involved or experiencing the shortages of quality STEM employees.
Industry representatives’ participation in an SLE is a base activity towards addressing the
issues of workforce shortages and employee development. Tom shared an example of what
happens through dialog: “Some of our business leaders have put things on our radar screen that
we just weren’t aware of and now we realized that’s something we have to work on.” Six study
participants referenced the benefit of working across sectors to innovate through collaboration.
About working with industry partners, Diana explicitly said, “I love it when they share their
expertise.” The study indicated that SLEs provide the platform to exchange information about
workforce development. Tatum used that platform to connect industry to student influencers: “I
love to get industry people and career counselors together because counselors always get careers.
I talked to them about the different skills they’re looking for, the different attitudes that they’re
looking for, the different aptitudes that they’re looking for.” According to industry partner Lee,
obtaining feedback directly from industry partners is the critical role of the SLE: “That’s a role
85

of ecosystem people is to bridge that gap. If you’re in business, you need to try to help. You need
to help businesses understand what’s going on.” Lee added that some businesses are adept at the
activities that benefit workforce development, but some are not. Lee acknowledged that some
businesses come into the ecosystem wanting to participate but not knowing how: “They just want
to be community partners, and they just want the community to know that they’re there to
support education.” Five study participants discussed they occasionally coach business
representatives to interact with students and teachers so they can better message their workforce
development needs to the right audience.
There were also comments related to the age and grade in which industry partners engage
in workforce development activities. About half of the study participants related workforce
engagement to high-school- and college-aged students, while the other half deemed it a K–20
activity. Tatum, from higher education, remarked, “It varies upon the audience and the industry
partner, but there is always this component of helping them understand that I want their message
to be ‘what you’re learning now matters.’” Business partners who offered age-specific career
pathway development programs were more aware of focusing their activity by grade level. All
four industry partners commented on the need for early age interventions to inspire STEM
interest in career pathways, but one educator, Diana, expressed that she had contrary experiences
working with industry.
I have pros and cons to working with industry. We may have the same end goals, but I
think sometimes we go about it a different way. I think sometimes their way of going
about it can be too narrow and focused to where it isn’t appropriate for all grade levels,
and that’s a real shame. There are not enough opportunities for elementary students to
connect with industry and be inspired by what industry is doing.
86

She reasoned that business representatives are more comfortable working with older students
who are closer to working age and more capable of acting like an adult.
RQ3: Value of Resources Exchanged
Qualitative, open-ended interviews provided the platform for data gathering to answer the
third research question. When interviewed, all 18 participants understood the concept of non-
financial resources and referenced the notion of perceived value in the resources exchanged
among SLE collaborators.
Finding 5: Sector Partners Value Productive, Transactional Exchanges in the Creation of
Social Capital
From these discussions, three categories of resources were perceived as valuable.
Participants shared that they strategized to maximize the value they can provide, built
relationships to provide value, and exchanged information and resources. Using the social
exchange theory framework, the non-financial resources exchanged were productive and
contributed to the partners’ collective needs. This will be detailed further in the discussion
section. Each of these resource categories has subsets detailed in their individual segments.
Strategizing to Maximizing Value
Six interviewees referenced the importance of strategizing what would bring value to the
SLE, or a particular partner in the SLE, in advance of exchanging resources. They brought their
sector-specific expertise to the strategy, considering what recipients might value. Strategizing
within their own networks, SLE partners brought value by providing access to knowledge
capital, access to funding, and access to external networks.
Access to Knowledge Capital. Study participants who provided access to knowledge
capital believed they provided value. For example, Gary leads his university’s department while
87

serving as a member of Sirenum. He and his department colleagues meet regularly to determine
the level of support they would provide on an ongoing basis to Sirenum and other collaborations
in which they participate: “We work and engage collaboratively all the time,” said Gary. In
anticipation of the emergency relief funding, Gary felt a sense of responsibility and leadership to
help guide the SLE sector members to create “infrastructure and support long term sustainable
growth to meet the educational demands and needs of our economy.” Believing themselves to be
a thought-leader and innovator in their state, they convened partners to pilot suitable solutions
before revealing them to the SLE for wider consideration and use. Providing the SLE members
with expert-level input derived from the collective knowledge of individuals from this institution
of higher learning is a form of knowledge capital that the other SLE members might draw upon,
absent solutions of their own.
Another industry partner strategized with their local business sector and worked with
their human resources department to uncover entry-level employment requirements for popular
hiring roles. The local businesses were “actually willing to fund the program and schools around
their plants to help provide a pipeline to employment—to give back to the community.” These
include cybersecurity experts, data analysts, and AI programmers who are in high demand. The
business partner added that this effort tightens the gap employers find in the new hires they
encounter in the underperforming schools from which they can recruit locally.
Access to Funding. The majority of study participants, 16 of 18, referenced funding
in some manner: the need or lack of it, the source of it, or the future of it. Participation in an SLE
was viewed as a valuable resource for funding. One industry partner acknowledged their role in
this:
88

You see requests for funding come in, and it’s been really advantageous to be able to say,
well, gosh, these people are asking about funding. We happen to know that there’s
somebody over on this side of the state who is also doing that, so rather than reinventing
the wheel, why don’t you guys talk to each other?
This interviewee has longevity in the SLE. Conversely, there are industry partners in the
nascence of their SLE involvement looking for connections. As industry partner, Pat, stated, “I
know we may not have all the answers, but I’m willing to throw some funding at trying to figure
the answers out because we do believe this type of structure has a chance to work.” Funders who
wish to contribute and are looking for collaboration appreciate the structure of the SLE to
provide it.
Tatum, a member of Cimmeria, said that she assists funders with their mission, “They say
we’re going to support STEM education. They may not really understand the why, and so I can
help them really understand the impact that their financial contribution has.” She added that
learning a career or skill for the future is the best use of funds. She incorporates an industry
partner in every funded STEM activity she organizes to showcase the real-world application of
their involvement, benefiting the learners who participate.
Access to Networks. Networks or networking was referenced by 11 of 18 study
participants as being a valuable resource to access within the SLE. The network of collaborators
cultivated by the SLE was considered crucial to the culture that Tom, an educator, had created
with the other members of Tempe. His colleague, Faith, had a similar sentiment: “I feel like
there’s a lot of networking that happens at those meetings.” That organization is comprised of
committees or what they refer to as networks to create affinity and relationships to focus their
89

work. That makes it easier for new members to join the efforts of the SLE when they learn of the
networks available to them.
Seven participants attributed bringing networks to learners as contributing to education
success. Aside from funding, Jan, an educator member of Tharsis, remarked that having a
network was second in importance for a child’s career pathway. Connecting industry partners to
educators is an important goal of Cimmeria’s members. Tatum said her SLE grappled with “how
can we act as that liaison to connect the teachers with the need, the industries with the desire, and
help facilitate getting them into the classroom and getting that support?” Two other educators
confirmed that some teachers were more adept than others at engaging industry partners for their
network, but that their efforts were not scaling or spreading to other classrooms or schools across
the district.
Three interviewees described themselves as natural networkers or connectors to assist
members in joining one of the SLE networks. Two attributed this tendency to their aptitude or
their personality type. One thought it was a characteristic of his professional work. Gary, who
works in higher education, indicated that his work required an orientation towards community,
“We need collaboration and partnership and just networking. We need to bring more energized,
intergenerational, multi-generational programming, and in order for us to do that, we put a very
significant emphasis on connecting all those different sectors.” The literature supports that the
innovation behind CSC lies in the sectors’ networks and disparate thinking, connecting the
sectors when the need dictates. Lee asserted, “That’s the most important thing an ecosystem is.
Just to be a connector.” Access to the networks provided by the SLE is participatory, meaning
the alliance to an SLE network is not casual or passive. It requires membership, attendance, or
formal affiliation.
90

Relationship Building
More than half of the interviewees referenced relationship building as a valuable quality
in SLE participation. Ten study participants mentioned showing up and participating as a
criterion to supporting the relationships, and one-third emphasized longevity and tenure as a
success factor for the SLE. Pam, an educator member of Sirenum, said they purposefully
cultivate relationships: “It has to start with opportunity to be together, to listen to one another to
know what the parameters are, and then it’s also just staying in that relationship.” Building
relationships over time was attributed to the success of SLEs reforming education in recalcitrant
regions. Grace, the director from Arabia’s regional SLE, recalled how the collaborative started
convincing districts to work with them:
How are we able to this, this little, small group of us? Start flipping these systems? It
took time, right? It took time. It was baby steps and finding that person in the district who
believed. This was important and then strategically working to knock down barriers one,
at a time.
Leveraging the relationship with the now-credible SLE strengthens new relationships, according
to Alex, who remarked how de-compartmentalized an educator’s thinking became after they
began working with the regional SLE. Alex said there tends to be a trust factor assimilating the
SLE and their partners with STEM.
Participation. Participation was referenced by interviewees as valuable in forstering
relationships within the SLE and strengthening the collaborative nature of the work being done.
Tom, a member of Tempe, emphasized the importance of participation: “The first step towards
really good collaboration is, you have to show up.” He acknowledged that there is competition
91

for people’s time, and their absence from an event may not relate to their disinterest, but
following up shows one cares:
If you see people not engaged or disengaged, not at meetings, maybe they missed several
meetings. I think it’s just a matter of following up with people and finding out why isn’t
this meeting, this group, or initiative, meeting your needs and what can we do to make
sure that it is?
Other study participants connected participation to robust collaboration, asserting that the
disparate mindsets that sector collaboration represents are brought on through member
involvement. Faith, a member of Tempe, said, “Good ideas come out of the woodwork when you
start listening to all these people in different sectors of businesses and industry in the area. The
K–12 sector or the university sector, and so on and so forth.” The interviewees suggest that being
a valuable contributor requires strengthening sector knowledge or understanding related STEM
issues within the SLE. Chris, an industry partner member of Tharsis, spent multiple hours of
their own time enrolled in a leadership program to serve in a volunteer role for an education
board. Chris believed the time commitment fortified their voice in collaborative settings and
improved their value in the SLE.
Longevity. Spending or investing time is connected with relationship building by six
study participants. In relating the importance of longevity, Pam conveyed how singular occasions
did not create the bonds for visioning and growth, but spending time together did, “It’s not one
event, it’s life. It’s doing life together. It’s doing a journey of life together.” There was a sense of
pride and belonging from the participants who had longevity in their SLEs. Their pseudonyms
will not be used, for reasons of confidentiality, but the sense of value that time brought was
affirmed.
92

I’ve been representing [this organization] for [many years], so the specific STEM
ecosystem that we have now, we helped to get it started. That’s been interesting to see the
growth from both ways, where the ecosystem around us has grown up and matured so
that we have a lot more peers in the space, but now we are taking our expertise and
spreading it. We can give our expertise and our programs and then say here’s kind of how
to build your ecosystem so that then they can just stand alone.
Participants indicated that longevity is reported to fortify relationships that lead to greater trust.
Alex asserted that their opportunities have increased because of the longevity and relationship
building fostered by the regional SLE’s director:
You have a chance to build on [the director’s] institutional knowledge of what will work
in that district, and every time it just makes for a successful implementation. [The
director] knows the political situation; [the director] knows the title isn’t necessarily the
biggest influencer. [The director] knows all those things, and it takes us a year or two of
working with a district to learn those things so that we can really become a meaningful
partner with them that they trust.
Alex conceded that not every SLE or director works at that level of success, but it makes a
difference in the districts with whom they engage.
Longevity builds institutional memory and trust. Losing professional relationships built
over time can have detrimental effects. According to Tom, “when it comes to collaboration, you
lose institutional memory when you lose a leader. You lose not just institutional memory, but
you lose all of the established relationships and trust that have been cultivated and built over
time.” Referencing that the typical turn of a CEO or district superintendent can be every 3 to 5
93

years, Tom added that a more progressive turnover rate could be even more debilitating for some
regions.
Exchange of Information and Resources
The exchange of information was referenced as a valued resource by 15 of 18 study
participants. The majority of those valuing the exchange of information specified the type of
information they valued, while fewer generalized the importance of exchanging information. The
type of information most valued by K–12 education representatives was from business. Every
educator in the study commented that the lack of industry knowledge was a hindrance for them
or the education field in general in preparing learners for STEM professions. Zack noted the
connection between K–12 education and business, stating, “We serve a purpose of supporting
our business community by virtue of turning out a qualified workforce.” He believed the link
between the two so critical that academic performance depended on it, pointing out that
businesses can leave the region, impacting its economic vitality and eventually the schools’ tax
base.
Eight study participants commented that educators seem to lack exposure to the business
world and do not either understand or have the skills to prepare students for the workforce. Diana
said, “There are a lot of educators that went straight from college to being an educator, which is
not a bad thing, but it does limit your exposure.” She felt that gaining that exposure was a benefit
of being in the SLE. Pat had a comparable sentiment and saw industry representatives eager to
share their professional skills with other sectors: “It is beneficial to learn about the working
world because it does give you more empathy and understanding for what skills are needed. In
truth, they are life skills, it’s not industry skills. They really are life skills.” Hearing the business
94

vocabulary and being exposed to business strategy and skills was reported as valuable by close to
half of sector representatives.
Two business partners noted the value they brought to their SLEs in terms of their
specific industry knowledge. Chris said, “The value I brought was my industry knowledge and
how to design a program that would facilitate high fidelity implementation, so I brought a hell of
a lot of value.” According to Alex, other industry representatives in the SLE value program
content and implementation sold to the sector members:
When businesses are short on employees, which you hear from so many of them in tech
areas. STEM is the solution. We’ve got to give kids an opportunity to learn those skills,
and if we can get more of those connections, we’ll see businesses supporting more of
those programs in K through 12.
Five study participants valued the programs that prepare students for professional degrees in
STEM. These programs were offered by for-profit companies represented by industry-sector
members in SLEs.
Aside from information exchanges, 12 interviewees valued program support and
volunteerism that contributed to the four categories of SLE activities in which they participated.
Collaborative efforts by multiple sectors, like student/teacher field trips to workplaces or
building workforce readiness among graduating students were among those mentioned. Faith, a
member of Tempe, seemed to particularly value the volunteer efforts of SLE industry members,
saying,
I always try and keep in mind that all these people are busy, and they have day jobs, and
their passion for STEM education or the STEM pipeline or talent development. Whatever
their piece of the pie is, it’s something in addition to being a chemist, being an engineer,
95

being a scientist, being whatever. The fact that they’re willing to pretty much drop
anything and sit down for a Zoom interview with high school students. That speaks
volumes to me of what that business is valuing, and then, in turn, that makes me realize
the value of the time that they’re putting into those kinds of contributions.
Faith was not alone in valuing the non-financial resources donated to SLE members, but not all
study participants accepted the resources without further consideration. One educator
commented,
It’s ironic how many people want to help educators but don’t have any educators actually
giving them feedback. That would be like me creating curriculum and never trying it with
students to get feedback and saying, ‘I’ve done it! I’ve solved the problem!’ You know?
The collaborative nature of SLEs encourages cross-sector input and the majority of study
participants acknowledged that the SLE provided a bridge between business and education
representatives.
Additional Insights
Finding 6: Business Partners Who Sell Within the Ecosystem Increase the Competition for
Philanthropic Funds Within the Ecosystem
As indicated, the findings suggest there were two main types of industry partners engaged
in SLEs. Both provide value by participating in typical industry-type activities (volunteering,
sharing expertise, etc.). The difference is that one type signals that they are a source of funding
by seeking initiatives to support, and the other type represents a for-profit business looking to
sell business opportunities that augment or compliment the STEM initiatives of the SLE. An
additional insight emerged when those looking to do business within the SLE reported
competition for funding.
96

Three of the four industry partners reported that within the SLE, some businesses now
compete for funds, when business was traditionally viewed as the source of funds. With industry
partners now seeking funding, the traditional value exchange is now altered. Chris said,
Companies can’t operate at a loss, so they need to have a clear understanding from
industry partners and folks in education on these collaborative projects that our vendors
bring value, our partners bring value, and we have to be compensated for that. We’re not
a nonprofit. At some point, we got to get revenue coming in, and I think that needs to be
better understood or embraced with projects so that additional scalability and
collaboration can continue, and it can be a viable, sustainable project for all the partners. I
don’t think that perspective is shared necessarily.
When other sector members refer to business partners, they do not naturally distinguish between
funders and sellers, but there is a substantial difference in perceived value and the resulting
transactions.
Funding Tension
This study revealed there may be one or multiple philanthropic funders engaged in the
ecosystem who will agree to pay for the full cost of the project sale for a third party, but the
philanthropic representative would need to be persuaded as well. For example, within an SLE, a
representative from an education technology company (a dealmaker) could have a school district
interested in a cybersecurity curriculum for all of its high schools, but the district might not have
the funding for the project. One of the SLE’s business sponsors, (philanthropic funder) could
donate the money to the school district so they could pay for the curriculum. The dealmaker not
only has to sell the school district on the project, but also the funder. Other SLE sector
representatives also need funding, including the SLE organization, which is often a non-profit.
97

Chris explained that this can create tension for funding. Chris’ firm views the SLE as a “bridge
partner that’s got to kind of sell and lobby for me a little bit to bring the value and to justify my
revenue,” but Chris acknowledged that the SLE leaders may have an interest in the funding that
the business is pursuing.
Business partners reported that when they engaged a sector representative in a potential
sale, it was not uncommon for their company to donate a pilot version of the proposed project or
discount the full cost of the sale on a one-time basis. Eventually, however, someone has to pay
for the full sale of the product or service for the business to be sustained. However, companies
with corporate foundations or corporate giving programs can make donations to the SLE to offset
project costs. Alex sells to districts in an SLE, and the firm has an outside foundation. They can
make contributions indirectly to member districts, “so then they can do more with less funds
having to be committed to it just because we believe so much in the way that organization
operates.” In this way, as Alex reports, the SLE does act as a bridge between business and K–12
education, pre-screening partners, funding initiatives, and building perceived value.
Access to Customers
Two regional SLE leaders reported how business partners sought access to the contact
lists of their region SLEs. Gaining access to customers, and learning their particular needs, is a
strategic motive for doing business in an SLE. One business partner in the study reported being
in multiple SLEs but was judicious in choosing which ones based on the presence of key
indicators that signaled that the SLE could help them identify opportunities. If the use of SLEs
becomes increasingly popular among for-profit businesses looking for competitive
differentiation, sector members may change the way they perceive the value business partners
provide.
98

Finding 7: The Workforce Pipeline Metaphor Was Not Questioned
The literature supports a counter-argument to the concept of a STEM pipeline, referred to
as the pipeline fallacy. According to the literature, the fallacy asserts that the pipeline metaphor
is inaccurate and conceals systemic reasons why there is a STEM workforce shortage. There was
an expectation that one or multiple participants would question the pipeline analogy. The word
pipeline was referenced by all participants a total of 40 times in the 18 interviews. Vince, a
member of Tharsis stated, “Our model is motivated strictly on building the STEM pipeline and
enabling kids to flow into that pipeline, so that we can impact the entirety of the STEM
ecosystem.” All participants seemed to adhere to the belief in the pipeline structure as a method
for building volume, STEM efficacy, technological proficiency, national security, and global
competitiveness. All of these terms were mentioned, or similar phraseology was used.
Summary
The findings from 18 interviewees representing three SLEs in high-growth regions and
two SLEs in low- to no-growth regions answered the research questions. All five organizations
were led by a paid director and a board of trustees. Three had boards with a majority of industry
partners and minimal committee structure. Two had boards with a balanced complement of
sectors and several committees to support decision-making. SLEs were charted to either develop
the regional economy or support teaching and learning in their communities. Through four
categories of activities, industry representatives provided value to the SLE members to support
their chartered mission, although the representatives were divided between two purposes:
philanthropic and capitalistic. SLE members in all sectors worked to provide value by first
strategizing how their efforts would be received. In doing so, they provided access to capital,
99

funding, and networks. Relationship building and the exchange of information were also highly
valued.
Chapter Five will present a discussion of the findings and make recommendations to
create structures to support CSCs and innovative output, as described in this chapter.
100

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion
The purpose of this research was to study the role of industry partners in SLEs within a
network. Chapter Four discussed findings for the following three research questions:
1. What are the structure and focus of the SLE?
2. In what ways are industry partners involved in the work of the SLE, and what are the
roles and activities of industry partners?
3. What non-financial resources are exchanged by SLE industry and non-industry
partners, and what is the perceived value of the resources exchanged?
The findings were grounded in social exchange theory (Kolk et al., 2010) as the
conceptual framework used to determine how SLE members valued the non-financial
contributions of industry partners in the collaboration. This chapter begins with a discussion of
the findings, followed by recommendations for improvements and suggestions for future
research.
Discussion of Findings and Results
STEM learning ecosystems are a relatively recent innovation for improving STEM
education and motivating a STEM-proficient workforce. While there is a modicum of literature
introducing the concept overall, there is insufficient literature on integrating business partners in
SLEs and the particular research questions this study addressed. Additionally, because the SLE
concept was launched in 2015 with varying regional goals, data indicating SLE progress is still
being collected.
As part of LSI’s network, the SLEs do not follow a uniform organizational structure,
though LSI shares best practices. Also, LSI acknowledged that some SLEs are varied in how
they are structured, but the organization is cautious about dictating organizational models,
101

deferring to regional cultures and knowledge. Regardless of structure, LSI defines SLEs as
communities with proven CSCs. I did not envision SLEs without a structure to support cross-
sector collaboration.
Participants varied in how they used the term ‘collaboration.’ At times, it was
synonymous with ‘coordination,’ ‘cooperation,’ or ‘agreement.’ The literature notes that this is a
common misuse of the concept (Bingham, 2008). Margerum’s (2011) definition of collaboration
references a “diverse group of autonomous stakeholders” (p. 6). Mattessich & Johnson (2018)
define collaboration, in part, as having “jointly developed structure and shared responsibility” (p.
5).
RQ1: Structure and Focus of SLE
Finding 1: STEM Learning Ecosystems Vary in Their Structure and Configuration
Three of five SLEs were structured with minimal cross-sector participation. They had a
majority of industry partners on their decision-making boards and few to no committees where
further cross-sector collaboration could occur. The lack of representative stakeholders in the
governing of the collaborative is notable. While the literature does not address this specific
scenario, three collaboration typographies can be drawn from to frame SLEs as the CSC
innovation on which they are based.
Collaboration Typographies
The seminal work of Kania and Kramer (2011) first introduced what they called
collective impact as an innovation in problem-solving. Synonymous with CSCs, collective
initiatives will likely have an impact when the problem is ill-defined, the answer is unknown,
and the solution is complex and involves multiple sectors. Kania and Kramer identified four
other types of collaborations that have been tried to solve complex problems but failed because
102

they lacked the components of success required of collective impact initiatives. The three SLEs
in this study that presented minimal cross-sector participation in their structure can be
categorized among the other types of collaborations Kania and Kramer identified. Arabia would
be considered a funder collaborative. A funder collaborative is drawn together by the same
interests, pools its resources, and funds that interest (Kania & Kramer, 2011). Sirenum would fall
under the definition of a public-private partnership. According to Kania and Kramer this type of
partnership occurs between a governmental entity and the private sector. In Sirenum’s case, the
private sector is represented by industry partners. Finally, Tharsis is a social sector network,
meaning they are connected by a sense of purpose (Kania & Kramer, 2011), but their
collaboration is impromptu. The remaining two SLEs, Cimmeria and Tempe, are collective-
impact initiatives. They are structured for solving a social problem with sustained
communication and engagement with the relevant sector representatives.
In Mattesich and Johnson’s (2018) assessment for collaborative effectiveness, the
researchers distinguish between collaborations, coalitions, networks, and collective impact
initiatives, the latter of which uses the same language as Kania and Kramer (2011) and is also
aligned with the use of CSC. A network is akin to one or more of the organizations revealed in
the findings, noted as “an organized purposeful structure that consists of interrelated and
interdependent members who work together to build a movement” (Mattesich & Johnson, 2018,
p. 80). Except for collective impact initiatives, there is no reference to CSC in any of Mattesich
and Johnson’s (2018) other structure types. The researchers reiterate Kania and Kramer’s
assertion that collective impact can achieve problem-solving through a structured form of
collaboration that involves “a group of actors from different sectors” (Mattesich & Johnson,
2018, p. 80).
103

The previous researchers’ typographies were applicable to education but not specific to
STEM reform. Hill’s (2019) partnership types were specific to STEM reform. One type consists
of individuals drawn to the subject presented but who do not represent a formal organization. A
second type culled together a regional cross-sector of stakeholders dedicated to reforming STEM
education and increasing STEM proficiency. The third consisted of multiple representatives of
the same sector, such as all higher education or all private K–12 schools. Hill (2019) referred to
the latter as a network, consortia, or coalition. While they were effective in gaining sector-
intensive resources and political support, they were used as an intermediary organization, not for
complex problem-solving (Hill, 2019; Noam & Tillinger, 2004).
The Challenges of Governing a Collaboration
The findings indicate that three of five SLEs were structured with limited cross-sector
participation. The manner in which they spoke about their organizations was consistent with
“tight structures” (Vangen et al., 2015, p. 1248). In governing collaborations, tight structures
limit stakeholder involvement to simplify decision-making and ensure efficiency. Vangen et al.
(2015) distinguish this form from an open structure which encourages inclusivity and draws on a
greater pool of resources and expertise from wider stakeholder participation. To manage tensions
between productivity and inclusion, leaders may create a hybrid form of governance between
hierarchies of leadership, with the upper levels being tight and the lower levels being open
(Chen, 2020; Vengen et al., 2015). The literature supports that governing collaborations is an
ongoing activity that may require unobtrusive leadership to avoid the perception of interference
and employ inclusive methods to sustain long term results (Chen, 2020; Huxham, 2003; Vangen
et al., 2015).
104

Finding 2: The Focus of the STEM Learning Ecosystem Varied in Garnering Cross-Sector
Input
Representatives of three SLEs indicated that they did not have cross-sector input in their
organization’s mission/focus. Arabia and Tharsis SLEs were focused on teaching and learning
but had few or no K–12 educators in their decision-making structure. Sirenum’s focused on
economic development and did not have K–12 educators in its decision-making structure to
encourage career pathway development. Tempe’s director reported that the SLE did not have K–
12 representation on their board, and an educator from Cimmeria’s SLE reported that the SLE
initially did not have educators on their educator support committee.
The literature supports the challenge of connecting education representatives to learning-
based ecosystems worldwide. Researchers revealed that the school sector is routinely left out of
collaborations, limiting its influence and ability to broker resources compared to other sectors
(Falk et al., 2015; Liou & Daly, 2020; Shaby et al., 2021). This is because the work of
integrating cultures is a common paradox in CSCs (Vangen & Winchester, 2014). Where
similarities exist in common sectors, the shared experiences and ease of communication can
result in seemingly effortless output. However, business and education representatives have a
history of challenges and misunderstandings (Sondergeld et al., 2016). This cultural dissonance,
the sense of conflict or disharmony that sector representatives may experience in CSCs, can be
overcome when the aim or focus of the collaboration is worked through the collaborative process
and has a “substantive purpose” (Huxham & Vangen, 2005, p. 84.).
Because of the co-dependent nature between education and career, Achieve advocates for
integrating K–12 education stakeholders into workforce development strategies (Achieve.org,
2010). Achieve, founded by government and business leaders, developed the Common Core
105

State Standards (Achieve.org, n.d), and recommends K-12 participation in CSCs. Additionally, a
literature review by Bancroft and Nyirenda (2020) supported the inclusion of K–12 science
teachers for collaboration to co-construct solutions that connect science learning to career
choices.
RQ2: Activities of Industry Partners
Finding 3: Two Types of Industry Partners: Funders and Dealmakers
This study identified two main types of industry partners engaged in the work of SLEs:
funders and dealmakers. The literature supports the duality of industry partners as funders and
dealmakers. Austin (2010) related multiple cases of companies serving alongside NPOs
simultaneously funding and profiting from the relationships. Austin’s (2000) research on 15 case
studies differentiated business relationships between NPOs and businesses as philanthropic and
transactional, congruent in this study. Due to the public’s negative image of corporations
(Schiller, 2017), when their involvement in social causes is not exclusively philanthropic, some
ecosystem stakeholders and others outside the ecosystem can become cautious and mistrusting
(Jug & Mendoza-Abarca, 2016; Reficco & Marquez, 2012). Tensions can develop within the
SLE, indicated by one director who used the terms ‘wary’ and ‘protective’ to describe feelings
that emerged after a dealmaker member used the SLE mailing list for marketing their services.
Dealmakers can sometimes do what other in the supply chain cannot fulfill. In one study
related to eradicating poverty, business intermediaries provided value by filling a void left by the
state (Mair & Marti, 2009). This is akin to programs sold by an industry partner that schools or
an NPO cannot provide, such as a scalable AI program, CTE training for mechatronics, or an
education technology remedial math program for middle school grades. Per Mair and Marti
(2009), while the businesses were compensated for the value they provided, the value itself,
106

compensation, and level of involvement are often questioned (Reficco & Marquez, 2012). This
type of mistrust was reported in this dissertation’s findings.
Finding 4: The Activities of Industry Partners Serve the Interests of Building a STEM-
Proficient Workforce
The interviews of 18 sector members from five regional SLEs revealed that their industry
partners were engaged in four categories of activities: involvement in the functioning of the SLE,
involvement in student learning, involvement in teacher preparedness, and workforce
development, also known as career pathway development or career readiness. While not named
explicitly, these categories are supported in the literature as activities that industry partners
engage in to promote a STEM-proficient workforce. These activities included creating job
shadowing, industry certifications, and internships, and making guest speaker presentations to
provide students with a STEM career awareness to which they might not have had exposure
(Allen et al., 2020; National Academies, 2018; Sergeyev et al., 2019).
Industry partners in this study worked with teachers to bolster STEM competence. They
shared their industry knowledge, spoke on panels, offered materials and training, and sponsored
externships. Externships are usually unpaid, short-term learning opportunities that provide the
extern a chance to see the internal workings of a job or career environment (Ainslie & Huffman,
2019; Externship.com, n.d.). The literature and the findings are congruent. Two study
participants noted their externships’ success, and the literature reveals that teacher externships
deepen participants’ understanding of workplace skills and encourage them to design in-class
projects for student understanding of real-world experiences (Ainslie & Huffman, 2019; Bowen
& Shume, 2018, 2020). The real-world experiences are re-created in the classroom with
assistance from industry partners through project-based learning (PBL) instruction (Ferguson &
107

Lamback, 2014). Studies indicate PBL engages students in both technical and workplace skills,
contributing to STEM competence, motivation, and retention (Brassler & Dettmers, 2017;
Ertmer et al., 2014; National Academies, 2016; Wirkala & Kuhn, 2011).
The literature supports that education-based CSCs traditionally cultivate relationships
with regional employers and industry leaders (Freifeld, 2013; Gold, 2014; Weber et al., 2020).
Furthermore, these relationships are strengthened by external networks. Research from Liou and
Daly (2020) suggested that network sharing was a method for advancing change and scaling
partnership relationships with trust and security. Network expansion can lead to further
innovation as the wider breadth of new mindsets and experiences can provide new opportunities
to learn (Gehrke & Kezar, 2019). The National Academies (2018) advocated for network sharing
to strengthen STEM workforce development ecosystems.
RQ3: Value of Resources Exchanged
Finding 5: Sector Partners Value Productive, Transactional Exchanges in the Creation of
Social Capital
In response to the question about what in-kind or non-financial resources are most
valuable for the SLE, participants referenced resource types or behaviors that fell into three main
categories that they perceived brought value to the SLE. They were strategizing to maximize
value to the sector members, relationship building, and exchanging information. Using the
framework of social exchange theory, the findings support that the exchanges valued by SLE
members are productive (Di Domenico et al., 2009) but mainly transactional (Austin, 2000).
Productive exchanges are group-oriented and provide collective benefits, spreading risk and
reward across the givers and receivers. (Di Domenico et al., 2009; Lawler & Thye, 1999). Social
capital provides the conditions, such as trust and relationship, for these exchanges to promote
108

and build goodwill for the community (Nannestad, 2008; Zhao & Detlor, 2021). Strategizing to
maximize value is a good example of a productive exchange to build social capital. The giver
enjoins other givers to ensure the collective receivers’ benefit. The frequency of positive
exchanges is supported in the literature as leading to trust and solidarity (Lawler & Yoon, 1993;
Molm et al., 2007). Transactional exchanges, not financial in nature, have givers and receivers
exchanging time, information, presence, expertise, reputation, and, if financial the exchange is
monetary, donations or commercial dealings.
Additional Insights
Finding 6: Business Partners who Sell Within the Ecosystem Increase the Competition for
Philanthropic Funds within the Ecosystem
Three of the four industry partners reported that the competition for funds now includes
dealmakers, one type of industry partner, which was traditionally a source of funding. Viewed
through the framework of the social exchange theory, competition for funding is indicative of a
transactional environment. Transactional refers to resource exchanges, where self-interest is a
key motivator (Al-Tabbaa, 2012; Blau, 1964). This is culturally normal in most SLEs. Typically,
exchange behavior in groups can be predicted (Homans, 1958, 1983). Homan (1974) indicated
that reinforced group behavior sets a social structure that affects future behavior, so people come
to expect what they were used to. This study indicates that group behavior is changing.
Competition for funding is increasing. The need for funding is not only coming from groups
equal in status, like all school districts or science centers, where the financial need is consistently
high. The need for funds is now coming from business, particularly dealmakers. Dealmakers are
seeking funds for their goods or services which they perceive will benefit the SLE through a sale
to a school district or a university, depending on the project.
109

According to social exchange theory, traditionally, business partners belong to a category
of power player that determines outcomes as opposed to one who controls behavior (Lawler &
Thye, 1999; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Funding is closely related to determining outcomes.
Furthermore, business partners hold a certain power status by their ability to fund opportunities.
However, with the introduction of dealmakers, these business partner types are now at a different
status level, more in line with the cash-needy school districts or non-profits, even though they are
not perceived to be cash-needy, because of their traditional status. Lawler & Yoon (1993),
Lawler (2001), and Blau (1964) referred to this imbalance in power and social structures that
result from status inequity and can contribute to feelings of instability. The tension that occurs
from the instability can devolve the gains made in the organization or result in positive
transformation. The literature indicates that instability in CSCs can result in power asymmetry or
collaborative thuggery (Huxham & Vangen, 2005). Collaborative thuggery, sometimes viewed
as a negative result, is defined as an intimidating behavior attempted when partners are at cross
purposes as a way to demand a certain outcome (Jacklin-Jarvis, 2015). Viewed positively, it can
spur action out of inertia, when change is necessary (Huxham and Vangen, 2005).
Venn and Berg (2014) suggested that transformation to a new stage of collaboration
partnership is possible. With the advent of the education technology market and increased
corporate social responsibility practices, firms are moving their sales and marketing
representatives into SLEs for differentiation and consultation (Allen et al., 2020; AL-Tabbaa et
al., 2014; RemakeLearning.org, n.d). The competition for funding creates a perception of
scarcity - that there would not be enough funding for what is needed (Austin, 2000). Financial
scarcity can lead to strategic cooperation where partners coordinate and pool their resources to
find creative solutions for funding (Austin, 2000, 2010; Poling, 2020). A business partner
110

referred to this funding strategy when the foundation was contributing funds for the school
district to pay for the for-profit program in Arabia. This is what Austin (2000) referred to as
integrative exchange as a transformative stage for ecosystem collaboration. No longer
transactional, the SLE partners could consider comingle resources to benefit the members
equally. Allen et al. (2020) identified the transformative stage as aspirational. Still, the next
iteration of SLEs could presumably cooperate in their funding strategies with greater complexity
and interdependency, leaving behind the perception of competition for funding (Al-Tabbaa et al.,
2013; Austin, 2010).
Finding 7: The Workforce Pipeline Metaphor Was Not Questioned
The literature supports a counter-argument to the concept of a STEM pipeline, referred to
as the pipeline fallacy. There was an expectation that one or multiple participants would question
the pipeline analogy, but the pipeline was referenced repeatedly. While workforce pipeline is a
popular metaphor, a counter-argument is well-supported. Systemic gender and racial inequality
are primary factors as to why there are fewer BIPOC and women in STEM careers (Carnevale,
2011; Kanny et al., 2014; Maltese & Tai, 2011; NSB, 2015; Sadler et al., 2012). Furthermore, the
straight-line nature of the pipeline is flawed so that as students mature, there are several
confounding variables that affect career attainment (Kalkind & Frey, 2019).
The pipeline metaphor was not questioned because it is simple, suggests something that
can be fixed, and has become ingrained as a cultural idiom (Cannady et al., 2014). There is scant
literature on why the pipeline metaphor is still supported and considerable research and articles
as to why it should not be supported. As of 2015, the National Science Foundation began
discouraging the use of the metaphor and encouraged pathways instead (Garbee, 2017; NSF,
111

2015). EOS Science News called for the use of the metaphor braided rivers for the flow and
divergent nature that careers often take (Batchelor et al., 2021).
Recommendations for Practice
The three recommendations presented in this section will create structures to support
CSCs and innovation. The research literature supports these recommendations.
Recommendation 1: Conduct LSI Network-wide Assessments
It is recommended that SLEs examine the quality of their collaborations by utilizing a
validated and reliable assessment such as the Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory (Mattessich
& Johnson, 2018). The 46-item survey instrument assesses collaboration factors that focus on six
board categories: environment, membership, process and structure, communication, purpose, and
resources. Mattesich and Johnson’s six categories loosely align with Kania and Kramer’s (2013)
five conditions for successful collective impact, reinforcing the viable concepts for considering
an effective collaboration referenced in the literature review.
The recommendation is consistent with literature that emphasizes the importance of
engaging in regular reassessments. As a method for emergent planning and accountability,
assessment and reflection on the outcomes are “most likely to create public value” (Bryson et al.,
2015, p. 663.). This recommendation also aligns with literature by Kania and Kramer (2013),
who advocated developmental evaluations. Developmental evaluations track changes in the
organization for self-analysis to discover entrenched practices that may undermine the
organization’s ability to deliver an emergent solution to a complex issue (Kania & Kramer, 2013;
Patton, 1994). The iterative nature of the Centers for Disease Control evaluative framework fits
the developmental and collaborative format that engages stakeholders, promotes evaluative
thinking, and builds mutual understanding (Centers for Disease Control, 2011). Developed in
112

1999, the evaluation framework, also called the Logic Model, assists a stakeholder workgroup to
document what they do, how they accomplish it, and why it makes a difference. A series of steps
and standards guide the users towards evidence-based conclusions. Its intentionality is effective
in creating a shared understanding within complex multicultural organizations (Goldman &
Schmalz, 2006). Either type of assessment would be effective when followed up with analysis
and reflection for emergent thinking and change.
Recommendation 2: Provide Training on Effective Cross-Sector Collaboration
The second recommendation is to conduct training to foster innovative solutions through
cross-sector collaboration and understand individual sector value. These trainings would work
towards promoting effective collaboration and more inclusive CSCs. Bryson et al. (2015)
acknowledged that CSCs demand that members “work across sector lines to develop shared
understandings of the problem and commitments to shared solutions.” (p. 648). Solving complex
problems, as understood in the field of complexity science, requires adaptive methods (Folke,
2006; Heifz, Kania year) and the collaboration of a diverse set of actors in varying roles (Almog-
Bar & Schmid, 2018; Heuer, 2011).
Re-training on the benefits of cross-sector collaboration as the foundation for SLEs’
innovation is appropriate for two reasons. First, when an organization experiences growth and its
new members are unfamiliar with the original tenets of the structure or focus, then organizational
sustainability requires re-educating the members through training (Grossman & Salas, 2011).
The organization of focus in this study, LSI, has over doubled its growth since its first
established SLEs. Furthermore, LSI empowers its SLEs to determine their governing structures,
but those structures may not be effective for cross-sector collaboration. Second, SLEs consider
themselves communities of practice within the domain of social learning (Meister & Blitz, 2016;
113

Wenger-Trayner, 2015). In-person meetings and opportunities for continuous member
involvement effectively create community and engage members amongst those in communities
of practice (Gehrke & Kezar, 2018). Effective governance models that enhance CSCs, and how
they enact innovative solutions, can be found in the literature from researchers Cabaj (2014),
Hanleybrown et al. (2012), Weaver (2016), Weaver and Cabaj (2018), and pioneers in the field,
such as Gray (1989) and Huxham (2003).
A second training would educate SLE members about the value that each sector brings to
the SLE, including industry, and the trend towards the social cause movement. This is supported
by the literature. Understanding sector value in exemplary STEM ecosystems is the focus of
work by Eckert and Butler (2021), the National Academies (2016), Grossman and Lombard
(2015), and Traphagen and Traill (2014). Understanding the value of each representing sector
engenders empathy, foundational in design thinking, and vital for what Weaver and Cabaj (2018)
term “collective impact 3.0” (p.97).
Recommendation 3: Create Mentoring Between STEM Learning Ecosystem Directors and
Board Leaders for Continuous Improvements
It is recommended that LSI provide mentoring for ecosystem directors and board leaders
who have not yet achieved balanced collaboration and structure within their SLEs. The
recommendation is consistent with literature that emphasized competencies that come from
mentoring and modeling (Baran & Sypniewska 2018; Bandura, 2005; Wood & Bandura, 1989).
Mentoring is a process believed to create awareness, inspire action and motivate change in the
mentee (Postlethwaite & Schaffer, 2019; Ilumoka et al., 2017). Creating mentorship programs
between organizations is an extension of individual mentorship. Organizational learning research
by Schwandt and Marquardt (2000) points to mentoring as a viable method for imprinting best
114

practices and expertise on new teams. Nemanick (2013) advocates mentoring over coaching
because of the empathy mentors bring to the process, strengthening the connection as the
relationship matures. This recommendation also aligns with literature by Edmonson and Harvey
(2017) from their book, Extreme Teaming, which advocates developing shared mental models
among participants engaged in complex interdependencies, like CSCs.
Limitations and Delimitations
There were limitations and delimitations as this research study developed. Limitations
may involve components of the study that are not within the researcher’s control. One limitation
identified in qualitative studies includes generalizability from a small sample size. In this study,
the number of SLEs from which data were gathered (n = 5) presents a limitation (Morgan, 2014).
Also, the interviewer-respondent interactions may have triggered biases and perceptions that
could have changed the intent of the exchange and the data collected (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The respondents may have had past experiences with other collaborations that may have
impacted how they responded during interviews, potentially involving omission or untruthful
answers. The study was dependent on respondents’ truthfulness. Participants may have wanted to
avoid negativity, embarrassment, or consequences, so their responses may have become biased
and altered from fact to a fictionalized version that was more positive or socially desirable
(Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
Lastly, business representatives were not interviewed in two of the five SLEs due to lack
of access. Repeated attempts to engage this sector were made, but an interview with someone
from industry was not possible. As a result, other sector members opined on the role and
participation of business in that SLE.
115

Delimitations involved decisions made by the researcher that may have implications for
the study. Some delimitations that may be identified in the study could be
• Data collection was intended to involve two types of participants: industry
representatives and education representatives from either K-12 or higher education. The
dissimilarities between K-12 and higher education may have affected data gathered so
that comparisons and generalizability could have been impacted.
• One network, LSI, was chosen for the study. They are not the only STEM network.
Because culture permeates leadership styles and organizational outcomes (Schein, 2017),
studying SLEs from one network may affect the generalizable sample.
Recommendations for Future Research
Since the release of A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) as a letter to America’s citizens,
industry has cautioned the implications of a workforce bereft of adequate math and science
skills. Every decade since, business has formed workgroups and consortia and now engages in
education-based CSCs to entice more interest in STEM education and STEM career pathways.
Given that SLEs are still relatively new, and only some are structured for genuine CSCs, future
research is warranted to determine if the emergent solutions are collectively impactful.
Particularly through the middle school years, when studies indicate girls and BIPOC students
tend to lose interest in math and science, learning what out-of-school SLE-originated programs
keep them engaged could be explored. Determining which programs can scale to benefit more
students could also be a focus.
The collaborations represented by SLE are said to form a bridge to the participating
sectors. There is merit in research on how the types and frequency of interactions between
industry partners and other sector members contribute to the value of the SLEs’ emergent
116

solutions. The study could consider at what organizational level individuals ideate and how are
those ideas built upon with collaborative input. Understanding the governing structure of the
SLE originating the innovative ideas would be critical to determining the importance of cross-
sector thinking.
Because of the emergence of two types of industry partners in SLEs, future research
could focus on the effects of funders and dealmakers in an SLE. Furthermore, qualitative
research on an SLE that transformed from transactional to integrative exchanges would provide
an informative case study, as would a study on SLEs in the process of transforming their
governance structure to one based on multiple sectors.
Finally, it was common for study participants in SLEs with less cross-sector collaboration
to discuss the benefits of streamlined structures with fewer collaborators using criteria like more
efficiency and freedom to make decisions. According to the Centre for Community
Organizations (2001), these values are White cultural norms. White normative culture, where
white is the norm, can be defined as “the standard by which ‘normal’ people, ideas and practices
are often measured, even within racially diverse organizations.” (Ward, 2008, p. 564). Because
of the predominance of white cultural norms in STEM organizations (Funk & Parker, 2018), it
may be worthwhile to conduct further research on the cultures, norms, and governing structures
of SLEs to improve inclusive teamwork and stakeholder representation.
Conclusion
With this nation’s lack of technological interest and proficiency and an increase in new
technologies like artificial intelligence and automation, our standing as a global competitor in
STEM-related industries is at risk. Evidenced by our students’ poor academic performance in
math and science, compared to other large economies, and a reported gap in the skills employers
117

require, this complex issue affects all societal sectors. To address this issue, SLEs have formed to
develop emergent solutions. The purpose of this dissertation was to study the role of industry
partners in select SLEs by first understanding the SLEs’ structure and focus, learning the roles
and activities of the industry partners, and understanding what non-financial resources were
exchanged and how they were valued.
The study findings indicated that the governing structure, industry partner activities and
the resources exchanged varied considerably. Moreover, some collaborations studied excluded
certain sectors in favor of more efficient decision-making. At the same time, the approach
streamlined processes; industry partners brought business acumen, funding, a sense of urgency,
and technological expertise that can be leveraged to support STEM education and workforce
development.
In the future, industry partners in SLEs are likely to increase as global competition and
the need for a technologically proficient workforce intensifies. Presently, CSCs are proliferating
as businesses look for unique ways to profit and build social capital. SLE networks that
transform their individual SLEs beyond transactional exchanges could be rewarded with
extraordinary social capital and true wealth to their ecosystem. In the meantime, industry
partners are attracted to SLEs to create innovative solutions to build a globally competitive
21st century workforce.

118

References
2U, Inc. (2021). Magnet schools. https://teach.com/careers/become-a-teacher/where-can-i-
teach/types-of-schools/magnet/
Abowitz, K. K. (2000). Democratic communities and business/education “partnerships” in
secondary education. The Urban Review, 32, 313–341.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026455708484
Achieve.org. (n.d.). Read a brief history of Achieve. History. Achieve.org/history-achieve
Achieve.org. (2010). Strategies for K-12 and Workforce Alignment.
https://www.achieve.org/files/StrategiesforK-12andWorkforceAlignment.pdf
Ainslie, P. J., & Huffman, S. L. (2019). Human resource development and expanding STEM
career learning opportunities: Exploration, internships, and externships. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 21(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422318814487
Akins Early College High School. (n.d.). STEM career pathways and endorsements.
https://www.akinseagles.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=296361&type=d&pREC_I
D=694141
Alfassi, M. (2004). Effects of a learner-centered environment on the academic competence and
motivation of students at risk. Learning Environments Research, 7(1), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LERI.0000022281.14968.4e
Allan, S., Grossman, A., Rivkin, J. W., & Vanuganathan, N. (2014). Lasting impact: A business
leader’s playbook for supporting America’s schools. Harvard Business School.
https://www.hbs.edu/competitiveness/Documents/lasting-impact.pdf
Allen, P., Lewis-Warner, K., & Noam, G. (2020). Partnerships to transform STEM learning.
Afterschool Matters. 30-41. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1249559.pdf
119

Almog-Bar, M., & Schmid, H. (2018). Cross-sector partnerships in human services: Insights and
organizational dilemmas. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(4_suppl), 119S–
138S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018771218
Al Salami, M. K., Makela, C., & de Miranda, M. A. (2017). Assessing changes in teachers’
attitudes toward interdisciplinary STEM teaching. International Journal of Technology
and Design Education, 5, 27(1), 63–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9341-0
AL-Tabbaa, O., Leach, D., & March, J. (2014). Collaboration between nonprofit and business
sectors: A framework to guide strategy development for nonprofit organizations.
Voluntas, 25(3), 657–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9357-6
Amadeo, K., & Barnier, B. (2020). History of recessions in the United States: Causes, lengths,
GDP, and unemployment rates. The Balance. https://www.thebalance.com/the-history-of-
recessions-in-the-united-states-3306011
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (n.d.). Inclusive STEMM ecosystems for
equity & diversity (ISEED). https://www.aaas.org/programs/inclusive-stemm-
ecosystems-equity-diversity-iseed
American Institute of Physics. (2020). Final FY20 appropriations: STEM Education. Science
Policy News From AIP, 15. https://www.aip.org/fyi/2020/final-fy20-appropriations-stem-
education
Anderson, D., Baird, M., & Bozick, R. (2018). Who gets counted as part of America’s STEM
workforce? The implications of different classifications approaches for understanding the
gender gap in STEM. RAND Education and Labor and National Science Foundation.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/working_papers/WR1200/WR1282/RAND
_WR1282.pdf
120

Angier, N. (2010, October 05). STEM education has little to do with flowers. The New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/science/05angier.html
Applied Educational Systems. (n.d.). The AES CTE Blog.
https://www.aeseducation.com/blog/topic/21st-century-skills
Archbald, D. A. (2004). School choice, magnet schools, and the liberation model: An empirical
study. Sociology of Education, 77(4), 283–310.
https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070407700402
Arif, S., Massey, M. D. B., Klinard, N., Charbonneau, J., Jabre, L., Martins, A. B., Gaitor, D.,
Kirton, R., Albury, C., & Nanglu, K. (2021). Ten simple rules for supporting
historically underrepresented students in science.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009313
Armstrong, L. (n.d.). The creative university in a flat world (Unpublished paper).
http://nebula.wsimg.com/598b695a84bfe6cfd99e28f06c863654?
AccessKeyId=F99FF2E5D4D584AEF505&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
Austin, J. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and businesses. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 69-97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764000291S004
Austin, J. (2010). The collaboration challenge: How nonprofits and businesses succeed through
strategic alliances. Jossey-Bass.
Baker, B. (2014). Evaluating the recession’s impact on state school finance systems. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 22. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n91.2014
Baldacci, E., de Mello, L., & Inchauste, G. (2002), Financial crises, poverty, and income
distribution (Working Paper 02/4)., International Monetary Fund.
https://people.ucsc.edu/~hutch/Econ143/fincrisespoverty.pdf
121

Bancroft, S. & Nyirenda, E. (2020). Equity-focused K-12 science teacher professional
development: A review of the literature 2001–2017, Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 31(2), 151-207, http://doi.org//10.1080/1046560X.2019.1685629
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of
Management, 38(1), 9–44. https://doi: 10.1177/0149206311410606
Baran, M., & Sypniewska, B. (2018). The Significance of People-oriented Management and
Participation for Mentoring in Organizations. Journal of Positive Management, 8(4), 14–
30. https://doi.org/10.12775/JPM.2017.128
Barling, C., Christie, A., & Turner, N. (2008). Pseudo-transformational leadership: Towards the
development and test of a model. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(4), 851–861.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9552-8
Barone, R. (2021). The state of STEM education told through 18 stats. iD Tech.com.
https://www.idtech.com/glob/stem-education-statistics
Bass, B. M. (1998). The ethics of transformational leadership. In J. B. Ciulla (Ed.), Ethics: The
heart of leadership (pp. 169–192). Praeger.
Batchelor, R. L., H. Ali, K. G. Gardner-Vandy, A. U. Gold, J. A. MacKinnon, and P. M. Asher
(2021), Reimagining STEM workforce development as a braided river, Eos,
102. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EO157277.
Battelle for Kids. (2019). Frameworks & resources.
https://www.battelleforkids.org/networks/p21/frameworks-resources
Bedir, H. (2019) Pre-service ELT teachers’ beliefs and perceptions on the 21st century learning
and innovation skills (4Cs). Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(1), 231–246.
https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.547718
122

Beede, D., Julian, T., Khan, B., Lehrman, R., McKittrick, G., Langdon, D., & Doms, M. (2011).
Education supports racial and ethnic equality in STEM (Issue Brief No. 05-11).
Economics and Statistics Administration. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1934821
Bell, T. H. (1986). Education policy development in the Reagan administration. Phi Delta
Kappan, 67(7), 487–493. http://www.jstor.com/stable/20403138
Berends, M., Kirby, S., Naftel, S., & McKelvey, C. (2001). Implementation and performance in
new American schools: Three years into scale-up. RAND Corporation.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1145.html.
Bernstein, J. (2017). Improving economic opportunity in the United States. Testimony Before the
Joint Economic Committee. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/improving-economic-opportunity-in-the-united-
states
Bingham, L. B. (2008). Collaborative governance: Emerging practices and the incomplete legal
framework for citizen stakeholder voice. Center for the Study of Law and Society
Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8r99f510
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life (1st ed.). Routledge.
Bodilly, S. (2001). New American schools’ concept of break the mold designs: How designs
evolved and why. RAND Corporation.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1288.html.
Bodilly, S., Purnell, S., Ramsey, K., & Keith, S. (1996). Lessons from new American schools
development corporation’s demonstration phase. RAND Corporation.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR729.html
123

Boix Mansilla, V. (2010). Learning to synthesize: The development of interdisciplinary
understanding. In R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, C. Mitcham, & J. B. Holbtook (Eds), Oxford
handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 288–306). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198733522.001.0001
Boodhoo, N. (2011, November 21). Using Battelle technology and don’t know it? NPR,
Business. Morning Edition. https://www.npr.org/2011/11/21/142583959/youre-probably-
using-battelle-technology-and-dont-even-know-it
Boser, U. (2012). Race to the top: What have we learned from the states so far? A state-by-state
evaluation of race to the top performance. Center for American Progress.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535605.pdf
Bowen, B., & Shume, T. (2018). Educators in industry: An exploratory study to determine how
teacher externships influence K-12 classroom practices. Journal of STEM Education:
Innovations and Research, 19(1), 57-62.
Bowen, B., & Shume, T. (2020). Developing workforce skills in K-12 classrooms: How teacher
externships increase awareness of the critical role of effective communication. Journal of
STEM Education, 21(1), 74–81. https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_
INST/273cgt/cdi_proquest_journals_2415853950
Brassler, M., & Dettmers, J. (2017). How to enhance interdisciplinary competence:
Interdisciplinary problem-based learning versus interdisciplinary project-based learning.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 11(2).
https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1686

124

Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What Is STEM? A
discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and
Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x
Brodbeck, F. C., Chhokar, J., & House, R. (2007). Culture and leadership in 25 societies:
Integration, conclusions, and future directions. In J. Chhokar, F. C. Brodbeck, & R.
House (Eds.), Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth
studies of 25 societies (pp. 1025–1084). Psychology Press.
The Brookings Institution. (2020). The United States, China and the contest for the Fourth
Industrial Revolution. https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-united-states-china-
and-the-contest-for-the-fourth-industrial-revolution/
Bryan, T. (2004). Tragedy averted: The promise of collaboration. Society & Natural
Resources, 17(10), 881–896. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920490505284
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-
sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review,
66(SUPPL. 1). 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross-sector
collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647–663.
https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12432
Buchanan, R., Byard, T., Ferguson, G., Billings, K., Dana, M., Champagne, J., & West, L.
(2019). Navigating standardized spaces in student teaching. The Educational Forum,
83(3), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2019.1599647
125

Burke, A. (2019). Science and engineering labor force, demographic trends of the S&E
workforce. National Science Foundation.
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20198/demographic-trends-of-the-s-e-workforce
Businesswire. (2019, February 6). Siemens foundation launches new training program to fill
building technology industry skills gap.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190206005204/en/Siemens-Foundation-
Launches-New-Training-Program-to-Fill-Building-Technology-Industry-Skills-Gap
California Department of Education. (2014). Innovate: A blueprint for STEM education: A
blueprint for science, technology, and mathematics in California public education. State
Superintendent of Public Instrution Tom Torlakson’s STEM Task Force and Californians
Dedicated to Education Foundation.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ca/sc/documents/innovate.pdf
California Department of Education. (2021, February 11). Science, technology, engineering, &
mathematics (STEM) information. Science. https://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ca/
sc/stemintrod.asp
California STEM Network. (n.d.). Introducing the STEM resource inventory.
https://www.childrennow.org/castemnetwork/
Cannady, M. A., Greenwald, E., & Harris, K. N. (2014). Problematizing the STEM pipeline
metaphor: Is the STEM pipeline metaphor serving our students and the STEM
workforce? Science Education, 98(3), 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21108
Cappelli, P. (2015). Skill gaps, skill shortages, and skill mismatches: Evidence and arguments for
the United States. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 68(2), 251–290. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0019793914564961
126

Carnevale, T. (2011). STEM: Science, technology, engineering, mathematics. Georgetown
University Center on Education and the Workforce, Lumina Foundation, and the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation. http://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2014/11/stem-complete.pdf
Casner-Lotto, J. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers perspectives on the basic
knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century U.S. workforce. The
Conference Board, Inc., the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, Corporate Voices for
Working Families, and the Society for Human Resource Management.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519465.pdf
Castellano, M., Stringfield, S., & Stone, J., III. (2003). Secondary career and technical education
and comprehensive school reform: Implications for research and practice. Review of
Educational Research, 73(2), 231–272. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543073002231
Catmull, E., & Wallace, A. (2014). Creativity, Inc.: Overcoming the unseen forces that stand in
the way of true inspiration. Random House.
Catterall, L. G. (2017). A brief history of STEM and STEAM from an inadvertent insider. The
STEAM Journal, 3(1). https://scholarship.claremont.edu/steam/vol3/iss1/5
Center for Education Reform. (2014). Survey of America’s charter schools.
https://edreform.com/2014/01/survey-of-americas-charter-schools/
Center for Global Development. (2020). Commitment to development index: 2020.
https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/CDI-brief-2020-WEB-EN.pdf
Centers for Disease Control (2011). Developing an effective evaluation plan.
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/downloads/cdc-evaluation-workbook-508.pdf
127

Centre for Community Organizations. (2019). White supremacy culture in organizations.
https://coco-net.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Coco-WhiteSupCulture-ENG4.pdf
Charity Navigator. (n.d.). Project Lead the Way, Inc.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/141816385
Chen, G. (2020). An overview of the funding of public schools. Public School Review.
https://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/an-overview-of-the-funding-of-public-schools
Chen, J. (2021). Governing collaborations: the case of a pioneering settlement services
partnership in Australia. Public Management Review, 23(9), 1295–1316.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1743345
ChiefDelphi.com. (n.d.). Project lead the way! General Forum.
https://www.chiefdelphi.com/t/project-lead-the-way/45580
Clarke, S. (2017). Local place-based collaborative governance: Comparing state-centric and
society-centered models. Urban Affairs Review, 53(3), 578–602.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087416637126
Clinton Global Initiative. (2015). STEM education: CGI conference working groups 2015.
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/cgia15_workinggroups_stemeducati
on.pdf
Coenen, L., Hansen, T., & Rekers, J. V. (2015). Innovation policy for grand challenges. An
economic geography perspective. Geography Compass, 9(9), 483–496.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12231
Coleman, A. (2020). D-STEM equity model: Diversifying the STEM education to career
pathway. Athens Journal of Education, 7(3), 273–296.
https://www.athensjournals.gr/education/2020-7-3-3-Coleman.pdf
128

Committee on STEM Education. (2018). Charting a course for success: America’s strategy for
STEM education. National Science and Technology Council.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp
Community for Advancing Discovery Research in Education. (2018). STEM smart: Lessons
learned from successful schools. Education Development Center and the National
Science Foundation, grant# 0822241.
https://successfulstemeducation.org/sites/default/files/Specialized%20STEM%20Seconda
ry%20Schools_FINAL_0.pdf
ComputerHistory.org. (2020). Revolution: The first 2000 years of computing. Computer History
Museum. https://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/birth-of-the-computer/4/78
Concannon, K., Williams, R., Feehan, D., Uvin, J., Yudin, M., Foster, D., Greenberg, M.,
Ramirez, L., Delery, S., Wu, P., Colvin, C., & Monje, C., Jr. (2016). Joint letter regarding
Federal partnership for career pathways. https://s3.amazonaws.com/PCRN/docs/15-
0675.CareerPathwaysJointLetterFinal-4-22-2016.pdf
Cook, K. (2015). Exchange: Social. In J. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social
& behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp.482–488). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
08-097086-8.32056-6
Costigan, A. T., Zumwalt, K. K., & Crocco, M. S. (2004). Learning to teach in an age of
accountability. ProQuest Ebook Central https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Couturier, L., & Cullianane, J. (2015). A call to action to improve math placement policies and
processes: Six policy recommendations to increase STEM student aspirations and
success while decreasing racial and income gaps. Jobs for the Future, Achieving the
129

Dream, Charles A Dana Center, The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED559677.pdf
Crabtree, L., Richardson, S., & Lewis, C. (2019). The gifted gap, STEM education, and
economic immobility. Journal of Advanced Academics, 30(2) 203–231.
https://doi.org/10.1171/1932202X19829749
Crain, R. L., Allen, A., Thaler, R., Sullivan, D., Zellman, G. L., Little, J. W., & Quigley, D. D.
(1999). The effects of academic career magnet education on high schools and their
graduates (MDS-779). National Center for Research in Vocational Education.
Crain, R. L., Heebner, A. L., & Si, Y. P. (1992). The effectiveness of New York City’s career
magnet schools: An evaluation of ninth-grade performance using an experimental design
(MDS-173). National Center for Research in Vocational Education.
Crane, A., & Seitanidi, M. (2013). Social partnerships and responsible business. In M. Seitanidi
& A. Crane (Eds.), Social partnerships and responsible business: A research handbook
(pp. 1–12). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.
Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0149206305279602
Crosby, B. C. (2010). Leading in the shared-power world of 2020. Public Administration
Review, 70, s69–s77. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02248.x
Delawarestem.org. (n.d.). Deleware STEM council. https://delawarestem.org/stem-council/
130

Demgenski, R., & Elman, M. F. (2018). Conflict and collaboration in international relations
theory. In C. Gerard & L. Kriesberg (Eds.), Conflict and collaboration: For better or
worse (pp. 168–181). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Di Domenico, M., Tracey, P., & Haugh, H. (2009). The dialectic of social exchange.
Organization Studies, 30(8), 887–907. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609334954
Dougherty, S., & Lombardi, A. (2016). From vocational education to career readiness: Ongoing
work of linking education and the labor market. Review of Research in Education, 40(1),
326–355. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16678602
Dubnick, M. (2014). Accountability as cultural keyword. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T.
Schillemans (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 23–28). Oxford
University Press.
Durugbo, C. (2015). Collaborative networks: a systematic review and multi-level
framework. International Journal of Production Research, 54(12), 3749–3776.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1122249
Dyer, J., Gregersen, H., & Christensen, C. (2011). Innovator’s DNA: Mastering the five skills of
disruptive innovators. Harvard Business School Press.
Eckert, J., & Butler, J. (2021). Teaching and Leading for Exemplary STEM Learning. The
Elementary School Journal, 121(4), 674–699. https://doi.org/10.1086/713976
Edmondson, A. C., Harvey, J.-F., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2017). Extreme Teaming: Lessons in
Complex, Cross-Sector Leadership. Emerald Publishing Limited.
Education Commission of the States. (1996). Listen, discuss, and act: Parents’ and teachers’
views on education reform. New American Schools. The Commission, and the RAND
Corporation.
131

Eisenbeiß, B., & Brodbeck, F. (2013). Ethical and unethical leadership: A cross-cultural and
cross-sectoral analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(2), 343–359.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1740-0
Emerson, R. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 31–41.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2089716
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2(1), 335–362.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003
English, L. (2014). STEM education K–12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of
STEM Education, 3(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186.s40594-016-0036-1
Ertmer, P, Schlosser, S., Clase, K., & Adedokun, O. (2014). The grand challenge: Helping
teachers learn/teach cutting-edge science via a PBL approach. The Interdisciplinary Journal
of Problem-Based Learning, 8(1), 4-21. https://www.doi.org/ 10.7771/1541-5015.1407
Espinosa, L., Turk, J., Taylor, M., & Chessman, H. (2019). Race and ethnicity in higher
education: A status report. American Council on Education.
Estrada, M., Burnett, M., Campbell, A. G., Campbell, P. B., Denetclaw, W. F., Gutiérrez, C. G.,
Hurtado, S., John, G. H., Matsui, J., McGee, R., Okpodu, C. M., Robinson, T. J.,
Summers, M. F., Werner-Washburne, M., & Zavala, M. (2016). Improving
underrepresented minority student persistence in STEM. CBE Life Sciences
Education, 15(3), es5. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0038
Falk, J. H., Dierking, L. D., Staus, N. L., Wyld, J. N., Bailey, D. L., & Penuel, W. R. (2016a).
The synergies research-practice partnership project: A 2020 vision case study. Cultural
Studies of Science Education, 11(1), 195-212. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-
9716-2
132

Falk, J. H., Dierking, L. D., Staus, N. L., Wyld, J. N., Bailey, D. L., & Penuel, W. R. (2016b).
Taking an ecosystem approach to STEM learning: The synergies project as a case study.
Connected Science Learning, 1(1). https://www.nsta.org/connected-science-
learning/connected-science-learning-march-2016/taking-ecosystem-approach-stem
Farber, M. (2017). Standards-aligned genius hour. Give your students a chance to follow their
own interests with projects that meet state standards. Edutopia.
https://www.edutopia.org/blog/standards-aligned-genius-hour-matthew-farber
Ferguson, R., & Lamback, S. (2014). Creating pathways to prosperity: A blueprint for action.
Pathways to Prosperity Project at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and the
Achievement Gap Initiative at Harvard University. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/
handle/1/14844810/CreatingPathwaystoProsperityReport2014.pdf?sequence=1&isAllow
ed=y
Filippetti, A., & D’Ippolito, B. (2017). Appropriability of design innovation across
organisational boundaries: Exploring collaborative relationships between manufacturing
firms and designers in Italy. Industry and Innovation, 24(6), 613–632.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1263888
FirstInspires.org (n.d.). About First, vision and mission.
https://www.firstinspires.org/about/vision-and-mission
Fischer, G. (2000). Lifelong learning: More than training. Journal of Interactive Learning
Research, 11(3/4), 265–294. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A72984173/AONE?u=
usocal_main&sid=AONE&xid=afef6e3a
133

Flejterski, S., & Majchrzak, M. (2018). Poland’s long-term competitive position from the
perspective of WEF global competitiveness reports. Comparative Economic Research, ,
21(2), 99–118. https://www.doi.org/10.2478/cer-2018-0014
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems
analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253–267. DOI:
0.1016/j.gloenvha.2006.04.002
Fouad, N., & Santana, M. (2017). SCCT and underrepresented populations in STEM fields:
Moving the needle. Journal of Career Assessment, 25(1), 24–39.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072716658324
Francis, N. (2016). What do state economic development agencies do? Economic Development
Strategies, Information Brief 6. Urban Institute.
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/83141/2000880-What-Do-State-
Economic-Development-Agencies-Do.pdf
Freifeld, L. (2013). Bridging the skills gap. Training, 50(2), 16-21.
Friedman, M. (2005, June 9). Free to choose. The Wall Street Journal.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB111827769927654908
Funk, C., & Parker, K. (2018). Diversity in the STEM workforce varies widely across jobs. Pew
Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/01/09/diversity-in-the-
stem-workforce-varies-widely-across-jobs/
Furco, A. (2013). Legitimizing community engagement with K–12 schools. Peabody Journal of
Education, 88(5), 622–636. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2013.835180
G20. (2020). Advancing enterprise education for women in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) among MENA countries. https://www.g20-insights.org/tag/stem/
134

Galindo-Rueda, F., & Verger, F. (2016). OECD taxonomy of economic activities based on R&D
intensity. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2016/04, OECD
Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jlv73sqqp8r-en
Gammon, K. (2021). Scientific intuition exists in all children. Rossier School of Education
Magazine, Spring/Summer 2021. https://rossier.usc.edu/magazine/spring-summer-
2021/scientific-intuition-exists-in-all-children/
Garbee, E. (2017, October, 20). The problem with the “pipeline.” SLATE.
https://slate.com/technology/2017/10/the-problem-with-the-pipeline-metaphor-in-stem-
education.html
Gardner, D. (2005). Earning my degree: Memoirs of an American university president.
University of California Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnpnv
Gardner, J. (1994). The 1990-91 recession: How bad was the labor market? Bureau of Labor
Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1994/06/art1full.pdf
Gardner, M., & Tillotson, J. (2018). Interpreting integrated STEM: Sustaining pedagogical
innovation within a public middle school context. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education 17, 1283–1300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9927-6
Gehrke, S., & Kezar, A. (2019). Perceived Outcomes Associated with Engagement in and
Design of Faculty Communities of Practice Focused on STEM Reform. Research in
Higher Education, 60(6), 844–869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9534-y
General Electric. (2020). Education & skills. https://www.ge.com/sites/default/files/GEA33759_
Education_and_Skills_2020_r1.pdf
135

Gerard, C., & Kriesberg, L. (2018). Introduction: Conflict resolution and collaboration. In C.
Gerard & L. Kriesberg (Eds.), Conflict and collaboration: For better or worse (pp. 1–
13). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Gharib, M. (2019, June 14). Countries are ranked on everything from health to happiness.
What’s the point? National Public Radio.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/06/14/730257541/countries-are-ranked-
on-everything-from-health-to-happiness-whats-the-point
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (Vol. 6). Sage.
Giffi, C., Dollar, B., Drew, M., McNelly, J., Carrick, G., & Gangula, B. (2015). The skills gap in
U.S. manufacturing: 2015 and beyond. The Manufacturing Institute and Deloitte
Development LLC. https://www.themadeinamericamovement.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/Deloitte-MFG-Institute.-The-Skills-Gap-in-the-US-MFG-
21015-and-Beyond.pdf
Giffi, C., Wellener, P., Dollar, B., Manolian Aston, H., Monck, L., & Moutray, C. (2018). Skills
gap and future of work study. Deloitte Insights and The Manufacturing Institute.
https://documents.deloitte.com/insights/2018DeloitteSkillsGapFoWManufacturing
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4
th
ed.). Pearson.
Glossary of Education Reform. (2014). Stakeholder. Great School Partnership.
https://www.edglossary.org/stakeholder/#:~:text=In%20education%2C%20the%20term%
20stakeholder,as%20school%20board%20members%2C%20city
Goetsch, D. (1994). Collaborative industry networks. In Lisa Falcone (Ed.), The critical link:
Community colleges and the workforce (pp.17-20). American Association of Community
Colleges with the U.S. Department of Labor.
136

Gold, A., (2014). How do you build the “right” cross-sector partnership to implement collective
impact approaches? Community Investments, 26(1), 5-10.
https://www.frbsf.org/community-development/files/ci_vol26no1-How-Do-You-Build-
the-Right.pdf
Goldberg, M., & Harvey, J. (1983). A nation at risk: The report of the national commission on
excellence in education. The Phi Delta Kappa 65(1), 14–18.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20386898?seq=1
Goldberg, S. (2021). Education in a pandemic: The disparate impacts of COVID-19 on
America’s students. Office for Civil Rights. U.S. Department of Education.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/20210608-impacts-of-covid19.pdf
Goldhaber, D., Strunk, K., Brown, N., & Knight, D. (2016). Lessons learned from the great
recession: Layoffs and the RIF-induced teacher shuffle. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 38(3), 517–548. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716647917
Goldman, K., & Schmalz, K. (2006). Logic models: The picture worth ten thousands words.
Health Promotion Practice, 7(1), 8-12. https://www.texashumanities.org/wp-
content/uploads/sites/108/2021/04/Goldman-Logic-Models-2006-1.pdf
Gonzalez-DeHass, A., Willems, P., & Holbein, M. (2005). Examining the relationship between
parental involvement and student motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 99–
123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3949-7
Graf, N., Fry, R., & Funk, C. (2018). 7 facts about the STEM workforce. Pew Research.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/09/7-facts-about-the-stem-workforce/
137

Granovskiy, B. (2018). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education:
An overview. Congressional Research Service.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45223
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. Jossey Bass.
Gray, B. (1996). Cross-sectoral partners: Collaborative alliances among business, government
and communities. In C. Huxham (Ed.), In search of collaborative advantage (pp. 58–99).
Sage Publishing.
Gray, B., & Purdy, J. (2014). Conflict in cross-sector partnerships. In M. Seitandidi & A. Crane
(Eds.), Social partnerships and responsible business: A research handbook (pp. 205–
226). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Grossman, A. S., & Lombard, A. (2015). Business aligning for students: The promise of
collective impact. Harvard Business School.
https://www.hbs.edu/competitiveness/research/Pages/research-details.aspx?rid=75
Grossman, A. S., Lombard, A., & Fisher, N. (2014). StriveTogether: Reinventing the local
education ecosystem. Harvard Business School.
https://www.hbs.edu/competitiveness/research/Pages/research-details.aspx?rid=10
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15, 103–120.
Grube, L., & Anderson, D. (2018, Winter). School choice and charter schools in review: What
have we learned? Journal of Private Enterprise, 33(4), 21+.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A562690124/AONE?u=usocal_main&sid=AONE&xid=f4
4131ae
138

Gumport, P., Iannozzi, M., Shaman, S., & Zemsky, R. (1997). The United States country report:
Trends in higher education from massification to post-massification.
http://course.napla.coplacdigital.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Trends-in-Higher-
Education-from-Massification-to-Post-Massification.pdf
Habib, B., Narayan, A., Olivieri, S., & Sanchez-Paramo, C. (2010). The impact of the financial
crisis on poverty and income distribution: Insights from simulations in selected countries.
The Centre for Economic Policy Research. https://voxeu.org/article/impact-financial-
crisis-poverty-and-income-distributions
Hadad, S. (2017). Knowledge economy: Characteristics and dimensions. Management Dynamics
in the Knowledge Economy, 5(2), 203–225. https://www.doi.org/10.25019/MDKE/5.2.03
Halqachmi, A. (2013). Charter schools in the USA. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, 62(4), 420–435. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410401311329643
Hanleybrown, F., Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2012, January 26). Channeling change: Making
collective impact work. Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/
channeling_change_making_collective_impact_work
Hargadon, A. (2003). The social side of innovation. In How breakthroughs happen: The
surprising truth about how companies innovate. Harvard University Press.
Harkins, M. (2018). Erie’s future fund: Addressing barriers to education through cross-sector
collaboration, Childhood Education, 94(4), 40–45.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2018.1494442
Harris, R. G. (2001). The knowledge-based economy: Intellectual origins and new economic
perspectives. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(1), 21–40.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00052
139

Heffner, S., Kennedy, S., Brand, J., & Walsh, P. (2011). Develop your leaders, transform your
organization. Harvard Business School.
Hemelt, S. W., Lenard, M. A., & Paeplow, C. G. (2017). Building better bridges to life after high
school: Experimental evidence on contemporary career academies. National Center for
Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.
https://caldercenter.org/sites/default/files/WP%20176.pdf
Henig, J. R., Riehl, C. J., Houston, D. M., Rebell, M. A., & Wolff, J. R. (2016). Collective
impact and the new generation of cross-sector collaborations for education: A nationwide
scan. Education Week, 35(23). 5. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1774540438
Henig, J. R., Riehl, C. J., Rebell, M. A., & Wolff, J. R. (2015). Putting collective impact in
context: A review of the literature on local cross-sector collaboration to improve
education. Teachers College. http://www.tc.columbia.edu/epsa
The Heritage Foundation. (2021). The 2021 index of economic freedom: Country rankings.
https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
Heuer, M. (2010). Ecosystem cross-sector collaboration: conceptualizing an adaptive approach
to sustainability governance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4), 211–221.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.673
Heuer, M. (2011). Ecosystem cross-sector collaboration: conceptualizing an adaptive approach
to sustainability governance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4), 211–221.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.673
Heuer, M. (2012). Sustainability Governance Across Time and Space: Connecting
Environmental Stewardship in the Firm with the Global Community. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 21(2), 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.712
140

Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few ? Women in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (Vol. 5). American Association of University Women.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21007
Hill, E., St. Clair, T., Wial, H., Wolman, H., Atkins, P., Blumenthal, P., Ficenec, S., Friedhoff,
A. (2012). Economic shocks and regional economic resilience. In M. Weir, N. Pindus, H.
Wial, & H. Wolman (Eds.), Urban and regional policy and its effects: Building resilient
regions (pp. 193–274). Brookings Institution Press.
Hill, F. (2020). Public service and the federal government. Brookings Institution.
https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/public-service-and-the-federal-
government/#:~:text=Across%20the%20U.S.%2C%20nearly%2024,local%2C%20state%2
0and%20federal%20levels.
Hill, L. (2019). Understanding the impact of a multi-institutional STEM reform network through
key boundary-spanning individuals. The Journal of Higher Education, 91(3), 455–482.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2019.1650581
Hill, N., & Tyson, D. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic
assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3),
740–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015362
Hill, R. C. (1983). Market, state, and community: National urban policy in the 1980s. Urban
Affairs Quarterly, 19(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/004208168301900102
Hillsborough County Public Schools. (n.d.). Local STEM resources.
https://www.sdhc.k12.fl.us/doc/list/stem/local-stem-resources/210-1133/
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences, international differences in work-related values .
Sage Publications.
141

Holland, J. N., & Bronstein, J. L. (2008). Mutualism. Encyclopedia of Ecology, 2485–2491.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045405-4.00673-X
Homans, G. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597–
606. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2772990
Homans, G. (1983). Steps to a theory of social behavior: An autobiographical account. Theory
and Society, 12(1), 1–45. http://www.jstor.org/stable/657202
Howell, E. (2018, August, 22). Sputnik: The space race’s opening shot. Space.
https://www.space.com/17563-sputnik.html
Høyland, B., Moene, K., & Willumsen, F. (2012). The tyranny of international index
rankings. Journal of Development Economics, 97(1), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2011.01.007
Hrabowski, F., & Henderson, P. (2019, November 29). How to actually promote diversity in
STEM: The future depends on a robust scientific workforce, but millions of minority
students are massively underrepresented in these fields. The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-umbc-got-minority-students-stick-
stem/602635/
Humes, K. R., Jones, N., & Ramirez, R. R. (2011). Overview of race and Hispanic origin: 2010.
U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/population/race/
Hung, S. Y., Durcikova, A., Lai, H. M., & Lin, W. M. (2011). The influence of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation on individuals knowledge sharing behavior. International Journal of
Human Computer Studies, 69(6). 415–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.02.004
142

Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate : The theory and practice of
collaborative advantage. Taylor & Francis Group.
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/socal/reader.action?docID=214493
Hyer, V. (2014). Census bureau reports majority of STEMcollege graduates do not work in
STEM occupations. U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-
releases/2014/cb14-130.html
Ilumoka, A., Milanovic, I., Grant, N. (2017). An effective industry-based mentoring approach for
the recruitment of women and minorities in engineering. Journal of STEM Education,
Innovations and Research, 18(3).
International Institute for Management Development. (n.d.). 330+ criteria. IMD World
Competitiveness Online. https://worldcompetitiveness.imd.org/
International Institute for Management Development. (2020). IMD world competitiveness
ranking 2020: Showing strength of small economies. https://www.imd.org/news/updates/
IMD-2020-World-Competitiveness-Ranking-revealed/
Jacklin-Jarvis, C. (2015). Collaborating across sector boundaries: A story of tensions and
dilemmas. Voluntary Sector Review,6(3), 285–302.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/204080515X14448338369886
Jeynes, W. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement
programs for urban students. Urban Education, 47(4), 706–742.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912445643
Judson, E. (2014). Effects of transferring to STEM-focused charter and magnet schools on
student achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 107(4), 255–266.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.823367
143

Jug, A., & Mendoza-Abarca, K. (2016). Social entrepreneurship and cross-sector
collaborations: Literature review and proposed guidelines. United States Association for
Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Junior Achievement. (2018). Research reveals boys’ interest in STEM careers declining; girls’
interest unchanged. Junior Achievement and Ernst & Young.
https://jausa.ja.org/news/press-releases/research-reveals-boys-interest-in-stem-careers-
declining-girls-interest-unchanged
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1(9), 36–
41. https://senate.humboldt.edu/sites/default/files/senate/Chair%20Written%20
Report%201-23-2018.pdf
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2013). Embracing emergence: How collective impact addresses
complexity. Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://assets.neindiana.com/resources/
embracing-emergence-how-collective-impact-addresses-complexity.pdf
Kanny, M., Sax, L., & Riggers-Piehl, T. (2014). Investigating forty years of STEM research:
How explanations for the gender gap have evolved over time. Journal of Women and
Minorities in Science and Engineering, 20(2), 127–148.
https://doi.org/10.1615/jwomenminorscieneng.2014007246
Karlgaard, R. (2010, March 11). The not so great recession. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0329/opinions-rich-karlgaard-great-recession-
digital-rules.html?sh=471e3b6450b7
Kearns, D. T., & Anderson, J. L. (1996). Sharing the vision: Creating new American schools. In
Stringfield, S., Ross, S., & Smith, L. (Eds.). Bold plans for school restructuring: The new
American schools designs. (pp. 9-24). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
144

Kearns, D. T. (1993). Business’ role in school reform. Corporate Board, 14(83), 1.
Keast, R., & Mandell, M. (2014). The collaborative push: Moving beyond rhetoric and gaining
evidence. Journal of Management and Governance, 18(1), 9–28.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-012-9234-5
Kelman, I., Luthe, T., Wyss, R., Tørnblad, S., Evers, Y., Curran, M., Williams, R., & Berlow, E.
(2016). Social network analysis and qualitative interviews for assessing geographic
characteristics of tourism business networks. PloS One, 11(6), e0156028.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156028
Kezar, A. (2000). Pluralistic leadership: Bringing diverse voices to the table. About Campus, 6-
11 and 722-743.
Kezar, A. (2011). Organizational culture and its impact on partnering between community
agencies and postsecondary institutions to help low-income students attend college.
Education and Urban Society, 43(2), 205–243.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124510380041
Kezar, A., Miller, E., Bernstein-Serra, S., & Holcombe, E. (2019). The promise of a “network of
networks” strategy to scale change: Lessons from the AAU STEM initiative. Change:
The Magazine of Higher Learning, 51(2), 47–54.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2019.1569973
Kirby, S. N., Berends, M., & Bodilly, S. J. (2002). A decade of whole-school reform: The new
American schools experience. RAND Corporation.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB8019.html
Kiselakova, D., Sofrankova, B., Gombar, M., Cabinova, V., & Onuferova, E. (2019).
Competitiveness and its impact on sustainability, business environment, and human
145

development of EU (28) Countries in terms of Global Multi-Criteria Indices.
Sustainability, 11(12), 3365-3390. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123365
Kivunja, C. (2015). Exploring the pedagogical meaning and implications of the 4Cs “Super
Skills” for the 21
st
century through Bruner’s 5E lenses of knowledge construction to
improve pedagogies of the new learning paradigm. Creative Education, 6, 224–239.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.62021
Klein, J., Rice, C., & Levy, J. (2014). U.S. Education Reform and National Security. Independent
Task Force Report No. 68. Council on Foreign Relations.
Kolk, A. (2013). Partnerships as panacea for addressing global problems? On rationale, context,
actors, impact and limitations. In M. Seitanidi & A. Crane (Eds.), Social partnerships and
responsible business: A research handbook (pp. 15–43). Routledge, Taylor & Francis
Group.
Kolk, A., van Dolen, W., & Vock, M. (2010). Trickle effects of cross-sector social partnerships.
Journal of Business Ethics, 94(SUPPL. 1), 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-
0783-3
Kowalski, T. J., McCord, R. S., Peterson, G. J., Young, P. I., & Ellerson, N. M. (2011). The
American School Superintendent: 2010 Decennial Study. ProQuest Ebook
Central. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Kriesberg, L. (2018). Improving social relationships. In C. Gerard & L. Kriesberg (Eds.),
Conflict and collaboration: for better or worse (pp. 14-28). Routledge, Taylor & Francis
Group.
146

Kriesberg, L., & Gerard, C. (2018). Conclusion: Implication and recommendations. In C. Gerard
& L. Kriesberg (Eds.), Conflict and collaboration : for better or worse (pp. 195–207).
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Laal, M. (2011). Lifelong learning: What does it mean? Procedia – Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 28(2011), 470–474. https:// doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.090
Laker, D. R., & Powell, J. L. (2011). The differences between hard and soft skills and their
relative impact on training transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(1), 111–
122. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20063
Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Beede, D., Beethika, K., & Doms, M. (2011). STEM: Good jobs
now and for the future. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics
Administration. https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/migrated/reports/
stemfinalyjuly14_1.pdf
Lawler, E., & Thye, S. (1999). Bringing emotions into social exchange theory. Annual Review of
Sociology, 25(1), 217–244. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.217
Lawler, E., & Yoon, J. (1993). Power and the emergence of commitment behavior in negotiated
exchange. American Sociological Review, 58(4), 465–481.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2096071
Lencioni, P. (2004). 5 dysfunctions of a team. Jossey-Bass.
Levin, B. (2000). Putting students at the centre in education reform. Journal of Educational
Change, 1(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010024225888
Levin-Goldberg, J. (2012). Teaching generation techx with the 4cs: Using technology to
integrate 21
st
century skills. Journal of Instructional Research, 1, 59-66.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1127608.pdf
147

Liou, Y.-H., & Daly, A. (2020). Obstacles and opportunities for networked practice: a social
network analysis of an inter-organizational STEM ecosystem. Journal of Educational
Administration (advance publication). https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2020-0041
Liu, W. M., Liu, R. Z., Garrison, Y. L., Kim, J. Y. C., Chan, L., Ho, Y. C. S., & Yeung, C. W.
(2019). Racial trauma, microaggressions, and becoming racially innocuous: The role of
acculturation and white supremacist ideology. American Psychologist, 74(1), 143-155.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000368
Lo, J., Wyble, C., & Hupfer, S. (2012). Fast track to the future: the 2012 IBM tech trends report.
IBM Center for Applied Insights.
Lyon, M. A., & Henig, J. (2019). Blurring lines? How locally based collaborations handle the
redistribution/development tradeoff. Urban Affairs Review, 55(4), 1100–1124.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087417740704
Mair, J. & Marti, I. (2009). Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from
Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 419-435.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.006
Magliaro, S. G., & Ernst, J. (2018). Inventory of statewide STEM education networks. Center for
Research in SEAD Education. https://serc.carleton.edu/StemEdCenters/statewide-STEM
Magnet Schools of America. (n.d.). What are magnet schools? https://magnet.edu/about/what-
are-magnet-schools
Makarova, E., Aeschlimann, B., & Herzog, W. (2016). Why is the pipeline leaking? Experiences
of young women in STEM vocational education and training and their adjustment strategies.
Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, 8(2), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40461-016-0027-y
148

Maltese, A. V., Melki, C. S., & Wiebke, H. L. (2014). The nature of experiences responsible for
the generation and maintenance of interest in STEM. Science Education, 98(6), 937–962.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21132
Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of
educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students. Science
Education, 95(5), 877–907. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20441
Manpower Group. (2018). Solving the talent shortage: Build, buy, borrow and bridge. Talent
shortage survey 2018. https://go.manpowergroup.com/hubfs/TalentShortage%
202018%20(Global)%20Assets/PDFs/MG_TalentShortage2018_lo%206_25_18_FINAL.
pdf
Margerum, R. (2011). Beyond consensus: Improving collaborative planning and management.
The MIT Press.
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.98.2.224
Marlin, C. L. (1987). Space race propaganda: U.S. coverage of the Soviet Sputniks in
1957. Journalism Quarterly, 64(2–3), 544–559.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908706400237
Marsh, W., & Wohlstetter, P. (2013). Recent trends in intergovernmental relations: The
resurgence of local actors in education policy. Educational Researcher, 42(5), 276–283.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13492193
149

Mattern, K., Radunzel, J., & Westrick, P. (2015). Development of STEM readiness benchmarks
to assist educational and career decision making. ACT Research Report Series, (3). ACT,
Inc.
Mattessich, P., & Johnson, K. (2018). Collaboration: What makes it work (3rd ed). Fieldstone
Alliance.
McBride, L. (2018). Changing the culture for women and underrepresented groups in STEM+M.
Insight Into Diversity. https://www.insightintodiversity.com/changing-the-culture-for-
women-and-underrepresented-groups-in-stemm/
McCombs, B. (1991). Motivation and lifelong learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(2), 117–
127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2602_4
Meadows, L. (2007). Looking back: A nation at risk and national standards. The Science
Teacher, 74(8), 10.
Means, B., Wang, H., Wei, X., Iwatani, E., & Peters, V. (2018). Broadening participation in
STEM college majors: Effects of attending a STEM-focused high school. American
Educational Research Association, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418806305
Means, B., Wang, H., Wei, X., Young, V., & Iwatani, E. (2021). Impacts of attending an
inclusive STEM high school: Meta-analytic estimates from five studies. International
Journal of STEM Education, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00260-1
Mecklenburger, J. A. (1992). The braking of the ‘break-the-mold’ express. The Phi Delta
Kappan, 74(4), 280–289. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20404862
Meister, G. R., & Blitz, C. L. (2016). The promise of partnerships. Journal of Staff Development,
37(3), 46-52.
150

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miller, W. H. (1992). What a time to start a company! (or ask for money). Industry
Week, 241(3), 52.
Mischke, J., Woetzel, J., & Birshan, M. (2021). The necessity of doing well by doing good.
McKinsey Global Institute. https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/overview/in-the-news/the-
necessity-of-doing-well-by-doing-good
Mirel, J. (2001). The evolution of the new American schools: From revolution to mainstream.
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/evolution-new-american-schools-
revolution-mainstream
Mitts, C. R. (2016, March). Why STEM? Technology and Engineering Teacher, 75(6), 30+.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A447637077/GPS?u=usocal_main&sid=GPS&xid=909fef
ff
Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Cavalcanti, M., & Blyman, K. (2015). STEM education: Understanding
the changing landscape. In A. Sahin (Ed.). A practice-based model of STEM teaching:
STEM students on the stage (SOS) (pp. 3-14). Sense Publishers.
Molm, L. D., Collett, J. L., & Schaefer, D. R. (2007). Building solidarity through generalized
exchange: A theory of reciprocity. The American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 205–242.
https://doi.org/10.1086/517900
Mullis, I., Martin, M., Foy, P., Kelly, D., & Fishbein, B. (2019). TIMSS 2019 international
results in mathematics and science. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch
School of Education, Boston College. http://timss2019/org/download
151

Muthusamy, S. K., & White, M. A. (2005). Learning and knowledge transfer in strategic
alliances: A social exchange view. Organization Studies, 26(3), 415–441.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605050874
Nannestad, P. (2008). What have we learned about generalized trust, if anything? Annual Review
of Political Science, 11(1), 413–436. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.
11.060606.135412
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016a). Developing a national
STEM workforce strategy: A workshop summary. The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/21900
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016b). Promising practices for
strengthening the regional STEM workforce development ecosystem. The National
Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21894.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Building America’s skilled
technical workforce. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23472.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2015). Science assessment 2015: National
achievement level results.
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/science_2015/#acl?grade=12
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2019). Results from the 2019 mathematics and
reading assessments at Grade 12.
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/mathematics/supportive_files/2019_infographic_G12
_math_reading.pdf
152

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Student self-assessment of math and science
ability in high school. U.S. Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016164.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019a). Public school revenue sources. The Condition
of Education. U.S. Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cma.asp#info
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019b). School choice in the United States. U.S.
Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019106.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019c). Title I: Fast facts from the study of the title I,
Part A grant program mathematical formulas (NCES 2019-016). U.S. Department of
Education. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=158
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Charter schools: Fast facts. U.S. Department of
Education. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=30
National Center for O*NET Development. (n.d.). About O*NET. O*NET Resource Center. U.S.
Department of Labor/Employment and Training Administration.
https://www.onetcenter.org/overview.html
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2017). Science and engineering labor
force. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20198/immigration-and-the-s-e-workforce
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2019). Women, Minorities, and Persons
with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2019. Special Report NSF 19-304.
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19304/downloads
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform: A report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, United States
153

Department of Education. U.S. Department of Education.
https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html
National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching
for America’s future. Carnegie Corporation of New York and Rockefeller Foundation.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED395931.pdf
National Research Council. (2011). “Committee on highly successful schools or programs for K–
12 STEM education.” Successful K–12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches
in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. National Academies Press.
https://www.doi.org/10.17226/13158
National Research Council. (2012a). Assuring the U.S. Department of Defense a Strong Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Workforce. The National Academies
Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13467
National Research Council. (2012b). Education for life and work: Developing transferable
knowledge and skills in the 21st century. The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/13398
National Research Council. (2014). STEM learning is everywhere: Summary of a convocation on
building learning systems. The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/18818
National Science & Technology Council. (2018). Charting a course for success: America’s
strategy for STEM education. Executive Office of the President of the United States.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/nstc
154

National Science Board. (2015). Revisiting the STEM workforce, A companion to science and
engineering indicators 2014 (NSB-2015-10). National Science Foundation.
https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsb201510/nsb201510.pdf
National Science Board. (2020). Vision 2030. National Science Foundation (NSB-2020-15).
https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2020/nsb202015.pdf
National Science Board & National Science Foundation. (2019). Elementary and secondary
mathematics and science education. Science and Engineering Indicators 2020 (NSB-2019-
6). https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20196/
National Science Board & National Science Foundation. (2020). Invention, knowledge transfer,
and innovation. Science and Engineering Indicators 2020.
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20204/invention-u-s-and-comparative-global-trends
National Science Foundation. (1998). A report on the evaluation of the National Science
Foundation’s informal science education program. COSMOS Corporation.
National Science Foundation. (2001). Barriers to a competitive SMET workforce. National
Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2001/ceose2000summ/barriers.htm
National Science Foundation (NSF). (2017). What is STEM education? News from the field.
National Science Foundation website.
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=243502
National Science Foundation. (2020). Maintaining global leadership. 75 years on the endless
frontier: A vision for the future rooted in the past. https://beta.nsf.gov/science-matters/75-
years-endless-frontier-vision-future-rooted-past
155

NBC Washington. (2011, September, 16). Obama to deliver back-to-school speech from
Banneker High. https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/obama-to-deliver-back-to-
school-speech-from-banneker-high/1902638/
Nemanick, R., (2013). The mentor’s way rule #5: Balance empathy and action. The Leadership
Effect. https://leadership-effect.com/2013/07/
Neri, R. C. (2018). Learning from students’ career ideologies and aspirations: Utilizing a funds
of knowledge approach to reimagine Career and Technical Education (CTE). In Rios-
Aguilar, C.(Ed.), Funds of knowledge in higher education. (1st ed., pp. 160–174).
Routledge. https://doi.org/:10.4324/9781315447322-10
New American School Designs. (2001). School Administrator, 58(10), 48.
Nikolic, M., & Krajisnik, M. (2019). Impact of international country rankings on economic
development of European countries in transition. UTMS Journal of Economics, 10(2),
259–273.
Noam, G. G., & Rosenbaum Tillinger, J. (2004). After-school as intermediary space: Theory and
typology of partnerships. New Directions for Youth Development, 2004(101), 75–113.
https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.73
Noonan, R. (2017a). STEM jobs: 2017 update. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and
Statistics Administration.
https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/migrated/reports/stem-jobs-2017-update.pdf
Noonan, R. (2017b). Women in STEM: 2017 Update. Office of the Chief Economist, Economics
and Statistics Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (ESA Issue Brief #06-17).
https://www.esa.gov/reports/women-stem-2017-update
Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.) Sage Publishers.
156

Nyaga, G., Lynch, D., Marshall, D., & Ambrose, E. (2013). Power asymmetry, adaptation and
collaboration in dyadic relationships involving a powerful partner. The Journal of Supply
Chain Management, 49(3), 42–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12011
Office of Management and Budget. (2018). Standard occupational classification manual.
Executive Office of the President. https://www.bls.gov/soc/2018/soc_2018_manual.pdf
Olson, L. (1993a, August 4). Alliance aims for ‘break the mold systems,’ not just schools.
Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/education/alliance-aims-for-break-the-mold-
systems-not-just-schools/1993/08
OnlineMSWPrograms.com. (2020). Introduction to social exchange theory in social work. 6
important theories in social work. https://www.onlinemswprograms.com/social-
work/theories/social-exchange-theory/#:~:text=The%20basic%20definition%20of%20
social,seeking%20to%20maximize%20their%20reward.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). OECD economic surveys:
United States 2016. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-usa-2016-
en
Orrell, B., & Cox, D. A. (2020). STEM perspectives: Attitudes, opportunities, and barriers in
America’s STEM workforce. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and
collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological
Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72.
https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/782/docs/oysermancoonkemmelmeier2002.pdf
Palmisano, M. (2001). Richard Marc Emerson. In M. Palmisano (Ed.), World of Sociology. Gale.
157

Parkhurst, M., & Preskill, H. (2014). Learning in action: Evaluating collective impact. Stanford
Social Innovation Review, 12, S17–S19.
Patton, M. (1994). Developmental evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 311–319.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0886-1633(94)90026-4
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Selecting samples and administering surveys (Part 2 of 3) (REL 2016-160). U.S.
Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/
Pike, G. R., & Robbins, K. (2019). Expanding the pipeline: The effect of participating in Project
Lead the Way on majoring in a STEM discipline. Journal for STEM Education
Research, 2, 14–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00013-y
Pogrow, S. (2002). Success for all is a failure. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(6), 463–468.
Postlethwaite, B., & Schaffer, R. (2019). Creating a mentoring program that works: A process
for decision makers. Graziadio Business Review.
https://gbr.pepperdine.edu/2019/12/creating-a-mentoring-program-that-works/
Powell, A. (2007, October, 11). How Sputnik changed U.S. education. The Harvard Gazette.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/10/how-sputnik-changed-u-s-education/
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K–12
education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America’s future.
Executive Office of the President.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-stem-ed-
final.pdf
158

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing
one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering
and mathematics. Executive Office of the President.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-
excel-final_2-25-12.pdf
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2014). Information technology for
targeting job-skills training and matching talent to jobs. Executive Office of the
President.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/PCAST
_worforce_edIT_Oct-2014.pdf
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2017). Report to the President:
Ensuring long-term U.S. leadership in Semiconductors. Executive Office of the
President. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/
PCAST/pcast_ensuring_long-term_us_leadership_in_semiconductors.pdf
Purdy, K., Kish-Gephart, J., Labiance, G., & Ansari, S. (2018). Connections and collaboration-
Celebrating the contributions of Barbara Gray. Negotiation and Conflict Management
Research, 11(1), 88–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12118
Ralls, D., Bianchi, L., & Choudry, S. (2018). Across the divide: Developing professional
learning ecosystems in STEM education. Research in Science Education, 50, 2463–2481.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9789-5
Redmond, M. (2015). Social exchange theory. English Technical Reports and White Papers, 5.
https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/engl_reports/5
159

Redmond‐Sanogo, A., Angle, J., & Davis, E. (2016). Kinks in the STEM pipeline: Tracking
STEM graduation rates using science and mathematics performance. School Science and
Mathematics, 116(7), 378–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12195
Reficco, E., & Márquez, P. (2012). Inclusive Networks for Building BOP Markets. Business &
Society, 51(3), 512–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650309332353
Riehl, C., & Lyon, M. A. (2017). Counting on context: Cross- sector collaborations for education
and the legacy of James Coleman’s sociological vision, The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 674, 262–280,
https://www.doi.org/10.1177/0002716217735284
Rivkin, J. W., Grossman, A., Puckett, J., Vaduganathan, N., Allan, S., & Childress, S. (2014).
Partial credit: How America’s school superintendents see business as a partner. Harvard
Business School. http://www.hbs.edu/competitiveness/Documents/partial-credit.pdf
Robles, M. (2012). Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills needed in today’s workplace.
Business Communication Quarterly, 75(4), 453–465. https://www.doi.org/
10.1177/1080569912460400
Rockland, R., Bloom, D. S., Carpinelli, J., Burr-Alexander, L., Hirsch, L. S., & Kimmel, H.
(2010). Advancing the “E” in K–12 STEM education. Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1),
53–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12023
Rold, A., & O’Donnell, C. (2017). New economy talk: the role of STEM education in preparing
future global talent [Video]. International Monetary Fund.
https://www.imf.org/external/mmedia/view.aspx?vid=5607014056001
Rosenblum, I., & Spence, C. (2015). Success in real-time: Using real-time labor market
information to build better middle-skill STEM pathways. Jobs for the Future, Achieving
160

the Dream, and The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED556761.pdf
Rothwell, J. (2013, June). The hidden STEM economy. Metropolitan Policy Program at
Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/thehiddenstemeconomy610.pdf
Rothwell, J. (2014). Still searching: Job vacancies and STEM skills. Metropolitan Policy
Program at Brookings.https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/job-
vacancies-and-stem-skills.pdf
Rothwell, J. (2015). Defining skilled technical work. Prepared for National Academies Board on
Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, Project on “The Supply Chain for Middle-
Skilled Jobs: Education. Training and Certification Pathways”
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2709141
Rowe, W. (2014). The Sage encyclopedia of action research. Sage Publications.
https://doi.org//10.4135/9781446294406.n277
Rubinstein, R., Sanchez, S., & Lane, S. (2018). Coercing consensus? Notes on power and the
hegemony of collaboration. In C. Gerard & L. Kriesberg (Eds.), Conflict and
collaboration: For better or worse (pp. 104–119). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Rundell, C. (1992). NASDC: A businessman’s experience. The Phi Delta Kappan, 74(4), 290–
295. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20404863
Rundell, R. (1993). A blueprint for excellence: The new American schools development
corporation’s vision for our schools. Survey of Business, 28(4), 13.
161

Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Tai, R. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career
interest in high school: A gender study. Science Education,96(3). 411–427.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21007
Salkind, N. J., & Frey, B. B. (2019). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Sage.
Sax, L. J., Kanny, M. A., Riggers-Piehl, T. A., Whang, H., & Paulson, L. N. (2015). “But I’m
not good at math”: The changing salience of mathematical self-concept in shaping women’s
and Men’s STEM aspirations. Research in Higher Education, 56(8), 813–842.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9375-x
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.) JosseyBass.
Schiller, B. (2017, November 15). Americans agree on something: They don’t like big
corporations. Fast Company. https://www.fastcompany.com/40495233/americans-agree-
on-something-they-dont-like-big-corporations
Schwab, K. (2018). The global competitiveness report. World Economic Forum.
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2018/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitivenessRepo
rt2018.pdf
Schwandt, D., & Marquardt, M. (2000). Steps and strategies for bringing organizational
learning to your organization. Organizational learning from world-class theories to
global best practices. St. Lucie Press, 227-249.
Scribner, C. (2012). Make your voice heard: Communism in the high school curriculum, 1958–
1968. History of Education Quarterly, 52(3). 351–369.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23251453
Seitanidi, M., & Crane, A. (2013). Conclusion: reimagining the future of social partnerships and
responsible business. In M. Seitanidi & A. Crane (Eds.), Social partnerships and
162

responsible business: A research handbook (pp.388-407). Routledge, Taylor & Francis
Group.
Selsky, J., Wilkinson, A., & Mangalagiu. (2014). Using futures methods in cross-sector
partnership projects: Engaging wicket problems responsibly. In M. Seitanidi & A. Crane
(Eds.), Social partnerships and responsible business: A research handbook (pp. 267-
287). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315867175
Senate Historical Office. (n.d.). Sputnik spurs passage of the national defense education act.
United States Senate. https://www.senate.gov/ artandhistory/history/minute/Sputnik_
Spurs_Passage_of_National_Defense_Education_Act.htm
Senecah, S. (2018). The Long Island, New York Pine Barrens experience: From confrontation to
consensus. In In C. Gerard & L. Kriesberg (Eds.),Conflict and collaboration: For better
or worse (pp. 29–45). Routledge.
Sergeyev, A., Kinney, M., Kuhl, S., Alaraje, N., Highum, M., & Mehandiratta, P. (2019).
University, community college and industry partnership: Revamping robotics education
to meet 21st century workforce needs – NSF sponsored project final report. Journal of
Engineering Technology, 36(2), 8-20.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-
journals/university-community-college-industry-partnership/docview/2318529724/se-
2?accountid=14749
Shaby, N., Staus, N., Dierking, L. D., & Falk, J. H. (2021). Pathways of interest and
participation: How STEM‐interested youth navigate a learning ecosystem. Science
Education (Salem, Mass.), 105(4), 628–652. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21621
163

Shive, J., & Rogus, J. (1979). The school-business partnership: A concept revitalized. The
Clearing House, 52(6), 286–290. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30185167
Siegel, D. (2010). Why universities join cross-sector social partnerships: Theory and evidence.
Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 14(1), 33–63.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ905419.pdf
Skomsvold, P. (2014). Profile of Undergraduate Students: 2011–12 (NCES 2015-167). National
Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016405.pdf
Smilor, R. W., Gibson, D., & Kozmetsky, G. (1989). Creating the technopolis: High-technology
development in Austin, Texas. Journal of Business Venturing, 4(1), 49–67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(89)90033-5
Sommerfeld, M., Jacobson, L., Rosenthal, L., Ruenzel, D., Allan, S., Henry, T., Grossman, A., &
Rivkin, J. (2014). Brink of renewal: A business leader’s guide to progress in America’s
schools. Harvard Business School. https://www.hbs.edu/competitiveness/
Documents/brink-of-renewal.pdf
Sondergeld, T. A., Johnson, C. C., & Walten, J. B. (2016). Assessing the impact of a statewide
STEM investment on K–12, higher education, and business/community STEM awareness
over time. School Science and Mathematics, 116(2). 104–110.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12155
Soni, A., & Kumari, S. (2015). The role of parental math anxiety and math attitude in their
children’s math achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 15(2), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9687-5
164

Soules, A., Nielsen, S., LeDuc, D., Inouye, C., Singley, J., Wildy, E., & Seitz, J. (2014).
Embedding multiple literacies into STEM curricula. College Teaching, 62(4), 121–128.
https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2014.935699
Stauffer, B. (2020a). What are 21st century skills? Applied Educational Systems.
https://www.aeseducation.com/blog/what-are-21st-century-skills
Stauffer, B. (2020b). How to teach digital literacy skills. Applied Educational Systems.
https://www.aeseducation.com/blog/teach-digital-literacy-skills
Stebbins M., & Goris, T. (2019). Evaluating STEM education in the U.S. Secondary schools:
Pros and cons of the Project Lead The Way platform. International Journal of
Engineering Pedagogy, 9(1), 50–56. https://doi.org/doi:10.3991/ijep.v9i1.9277
STEM
4
. (2015). The power of collaboration for change. A joint document authored by Advance
CTE, Association of State Supervisors of Mathematics, Council of State Science
Supervisors, and International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. The
Technology Teacher, 78(6), S1–S7.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/273cgt/cdi_proquest_jour
nals_2187374837
STEMx. (2021). About the STEMx Network. https://www.stemx.us/about
Stipanovic, N., Stringfield, S., & Witherell, E. (2017). The influence of a career pathways model
and career counseling on students’ career and academic self-efficacy. Peabody Journal of
Education, 92(2), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2017.1302217
Stiver, D. (2019). Network agreements: Co-designing principles that influence network culture.
In N. Walzer & L. Weaver (Eds.), Using collective impact to bring community change.
(Vol. 9, pp. 41–55). Routledge, Taylor & Francis, Group.
165

Stone, C. N., & Stoker, R. P. (2015). Urban neighborhoods in a new era: Revitalization politics
in the postindustrial city. University of Chicago Press.
Strauss, V. (2016, October, 21). President Obama’s education speech at D.C.’s Benjamin
Banneker high school. The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/10/21/president-obamas-
education-speech-at-d-c-s-benjamin-banneker-high-school-2/
Surman, T., & Surman, M. (2008). Listening to the stars: The constellation model of
collaborative social change. Social Space, 24–29.
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lien_research/9
Sytch, A. (2017). Tech companies pledge $300M to STEM education.
https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2017/09/major-tech-
companies-pledge300m-to-stem-education.html?page=all
Tennessee Department of Education. (2018). STEM strategic plan: An integrated K–12 STEM
proposal for Tennessee. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/ccte/ccte_stem_
strategic_plan.pdf
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The Social psychology of groups (1st ed.). Routledge.
Toossi, M., & Morisi, T. (2017, July). Women in the workforce before, during and after the great
recession. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2017/women-
in-the-workforce-before-during-and-after-the-great-recession/pdf/women-in-the-
workforce-before-during-and-after-the-great-recession.pdf
Traphagen, K., & Traill, S., (2014). How cross-sector collaborations are advancing STEM
learning. Noyce Foundation. https://www.noycefdn.org
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. Wiley.
166

Tyson, W., Lee, R., Borman K., & Hanson, M. A. (2007) Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) pathways: High school science and math coursework and
postsecondary degree attainment, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk
(JESPAR), 12(3), 243–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824660701601266
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). Current employment statistics survey: 100 years of
employment, hours, and earnings. U.S. Department of Labor.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/article/current-employment-statistics-survey-100-
years-of-employment-hours-and-earnings.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019). Employment projections: Employment in STEM
occupations. https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/stem-employment.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020a). College enrollment and work activity of recent high
school and college graduates summary U.S. Department of Labor.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.nr0.htm#:~:text=Recent%20High%20School%20G
raduates%20and,enrolled%20in%20college%20in%20October.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020b). Employment by major industry sector. U.S. Department
of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/employment-by-major-industry-sector.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020c). Projections overview and highlights, 2019-2029. U.S.
Department of Labor.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020d). Table 3: Employment Status of the Civilian
Noninstitutional Population by Age, Sex, and Race, Current Population Survey.
https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat03.htm
U.S. Census Bureau. (2018a). Employment of the skilled technical workforce in U.S. medium-
high R&D intensive industries: 2017. American Community Survey, as presented in NSF
167

and NSB Science and Engineering Indicators.
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20205/production-patterns-and-trends-of-knowledge-and-
technology-intensive-industries
U.S. Census Bureau. (2018b). Table 6-A Employment of the skilled technical workforce in U.S.
high R&D intensive industries: 2017. American Community Survey, as presented in NSF
and NSB Science and Engineering Indicators.
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20205/production-patterns-and-trends-of-knowledge-and-
technology-intensive-industries?tableCtr1970
U.S. Census Bureau. (2020a). National STEM Day: November 8, 2020. U.S. Census Bureau
Release CB20-SFS.141, Table 1. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/stem-day.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2020b). New educational attainment data.
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2020/educational-
attainment.html#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20high%20school%20was,from%2029.9%25%2
0to%2036.0%25
U.S. Census Bureau. (2021). Percent change in resident population for the 50 States, the District
of Columbia, and Puerto Rico: 2010 to 2020. https://www.census.gov/library/
visualizations/2021/dec/2020-percent-change-map.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). The evolution and potential of career pathways.
http://connectingcredentials.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/The-Evolution-and-Potential-
of-Career-Pathways.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Race to the top fund.
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html.
168

U.S. Department of Education. (2019). U.S. Department of Education advances Trump
administration’s STEM investment priorities. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-
department-education-advances-trump-administrations-stem-investment-priorities
U.S. Department of Education. (2020). U.S. Department of Education delivers on Trump
administration’s STEM strategy with historic investment. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-
releases/us-department-education-delivers-trump-administrations-stem-strategy-historic-
investment
U.S. Department of Education. (2021a). Overview and mission statement. https://www2.ed.gov/
about/landing.jhtml
U.S. Department of Education. (2021b). The federal role in education. https://www2.ed.gov/
about/overview/fed/role.html
USHistory.org. (2020). The cold war erupts. U.S. History Online Textbook.
https://www.ushistory.org/us/52a.asp
United States House of Representatives. (1964). National defense education act of 1958, as
amended by the 88th Congress. Government Printing Office.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-72/pdf/STATUTE-72-Pg1580.pdf
Utley, J., Ivey, T., Weaver, J., & Self, M. J. (2019). Effect of project lead the way participation
on retention in engineering degree programs. Journal of Pre-College Engineering
Education Research, 9(2)
Vangen, S., & Winchester, N. (2014). Managing Cultural Diversity in Collaborations: A focus
on management tensions. Public Management Review, 16(5), 686–707.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.743579
169

Vangen, S., Hayes, J. P., & Cornforth, C. (2015). Governing cross- sector, inter-organizational
collaborations. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1237–1260.
http://doi.org10.1080/14719037.2014.903658
Waldrip, D. (n.d.). A brief history of magnet schools. Magnet Schools of America.
https://magnet.edu/brief-history-of-magnets
Walzer, N., & Weaver, L. (2019). Changing roles and practices in collective impact usage. In N.
Walzer & L. Weaver (Eds.), Using collective impact to bring community change (1st ed.,
Vol. 1, pp. 1–16). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315545073-6
Wang, J., & Herman, J. (2017). Magnet schools. In The Wiley handbook of school choice (pp.
158–179). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119082361.ch11.
Wang, J., Schweig, J., & Herman, J. (2017). Is there a magnet-school effect? A multisite study of
MSAP-funded magnet schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 22(2),
77–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2017.1292853
Weaver, L., & Cajab, M. (2019). Collective impact 3.0: Extending the collective impact vision
for community change. In N. Walzer & L. Weaver (Eds.), Using collective impact to
bring community change. (Vol. 9, pp. 97–115). Routledge, Taylor & Francis, Group.
Weber, H, Göbel, M., & Leonardy, H. (2020). Pathways to lasting cross-sector social
collaboration: A configurational study. Journal of Business Ethics.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04714-y
Wenger-Trayner, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2015). Introduction to communities of practice: A
brief overview of the concept of its uses. https://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-
communities-of-practice/
170

Werts, A. B., Della Sala, M., Lindle, J., Horace, J. M., Brewer, C., & Knoeppel, R. (2013).
Education stakeholders’ translation and sense-making of accountability policies.
Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12(4), 397–419.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2013.860464
Whiting, J. (1993). The new American schools development corporation: Did it create a climate
for real reform? The Phi Delta Kappan, 74(10), 777–779. www.jstor.org/stable/20404999
Wirkala, C., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Problem-based learning in K-12 education: Is it effective and
how does it achieve its effects? American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1157-
1186. https://doi.org/ 10.3102/0002831211419491
Wohlstetter, P., Malloy, C., Smith, J., & Hentschke, G. (2004a). Incentives for charter schools:
Building school capacity through cross-sectoral alliances. Educational Administration
Quarterly. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03261749
Wohlstetter, P., Smith, J., & Malloy, C. L. (2005). Strategic alliances in action: Toward a theory
of evolution. The Policy Studies Journal, 33(3).
The World Bank. (2019). Doing business 2020.
https://www.doingbusiness.org/en/reports/global-reports/doing-business-2020
World Economic Forum. (2016a). Employment, skills and human capital global challenge
insight report, The future of jobs: Employment, skills and workforce strategy for the
fourth industrial revolution. http://reports.weforum.org/future-of-jobs-2016/
World Economic Forum. (2016b). The future of jobs report. Global challenge insight report.
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs.pdf
World Economic Forum. (2018). The future of jobs report. Centre for the New Economy and
Society. http://reports.weforum.org/future-of-jobs-2018/
171

World Economic Forum. (2020). The future of jobs report.
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2020.pdf
Yoder, B. L. (2014). Engineering by the numbers. American Society for Engineering Education.
https://www.asee.org/ papers-and-publications/publications/college-
profiles/15EngineeringbytheNumbersPart1.pdf
Zhao, L., & Detlor, B. (2021). Towards a contingency model of knowledge sharing: interaction
between social capital and social exchange theories. Knowledge Management Research &
Practice, (ahead-of-print), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2020.1866444
Zintgraff, C., Suh, S., Kellison, B., & Resta, P. (Eds.). (2020). STEM in the technopolis: The
power of STEM education in regional technology policy. Springer International Publishing.
Zion, S. (2009). Systems, stakeholders, and students: Including students in school
reform. Improving Schools, 12(2), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480209105577
Zook, C. (2018). Life skills vs. soft skills vs. career skills vs. employability skills - What are the
differences? Applied Educational Systems. https://www.aeseducation.com/blog/life-skills-
soft-skills-career-skills-employability-skills-what-are-the-differences

172

Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Research questions
1. What are the structure and the focus of the SLE?
2. In what ways are industry partners involved in the work of the SLE, and what are the
roles and activities of industry partners?
3. What non-financial resources are exchanged by SLE industry and non-industry partners,
and what is the perceived value of the resources exchanged?
Interview questions for non-business and business sectors participating in the STEM Learning Ecosystem
1. What is your role in your organization? (RQ2)
2. How long have you been in your organization? (RQ2)
3. How long have you been representing your organization in the STEM Learning Ecosystem
(SLE)? (RQ1, RQ2)
4. How long has your organization been involved in this SLE? ((RQ1, RQ2)
5. How often do you attend SLE meetings? ((RQ1, RQ2)
6. Tell me about the meetings? (RQ1)
a. How are decisions made?
b. Who leads the meetings?
c. How would you describe overall participation?
d. Who comes?
7. Tell me about your participation in the meetings? ((RQ1, RQ2)
a. Why is your organization involved in an SLE? (RQ2, RQ3)
b. What motivates your organization to engage in this way? (RQ2, RQ3)
c. What are the benefits to your organization from participation? RQ3)
8. What role do you typically have in an SLE meeting? (RQ1, RQ2)
9. What is your understanding of why your organization participates in the SLE? (RQ1, RQ2)
173

10. Let’s talk about the SLES:
a. What are the goals of the SLE? (RQ1, RQ3)
b. What are the signs, if any, that the SLE is meeting its goals? (RQ1, RQ3)
c. To what degree are the goals of the SLE aligned with your organization’s goals for
participating? (RQ1, RQ2, RQ3)
d. If the SLE is meeting their goals, what else needs to be done? (RQ1, RQ3)
e. Is there is anything they wish they were doing differently? (RQ1, RQ3)
f. Is there any advice you have for other SLEs? (RQ1, RQ2, RQ3)
g. What has facilitated success? (RQ3)
h. What has inhibited it? (RQ3)
i. What challenges have you experienced in the way the sectors work together? (RQ1, RQ3)
j. To what degree have these challenges been mitigated? (RQ1, RQ3)
11. Your time and energy is a valuable contribution to the SLE. What other contributions – both
financial and in-kind contributions - does your organization make? (RQ3)
12. Of those you just listed, what do you think is the most valuable contribution ? Why do you feel
this way? (RQ3)
Interview questions for non-business sectors participating in the STEM Learning Ecosystem
1. In your opinion, what in-kind or non-financial resources are most valuable for the SLE?
(RQ3)
Interview questions for business sectors participating in the STEM Learning Ecosystem
1. Do you have any other relationships, partnerships, or service agreements with the organizations in the
SLE – outside of the SLE? (RQ1, RQ2)
a. What is the nature of that relationship? (RQ1, RQ2)

174

Appendix B: Email Template
You are invited to participate in a study to strengthen the collaboration of STEM Learning
Ecosystems. The study is being conducted by a doctoral student as part of her doctoral
dissertation. Your participation in the study is completely voluntary, and your identity will not be
divulged to your SLE. The study consists of anonymous voluntary interviews. If you would be
interested in participating in this study please email Kim Crawford, xxxx@usc.edu, who will
schedule the interview at a time of your convenience.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Workforce system collaboration

PDF

Father engagement in the child welfare system: a promising practice study

PDF

The influence of high school bystanders of bullying: an exploratory study

PDF

Underrepresentation of African Americans in master’s engineering programs

PDF

Educational technology integration: a search for best practices

PDF

Power-sharing in co-constructed community-school partnerships: examining values, opportunities, and barriers around community engagement in New York City school leadership teams

PDF

Leadership for K-12 STEM integration: how superintendents champion the advancement of effective integrated STEM education within their districts

PDF

STEM integration: a case study of a 21st century skills professional development program for math and science teachers in an urban school

PDF

An examination of soft skills in the virtual workplace

PDF

An exploratory study of women's advancement in the construction industry

PDF

All hands on deck! Collective impact for systemic change

PDF

Independent research internship experiences of underrepresented minorities in biological sciences: an interview case study

PDF

Transforming the leadership table: a critical narrative study of the underrepresentation of Chicana/os in higher education leadership

PDF

Corporate downsizing: a study of the survivors

PDF

Measuring the impact of short-term campus exchange programs: an evaluation study

PDF

KMO factors influencing the culturally responsive implementation of PBIS: a mixed-methods study

PDF

Professional development in generating managerial high-quality feedback

PDF

Implementation of dual language immersion to improve academic achievement of Latinx English learners

PDF

Evaluating the effectiveness of global residence in improving resident cultural intelligence

PDF

Big dreams lost: the influence of mentoring to reduce PhD attrition

Asset Metadata

Creator Crawford, Kimberley (author)

Core Title Integrating the industry sector in STEM learning ecosystems: a multicase study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-12

Publication Date 12/02/2021

Defense Date 11/17/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag business,collaboration,cross-sector,dealmakers,ecosystem,Education,funders,Industry,innovation,Learning,OAI-PMH Harvest,Science,skills gap,SLE,STEM,Technology,workforce

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Malloy, Courtney (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony (committee member), Stowe, Kathy (committee member)

Creator Email b2sprof@gmail.com,kccrawfo@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC17789610

Unique identifier UC17789610

Legacy Identifier etd-CrawfordKi-10270

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Crawford, Kimberley

Type texts

Source 20211206-wayne-usctheses-batch-901-nissen (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu