Meeting Undergraduate Life Science Education's Leadership Needs

T understand how to best support academic leaders who are working to improve undergraduate life science education, AIBS conducted a yearlong study, with support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI). During the summer of 2013, AIBS interviewed administrators of 16 leadership development programs to learn about their offerings for life science faculty leaders. In the fall, AIBS conducted a followup survey (see doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.7.5 for results from the initial survey), to which just over 550 individuals responded. Fifty-nine percent of the survey respondents had held leadership positions, and 85 percent had played a lead role in shaping change within their academic department or unit. Through the survey results, we learned in which leadership development programs the respondents had participated and their perceptions of the programs’ impacts, the kinds of large-scale changes taking place at colleges and universities, the challenges and opportunities facing leaders of change, and their interests and needs in developing leadership skills. “Individuals leading change want to learn how to balance their traditional workload while moving significant curricular change forward,” says Muriel Poston, outgoing chair of the AIBS Education Committee and dean of faculty at Pitzer College. The study culminated in a synthesis meeting in March at HHMI, at which AIBS brought together a group of 25 leaders within the life sciences education community with a diverse set of perspectives and expertise in leadership development. The group worked to develop a shared conceptual understanding about leadership development for change and to identify mechanisms or questions that need to be addressed in order to increase leadership capacity. The HHMI investment in this study reflects its concern about the future of science—specifically, the interactions between scientific enterprises and society, explained Cynthia Bauerle, HHMI’s assistant director for undergraduate and graduate science education. At the meeting, she highlighted the growing disparities between those traditionally underrepresented in the sciences and those who have had greater opportunities in terms of college access, undergraduate retention, and academic leadership. “Our undergraduate programs must engage and inspire all students to become part of a future life sciences workforce that is representative of our diverse community and therefore prepared to innovatively address the challenges facing our modern society,” said Bauerle. James P. Collins, professor at Arizona State University, expanded on the challenges facing higher education by describing its state of “hyperchange.” He cited many reasons for this condition, including increases in the percentages of both contingent faculty members and nontraditional students, budgets that are stretched thin while tuition costs rise, and uncertainty among the public about the value of higher education. The fact that biology research no longer operates within distinct borders but, rather, takes place at the intersection of the life, physical, and social sciences and is constantly evolving new research areas only adds to the complexity. He argues in this month’s Viewpoint that to achieve the vision for undergraduate life science education, as it has been described by Bauerle and in multiple national reports, the academic community must place significant value on leadership, across all of higher education. We need to continue recruiting faculty and training students not only for interdisciplinary research and education but also for their leadership qualities, such as adaptability, social intelligence, strategic thinking, and a commitment to continual improvement, said Collins. Teri Balser, professor at the University of Florida and incoming chair of the AIBS Education Committee, engaged the participants in a dialogue about leadership in higher education. If we are to realize the goals that we have for life science education, academia will need to value a new kind of leadership, she stressed. “The culture of higher education is not traditionally one of shared leadership responsibility,” said Balser. We need to consider how to develop organic, adaptive, shared leadership throughout all of higher education, so that every stakeholder, not just those who hold leadership positions, is empowered to own the collective agenda and strategies to improve undergraduate education. Given these challenges, the participants identified gaps and barriers in leadership development and proposed strategies to address key priorities to increase leadership capacity. AIBS is preparing a report on the gathering’s outcomes to share with its more than 140 member scientific organizations, as well as academic institutions and the broader science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education communities. The report will chart a course forward for life science education and guide AIBS in developing its future programs.