P/A SEA Change in Motion: From Early Vision to Lasting Impact

P/A SEA Change in Motion: From Early Vision to Lasting Impact

(by Stella Kafka)

The Physics and Astronomy SEA Change program, led by the American Association of Physics Teachers in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, was launched to address a persistent, field-wide challenge: how to move beyond isolated initiatives and enable sustained, systemic transformation across academic departments.

Building on the broader SEA Change framework developed by AAAS, the program was intentionally adapted for Physics and Astronomy, recognizing the department as the critical unit of change, where culture, policies, and daily experiences intersect and ultimately shape outcomes. Since welcoming its first cohort in 2021, the program has matured into a structured, data-informed model that guides departments through rigorous self-assessment, root-cause analysis, and multi-year action planning. This work is reinforced by peer review and a growing community of practice committed to continuous improvement. The impact is already evident. As participation continues to expand, the framework has gained national recognition as a standard for accountability and progress, and, most importantly, departments are beginning to see meaningful shifts in culture and practice that strengthen both student and faculty experiences.

I have had the privilege of contributing to this effort since 2020, when I joined the committee as the American Astronomical Society’s representative. We navigated the complexities of launching and piloting the program amid the unprecedented challenges of the COVID era. In close partnership with a dedicated committee representing ten scientific societies, we defined the program’s vision, refined its structure, and positioned it for long-term sustainability.

In today’s conversation, I invite Alexis Knaub, Director of P/A SEA Change, to reflect on those early days, what it took to move from concept to implementation, and to share insights into how the program has evolved, the impact it is having today, and where it is headed next.

Alexis Knaub (right) at AAS 245. Photo: 
© CorporateEventImages/Todd Buchanan 2025

What was the original gap or need in the physics and astronomy community that led to the creation of SEA Change, and how did you translate that into a programmatic model at the departmental level?

The program started because of a need to do continuous systems change work in physics/astronomy. Many programs are fantastic but only concentrate on a particular population (e.g., graduate students). We have had decades of programs that are making progress to improve the discipline—otherwise, many of us wouldn’t have our careers—AND we can do better to leverage our work.

AAAS started SEA Change at the institutional level. Institutions govern a lot of policies that do impact everyone at the institutions. From what I know (this was before my time), Shirley Malcom from AAAS approached Beth Cunningham (CEO of AAPT) regarding starting the disciplinary equivalent for physics and astronomy. Departments and their equivalent are where people in postsecondary education experience much of the discipline. Faculty make decisions on how courses are taught (and what’s in them), the social interactions among all people, etc. Our program resembles much of the AAAS program. The participants in the cohort are looking at policies, practices, culture, climate, and outcomes. The big difference is the smaller grain size and the opportunities/challenges that accompany that.

I do want to make a quick correction—with our fifth cohort, we have branched out to piloting with some community college physics programs! We were initially approached by one and have a few others who have joined our 5th cohort, broadening our focus. We are working to modify the program a bit for this context, and we have some terrific volunteers who have taught or are teaching physics in community colleges.

Since the first cohort launched in 2021, what are the most important lessons learned about what works, and what is harder than expected, when supporting departments through systemic change?

We have weathered A LOT and continue to do weather the storms and seasons of doing this work. I am unsure we learned this lesson, but the work has reinforced the importance of broad coalitions. For the former, given the diversity of subfields, having 11 different professional societies has been important to ensure the program maintains its quality and considering various contexts. P/A SEA Change is working on ensuring our shared future is better than our current realities of unnecessary barriers that impede success; the program cannot fulfill its mission without the true partnership of these professional societies.

Our broad coalition of professional societies is important to different audiences. I am not an astronomer. I’ve been grateful to the AAS’ support of this program, along with our participants who have helped with recruiting. 

The hardest aspect has been the cuts to science funding, the attacks on inclusivity and equity work, and the uncertainty of everything. There is a lot to keep track of and understand. The SEA Change family of programs, including ours, has been law-attentive from the beginning. We have worked and continue to work with departments where there are a lot of restrictions, either legally or through chilled climates. We continue to seek guidance and support the participants as they care deeply about doing better. 

What has eased a lot of these challenges is so many people have shown up to support this work. Our NSF funding was terminated last year. I’m grateful to AAPT for financially supporting my salary through last year and now AIP and the Luce Foundation for providing financial support this year. Our volunteers—representatives for the collaborating societies, subcommittee members, and reviewers—continued the work. Of course, our participating departments kept doing the work. All of these different entities have been vital to supporting departments through systemic change in this program. 

The work was hard as is, and it has been even more challenging than I expected. But showing up and working together, in different but important roles, has allowed us to continue.

From your perspective, where has SEA Change delivered the most meaningful value to participating departments, whether in culture, student outcomes, or faculty experience?

I think of SEA Change as addressing the root causes that have long hindered STEMM. For us, we’re focused on addressing the physics and astronomy culture. Several things come to mind:

• At the programmatic level, the number of professional societies working together symbolizes how each one has a role in shaping our disciplines. Science is a group effort and so is changing our cultures. Having these societies work together is important to the departments, whose faculty, students, and staff often see at least one of these societies as their professional home and an influence on what their department should be doing.
• The program has centered the contextual elements of the department and seeks to address the systemic issues at play; the individual details in the context—the people, the structures, etc.—matter when trying to enact change. SEA Change is flexible enough to meet the departments and community college physics programs where they are, honoring their realities while ensuring they are addressing the issue through the reflective emphasis on the SEA Change process. The reflective process prioritizes better understanding why things are the way they are, realizing what can and cannot be done at this time, etc. While reflection is non-trivial, this kind of work provides a better foundation than applying a generic approach that may not be applicable to one’s current context.
• The focus on students, faculty, and staff, rather than just one population, allows for deeper understanding of how each population can impact the others. Departments are complex systems, and treating them as such can yield creative solutions.
• Lastly, we aim to have a supportive environment. Although the program does allow for programs and departments to receive recognition (Bronze, Silver, or Gold), we are not limited in the number of awards. Our participants are learning from one another on how to address issues and providing advice and support.

The program emphasizes data-informed self-assessment and 5-year action plans. How are you thinking about success over time, both at the departmental level and across the broader physics and astronomy ecosystem?

At the departmental level, seeing individuals have more positive experiences with the departments or programs. Because change is a rather slow process, the number of individuals in physics or astronomy likely will not go up quickly. However, we can work to ensure that everyone has a positive experience. 

Across the broader physics and astronomy ecosystem, having departments and programs in all sorts of contexts dedicate their time to continual assessment and improvement would be our success metric. There are always ways to do better, and what works today may not work a few years from now. Success would be seeing the adoption/adaption of practices that work and that the data demonstrate better experiences. Harmful policies and practices are eliminated, and we see the climate and culture being supportive. Similar to departments, the demographics may not change fast, but the conditions that allow for changes to demographics can be addressed relatively quickly.

Looking ahead, what is your vision for the next phase of SEA Change, particularly in terms of scaling impact, deepening engagement across institutions, or evolving the recognition framework

The long term vision is that whenever anyone encounters a physics or astronomy space, they have a great experience. For those who pursue careers in physics or astronomy, we want to ensure people have positive experiences no matter what career level, subfield, or work environment. 

Part of this is considering new-to-us contexts. Physics and astronomy learning happens in lots of places, which in turn impacts the discipline; in particular, we are considering national labs and research centers. 

We are in the midst of creating Silver criteria, which will require deeper engagement from participating departments and programs. We’ll do something similar when we start working on Gold criteria. I anticipate the Silver and Gold awardees will be working more expansively across the ecosystem.

Bio: Alexis Knaub earned her doctorate in physics education at Boston University. Her research and evaluation spans sustained change efforts in postsecondary STEMM education, inclusivity and equity, and culture/climate of STEMM disciplines. She frequently volunteers in a variety of professional contexts. She currently is the Education Officer for the National Society of Hispanic Physicists (NSHP).

Margaret Rossiter's Life and Work Brought Women Scientists to Light

Margaret Rossiter wouldn't listen. 

She once asked a group of mostly male professors and students in the history of science department at  Yale if there were ever any women scientists, as they had never been discussed this at these regular monthly gatherings.

"No," they answered. "None." Someone hedged that Marie Curie might be an exception. And that was that.

Rossiter didn't listen to these responses. She didn't believe that women scientists hadn't played a role in the history of American science. She spent the next fifty years of her career disproving that sentiment and chronicling the contributions of women in science.

Margaret W. Rossiter in 1989.
 Office of Visual Services (UREL), Cornell University.

Rossiter was born in Malden, Massachusetts. She became interested in the history of science in high school. She attended Radcliffe and graduated with a degree in the history of science, then earned master's degrees from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the same field, and in philosophy at Yale, where that famous conversation about women scientists took place. She stayed at Yale to complete her PhD, where she worked on agricultural science.

While agricultural science was the focus of her first published work, Rossiter still gravitated to the idea that women scientists did exist and played an important part in the development of science. She began researching this idea and delved into writing her first book on the history of women in science, Women Scientists in America, Struggles and Strategies to 1940, published in 1984. Rossiter followed that book with two more: Women Scientists in America: Before Affirmative Action, 1940–1972, published in 1995, and Women Scientists in America Volume 3: Forging a New World Since 1972, published in 2012.

Rossiter wrote the first book while juggling a series of visiting professorships and grants, as she struggled to find a tenured position. At one point, she said she identified with those women scientists who also struggled. Rossiter finally found tenureship at Cornell where, after two years as a visiting professor, Cornell gave her an endowed chair in their new Department of Science and Technology. 

Rossiter was the recipient of many grants and awards throughout her career, including the Guggenheim Fellowship, the MacArthur Fellows Program, the Women's Prize from the History of Science Society, and the George Sarton Medal. The Women's History Prize was eventually renamed in her honor. 

In addition, Rossiter coined the phrase "the Matilda effect" to refer to the tendency within science to attribute women scientists' discoveries to their male counterparts. In doing so, she drew attention to this bias in science.

In 2019, Smithsonian Magazine featured Rossiter and the immediate impact of her work on women in STEM, saying, "In excavating the lives of forgotten women astronomers, physicists, chemists, entomologists and botanists, Rossiter helped clear the way for women scientists in the future." Read more from that article at Smithsonian Magazine.

Margaret Rossiter died August 3, 2025, after a long career in supporting women in science and preserving their stories and rightful places in history. 

Read more about Rossiter's life at the Cornell Chronicle or the New York Times. 

What can your CSWA do for you??

Members of 500 Women Scientists pass Trump International Hotel
on Pennsylvania Ave in D.C. (Robinson Meyer / The Atlantic)

This is a week of calls to action. If you have not taken action to advocate for science, to advocate for women, to advocate for people of color, to advocate for LGBTQIA people, to advocate for astronomers with disabilities, to safeguard the standing of the United States in the World, to protect your children's future... it's time you get it together. It's time you advocate for yourself. It's time to ask us to advocate for you.

I am writing to ask how the CSWA can serve you in this new year. In the same vein as Jessica's post on Monday, I request your direct comments**, your input, on how the CSWA can advocate for you, what action we should take, what action we have not yet taken that might benefit you. We are a resource to the astronomical community, to women in this community, and we hope to become a better resource to minoritized astronomers in the coming years.

Sexual Harassment – Changing the System II

[This post is Part II of an expanded version of my World View column in NATURE, Change the System to Halt Harassment from 08 February 2016. Universities and their senior staff must do more to deter, detect and punish all forms of inappropriate behavior – JTS]

This series discusses what can be done by people with power to change the system and begin to eliminate sexual harassment from our community. Part I discussed the role of senior academics and department chairs. Here, I focus on university administrators and leaders of our professional organizations, but I also want to make sure that anyone facing sexual harassment knows that help is out there. Please talk to someone you trust and rest assured that you are not alone. 

University Administrators

Every university needs an office where students/postodcs/faculy/staff can talk anonymously about harassment. For lack of a better name, I am going to refer to it as the Office of Good Advice. This office must be fundamentally separate from the Affirmative Action office, University Counsel, or University Police, all of which are responsible for reporting under Title IX. Office of Good Advice should be well known to everyone on campus, it should be staffed with trained professionals, and it should be the first thing that comes up on a web search for “sexual harassment.” Anyone on campus who needs to talk about harassment issues should know which university employees are obligated to report incidents and which can keep reports confidential. 

Every university needs an Office of Good Advice not only because students fear that they might be pressed to make a formal, legally viable report, but also because the staff in the legally responsible offices are often, with no malicious intent, unable to listen objectively and sensitively. Students might later report that they were asked intimidating and inappropriate questions that appeared to undermine the validity of their complaint like, “Were you drinking?” or “Are you unhappy with your grade in his course?” No matter how well-meaning, staff members in offices responsible for upholding the law cannot help but be influenced by that responsibility and by knowing the requirements of an investigation.  

Sexual Harassment – Changing the System I

[This post is Part 1 of an expanded version of my World View column in NATURE, Change the System to Halt Harassment from 08 February 2016. Universities and their senior staff must do more to deter, detect and punish all forms of inappropriate behavior – JTS]

With the issue of sexual harassment in the news, one hopes that student groups, academic departments, and university administrators are discussing what can be done to eliminate this vile plague from our community. There are fundamental flaws in the current system where Title IX offices are set up to protect the university, where all the pressure for righting these wrongs is placed on the shoulders of young women who are often in the most vulnerable stages of their careers, and where such harassing behavior can remain an “open secret” for years if not decades. In short, we have to find a way to change the system – to train those with privilege, especially senior men, to become not only allies who can support individuals but advocates who will add their voices and prestige to fight for right, to create a “safe space” where anyone facing sexual harassment can get help and advice, and to shine a light on the harassers who still operate in the shadows, destroying careers with their unprofessional conduct.

The Women In Astronomy Blog has already published advice for anyone facing sexual harassment, but here I focus on what can be done by people with power to begin to change the system. The target audience for this post includes senior academics and department chairs, but please don’t stop reading if you are not one of these! Sometimes senior people might want to help but don’t know how, or don’t consider this is a priority, or don’t think they have time. It might be your job to show them how to help, or convince them that this is important, or persuade them that they need to make time for this. Also, if you are not a senior person now, you will be some day. When you are chair of your department, will you know what to do? 

Becoming Allies and Advocates

Many senior members of our community admitted to knowing the “open secret” mentioned above. How can it be that so many did so little for so long while so much damage was being done? Think of all those young women, undergrads at a nationally renowned university, who left the field because their professor made a creepy advance. Think of all the discoveries they could have made but never will because they left astronomy before their careers had even begun.