Learning outcomes and evaluation metrics for training researchers to engage in science policy

K. L. Akerlof (), Todd Schenk, Kelsey Mitchell, Adriana Bankston, Aniyah Syl, Lisa Eddy, Sarah L. Hall, Nikita Lad, Samuel J. Lake, Robert B. J. Ostrom, Jessica L. Rosenberg, Abigail R. Sisti, Christopher T. Smith, Lee Solomon and Anne-Lise K. Velez
Additional contact information
K. L. Akerlof: George Mason University
Todd Schenk: Virginia Tech
Kelsey Mitchell: George Mason University
Adriana Bankston: Bankston Policy Consulting LLC
Aniyah Syl: George Mason University
Lisa Eddy: Virginia Sea Grant
Sarah L. Hall: Virginia Tech
Nikita Lad: George Mason University
Samuel J. Lake: University of Virginia
Robert B. J. Ostrom: Virginia Tech
Jessica L. Rosenberg: George Mason University
Abigail R. Sisti: Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Christopher T. Smith: Virginia Tech
Lee Solomon: George Mason University
Anne-Lise K. Velez: Virginia Tech

Palgrave Communications, 2025, vol. 12, issue 1, 1-16

Abstract: Abstract Making research evidence accessible and relevant to policymakers is one way that the scientific enterprise confers direct societal benefits. With global norms increasingly promoting these types of broader impacts, new initiatives to do so, including training researchers to engage in policy, have flourished. But what should this training entail, and how would we know whether it has been effective? A review of academic and professional literature in fields such as science communication and public affairs suggests that curricula aiming to enhance the capacity of scientists and engineers to engage in policy should broadly cover effective communication skills and knowledge of public policy processes. This finding largely aligns with the learning outcomes sought by leaders of science policy training programs in the Commonwealth of Virginia, a state with among the highest number and diversity of these types of initiatives in the U.S. Training efforts could benefit from evaluation models and measures from academic literature that speak to the same types of educational outcomes. However, the lack of consistent theoretical foundations and constructs across this highly multidisciplinary scholarship reduces their utility. A common framework describing shared conceptual terms and relationships is needed to further establish the study and practice of these interventions at the science-policy interface.

Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-025-05434-2 Abstract (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-05434-2

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/palcomms/about

DOI: 10.1057/s41599-025-05434-2

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Palgrave Communications from Palgrave Macmillan
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().