Training researchers to engage in policy in the United States: mapping the growth and diversity of programme models.

IF 2.5 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
K L Akerlof, Todd Schenk, Adriana Bankston, Kelsey Mitchell, Aniyah Syl, Lisa Eddy, Sarah L Hall, Nikita Lad, Samuel J Lake, Robert B J Ostrom, Jessica L Rosenberg, Mark R Schwartz, Abigail R Sisti, Christopher T Smith, Lee Solomon, Anne-Lise K Velez
{"title":"Training researchers to engage in policy in the United States: mapping the growth and diversity of programme models.","authors":"K L Akerlof, Todd Schenk, Adriana Bankston, Kelsey Mitchell, Aniyah Syl, Lisa Eddy, Sarah L Hall, Nikita Lad, Samuel J Lake, Robert B J Ostrom, Jessica L Rosenberg, Mark R Schwartz, Abigail R Sisti, Christopher T Smith, Lee Solomon, Anne-Lise K Velez","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Programmes that provide scientists and engineers with support to engage in public policy have proliferated in the United States, with many opportunities available for training, networking and placements within government and government-facing organisations. This trend suggests that an evolution may be occurring at the science-policy interface. However, there is little extant data on the structure, aims and impacts of these programmes.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>This study maps the current landscape of US programmes seeking to train researchers at all career stages to engage in policy. We focus on Virginia, a state with a substantial number and diversity of programmes, to assess: (1) how they conceptualise their audiences, activities and impacts; and (2) which roles in policy and types of evidence use they address.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We developed a database of US policy programmes (n=174) and conducted a case study of those in Virginia through surveys and interviews with their leaders (n=12).</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The majority (57%) of science policy programmes are state-based. These programmes include student organisations, government placements and fellowships, and academic certificates, degrees, and other trainings. While these reflect diverse models for how to engage researchers in policy, Virginia programme leaders across these categories similarly conceived long-term impacts, audiences and activities, researcher roles in policy, and types of decision-maker evidence use. And they perceived limited ability to implement evidence-based approaches within their programmes.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>Building additional programmatic capacity - through shared learning and partnerships - could lend support to this emerging trend in science policy with implications for US research and governance.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"1-29"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000046","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Programmes that provide scientists and engineers with support to engage in public policy have proliferated in the United States, with many opportunities available for training, networking and placements within government and government-facing organisations. This trend suggests that an evolution may be occurring at the science-policy interface. However, there is little extant data on the structure, aims and impacts of these programmes.

Aims and objectives: This study maps the current landscape of US programmes seeking to train researchers at all career stages to engage in policy. We focus on Virginia, a state with a substantial number and diversity of programmes, to assess: (1) how they conceptualise their audiences, activities and impacts; and (2) which roles in policy and types of evidence use they address.

Methods: We developed a database of US policy programmes (n=174) and conducted a case study of those in Virginia through surveys and interviews with their leaders (n=12).

Findings: The majority (57%) of science policy programmes are state-based. These programmes include student organisations, government placements and fellowships, and academic certificates, degrees, and other trainings. While these reflect diverse models for how to engage researchers in policy, Virginia programme leaders across these categories similarly conceived long-term impacts, audiences and activities, researcher roles in policy, and types of decision-maker evidence use. And they perceived limited ability to implement evidence-based approaches within their programmes.

Discussion and conclusion: Building additional programmatic capacity - through shared learning and partnerships - could lend support to this emerging trend in science policy with implications for US research and governance.

培训研究人员参与美国的政策:绘制项目模式的增长和多样性。
背景:在美国,为科学家和工程师参与公共政策提供支持的项目激增,提供了许多在政府和面向政府的组织中进行培训、建立网络和实习的机会。这一趋势表明,科学与政策的交汇处可能正在发生进化。但是,关于这些方案的结构、目标和影响的现有数据很少。目的和目标:本研究描绘了美国项目的现状,这些项目旨在培训处于所有职业阶段的研究人员从事政策工作。我们将重点放在弗吉尼亚州,一个拥有大量和多样性的项目的州,以评估:(1)他们如何概念化他们的受众,活动和影响;(2)它们在政策中的作用和证据使用类型。方法:我们建立了一个美国政策计划数据库(n=174),并通过对弗吉尼亚州领导人的调查和访谈(n=12)对这些计划进行了案例研究。发现:大多数(57%)的科学政策项目是基于国家的。这些项目包括学生组织、政府实习和奖学金、学术证书、学位和其他培训。虽然这些反映了如何让研究人员参与政策的不同模式,但这些类别的弗吉尼亚项目领导人同样设想了长期影响、受众和活动、研究人员在政策中的角色以及决策者证据使用的类型。他们认为在其规划中实施循证方法的能力有限。讨论和结论:通过共享学习和伙伴关系建立额外的规划能力,可以为科学政策中的这一新兴趋势提供支持,这对美国的研究和治理有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信