More Like this

1. Learning to prioritize the public good: Does training in classes, workplaces, and professional societies shape engineers' understanding of their public welfare responsibilities?

   https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20590  

   Cech, Erin A.; Finelli, Cynthia J. (March 2024, Journal of Engineering Education)

   Abstract BackgroundEngineers are professionally obligated to protect the safety and well‐being of the public impacted by the technologies they design and maintain. In an increasingly complex sociotechnical world, engineering educators and professional institutions have a duty to train engineers in these responsibilities. Purpose/HypothesisThis article asks, where are engineers trained in their public welfare responsibilities, and how effective is this training? We argue that engineers trained in public welfare responsibilities, especially within engineering education, will demonstrate greater understanding of their duty to recognize and respond to public welfare concerns. We expect training in formal engineering classes to be more broadly impactful than training in contexts like work or professional societies. Data/MethodsWe analyze unique survey data from a representative sample of US practicing engineers using descriptive and regression techniques. ResultsConsistent with expectations, engineers who received public welfare responsibility training in engineering classes are more likely than other engineers to understand their responsibilities to protect public health and safety and problem‐solve collectively, to recognize the importance of social consequences and ethical responsibilities in their own jobs, to have noticed ethical issues in their workplace, and to have taken action about an issue that concerned them. Training through other parts of college, workplaces, or professional societies has comparatively little impact. Concerningly, nearly a third of engineers reported never being trained in public welfare responsibilities. ConclusionThese results suggest that training in engineering education can shape engineers' long‐term understanding of their public welfare responsibilities. They underscore the need for these responsibilities to be taught as a core, non‐negotiable part of engineering education. 

   more » « less
2. The signal of institutional governance in early‐stage financing for university spinoffs

   https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1552  

   Belz, Andrea; Graddy‐Reed, Alexandra; Zapatero, Fernando (July 2025, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal)

   Abstract Research SummaryUniversity spinoffs (USOs) translate scientific advancement to economic gains, but the role of the university's governance as a public or private institution is infrequently explored. With a novel dataset of academic entrepreneurs with National Science Foundation I‐Corps training, we examine institutional governance as a fundraising signal. We demonstrate how angel investors and venture capitalists (VCs) show a preference for private USOs. However, with different investment objectives, the groups conduct distinct sensemaking that weighs this cue differently. For angels, industry moderates the effect such that they prefer private university life science firms to public USOs. However, industry mediates the effect for VCs, who prefer life sciences to engineering. We describe this variation as mixed salience—when a signal yields differences in decision‐making for distinct audiences. Managerial SummaryUniversity spinoffs (USOs) are important for economic growth, but little is known about differences between USOs from public and private universities. We study how angel investors and venture capitalists (VCs) fund USOs of public and private schools. These two investor groups make funding decisions with different priorities and approaches. Both groups appear to prefer private universities. A deeper look reveals that angel investors prefer private university life science teams to the public university counterparts. On the other hand, VCs prefer life sciences teams to engineering teams—and life sciences teams are more likely to come from private schools. Evidently, the two investor audiences respond to the public/private distinction in different ways. 

   more » « less
3. Training researchers to engage in policy in the United States: mapping the growth and diversity of programme models

   https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000046  

   Akerlof, KL; Schenk, Todd; Bankston, Adriana; Mitchell, Kelsey; Syl, Aniyah; Eddy, Lisa; Hall, Sarah L; Lad, Nikita; Lake, Samuel J; Ostrom, Robert BJ; et al (February 2025, Evidence & Policy)

   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. 

   more » « less
4. Beyond performance, competence, and recognition: forging a science researcher identity in the context of research training

   https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00479-2  

   Pfeifer, Mariel A.; Zajic, C. J.; Isaacs, Jared M.; Erickson, Olivia A.; Dolan, Erin L. (March 2024, International Journal of STEM Education)

   Abstract BackgroundStudying science identity has been useful for understanding students’ continuation in science-related education and career paths. Yet knowledge and theory related to science identity among students on the path to becoming a professional science researcher, such as students engaged in research at the undergraduate, postbaccalaureate, and graduate level, is still developing. It is not yet clear from existing science identity theory how particular science contexts, such as research training experiences, influence students’ science identities. Here we leverage existing science identity and professional identity theories to investigate how research training shapes science identity. We conducted a qualitative investigation of 30 early career researchers—undergraduates, postbaccalaureates, and doctoral students in a variety of natural science fields—to characterize how they recognized themselves as science researchers. ResultsEarly career researchers (ECRs) recognized themselves as either science students or science researchers, which they distinguished from being a career researcher. ECRs made judgments, which we refer to as “science identity assessments”, in the context of interconnected work-learning and identity-learning cycles. Work-learning cycles referred to ECRs’ conceptions of the work they did in their research training experience. ECRs weighed the extent to which they perceived the work they did in their research training to show authenticity, offer room for autonomy, and afford opportunities for epistemic involvement. Identity-learning cycles encompassed ECRs’ conceptions of science researchers. ECRs considered the roles they fill in their research training experiences and if these roles aligned with their perceptions of the tasks and traits of perceived researchers. ECRs’ identity-learning cycles were further shaped by recognition from others. ECRs spoke of how recognition from others embedded within their research training experiences and from others removed from their research training experiences influenced how they see themselves as science researchers. ConclusionsWe synthesized our findings to form a revised conceptual model of science researcher identity, which offers enhanced theoretical precision to study science identity in the future. We hypothesize relationships among constructs related to science identity and professional identity development that can be tested in further research. Our results also offer practical implications to foster the science researcher identity of ECRs. 

   more » « less
5. Advancing Workforce Development and Evidence-Based Practice in US Territories: An Evaluation of the Public Health Disaster Research Award Program

   https://doi.org/10.1097/phh.0000000000002156  

   Mordy, Meghan; Adams, Rachel M; Peek, Lori; Tobin, Jennifer; Thomas, Tracy N; Soler, Robin (July 2025, Journal of Public Health Management & Practice)

   Context:Many people living in the 5 inhabited US territories experience high rates of natural hazard exposure and social vulnerability to disaster impacts. Public health workforce development and evidence-based, culturally competent approaches to disaster preparedness, response, and recovery are needed in these regions. Program:In 2020, the Natural Hazards Center established thePublic Health Disaster Research Award Programwith funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The program’s goal is to advance public health disaster research and practice by funding, training, mentoring, and connecting researchers, students, and practitioners in historically underserved areas with high natural hazard risk. Between 2020 and 2022, 26 research teams received up to $50 000 each to investigate public health disasters in 1 or more US territories. The program also supported awardees by providing individual consultations, online trainings, feedback on report drafts, and a virtual group workshop on the public health implications of research. Awardees authored final reports and presented at a public webinar. Evaluation:In 2023, the Natural Hazards Center developed and distributed an online survey to all principal investigators. The survey evaluated how awardees advanced knowledge about public health disasters in the US territories; what skills, resources, and connections they acquired; and how they translated their research into public health applications and otherwise disseminated their findings. Discussion:Our evaluation showed that the program is advancing knowledge of understudied hazard contexts and socially vulnerable populations in the US territories and supports awardees in sharing their findings with academics, policymakers, and practitioners. Moreover, it expanded the public health disaster workforce by bringing professionals from a diverse range of disciplines and institutions into the field, and by investing in students, early career scholars, and investigators based in US territories. Researchers are working with local partners to apply their findings to practice. 

   more » « less