Creating Actionable Science on Campus Lesson

As preparation for the session, have learners read Boyd’s SESYNC explainer and Gerber et al. (2020), “Producing actionable science in conservation: Best practices for organizations and individuals,” paying special attention to the highlighted portions. 

(10 min.) After “the Hook” above, use the Lesson PPT slides below to provide common understanding.

(10 min.) Reconvene the previous interdisciplinary research groups or form new groups of four to six individuals by asking learners to review the posted Sustainability Initiatives and choose one that interests them most. (Instructors, keep in mind that the best teams have diversity both of knowledge and identity, so try to form teams that embody multifactor diversity.) Identify a research area for each group (i.e., food provision, outdoor classrooms, etc.). Have learners introduce themselves within the group and appoint a Principal Investigator (PI) who will lead communication and outreach to campus stakeholders.

(30 min.) Now that they’ve identified an area of interest and PI, ask groups to deepen their knowledge of research in their areas. They should create a group-edit document (like Google Docs) to begin organizing ideas that might go into a grant proposal:

(20 min.) For the rest of the session, have each group PI present their initial findings to the whole assembly and ask for feedback on every aspect: problem, solution, stakeholders, brokers. Depending on the class size, each group should have 4-5 minutes to solicit additional insights. 

Instructor Note: In a condensed two-class version of this lesson, skip steps #5 and #6 and move on to #7 below: it becomes the last step in the first class with reduced time for completion. Then assign step #8 as homework to be completed as soon as possible after class, and skip #9. Resume with #10 before the second class session.

As homework, have each group revise their draft grant proposal/stakeholder analysis with the new information and any additional research they can integrate. Learners should note: Grant proposals require specific exigency, program details, and budgets to be compelling. They are also stronger when the writers have considered ethos (their reputation and the University’s) and pathos (where emotion and feeling are important to belief), as well as logos (stats, facts, published research).

(35 min.) In the next class session, learners should sit in their groups from the start. Have them spend 5 minutes critically appraising the draft program they wish to introduce to stakeholders and finishing their revisions. Then, have them compose as a group a brief email message to diverse stakeholders and brokers. Choose knowledgeable people most likely to reply (i.e,. not the University President, but the Vice President for Student Affairs or the Facilities Manager). This email (CC’d to the course instructor) should include:

(20 min.) Assign learners to send individualized emails to selected stakeholders and brokers (try for three to five total). They should maintain a pleasant, respectful, informative, and open voice, and they should not create the narrative of “heroes vs. villains” when describing the issue, problems, and solutions.

(25 min.) For the rest of this session, have groups brainstorm their expectations for how particular stakeholders will respond to the plan. Of course, people and institutions can be surprising, but it’s also important to pre-develop fair responses to anticipated objections. Have the groups outline a range of possible stakeholder objections and create responses or program revisions to accommodate them.

As homework, learners should receive email responses to their stakeholder queries. They should compile the new information in their group’s shared document and send grateful replies to stakeholders who responded. If this lesson aims to create actual projects, the reply should include an invitation to the stakeholder to continue engaging with program developers in the design process.

(20 min.) In the next class session, have groups compare their anticipated stakeholder feedback with the actual responses. This works best if the group has received responses from a variety of stakeholders who provide diverse insights into the feasibility and impacts of program elements. Have them list anticipated and actual feedback along with updated responses or revisions to the program.

(30 min.) With the entire class, have each PI share the group’s stakeholder feedback and resulting revisions to the program (~5 minutes per group). It may be useful to ask groups to role-play specific stakeholder perspectives in dialogue with all projects; for example, ask one group to represent the university administration, one to represent students, and one to represent the local community. Instructors may step in to represent stakeholder groups and deepen relative perspectives as needed. 

(25 min.) To end this lesson, have groups update their program to accommodate stakeholder perspectives and formalize the positive S-E outcomes of the program for a variety of users. Then, have each group reflect on how this integrative process helped their project design become more inclusive, circumspect, achievable, and sustainable. If this is not a hypothetical exercise, but the beginning of a true collaboration, end the session by assigning further rounds of grant proposal development and revision, and solicit engagement from critical campus and community partners.