Frequently Asked Questions

WHEN SHOULD WE DO THE META-REVIEW?

Due to several submission deadlines for the first round of projects, you should plan your meta-review sometime between June – August. You can review on Stage 2 deadlines here.

WHAT SHOULD WE DO THE META-REVIEW ABOUT?

  • Review the list of potential topics here. If there is a topic that is missing that interests you, go for it!
  • If the topic on the list is broad, you might be requested to focus on a particular sub-topic.
  • Try to identify a topic that aligns with the strengths, expertise, and interests of your university or organization.
  • Find a topic you’re interested in and excited to explore!

WHERE SHOULD WE HOST THE META-REVIEW DOCUMENT?

The NSPN 2020 Election Initiative Google folder is a great place to collaboratively work on your meta-review through Google sheets (check out our template here).

WHAT HAPPENS IF ANOTHER GROUP WANTS TO WORK WITH US?

Consider whether you would like to make your meta-review open for participation by other individuals or groups and take advantage of our grassroots community! This can easily be managed by sharing the meta-review document link and setting up a conference call link with others– let us know if you need assistance with this via the registration form. Keep in mind that your group should handle editing and quality control of the information added to the meta-review.

IS THERE ANYONE WE SHOULD REACH OUT TO?

  • Engaging with your campus Government Affairs office is a great start! Inquire if they would like to help promote or support the meta-review, keeping in mind that this is non-partisan opportunity for your campus to engage in science policy for the 2020 Elections at the local, state, or federal level!
  • Identify and reach out to several experts in the field (locally or at your university, if possible) prior to the review. Would they be interested in stopping by the meta-review event? Could they be available by phone or email for questions during the event? Do they have recommended questions or resources?

WHAT ELSE CAN WE DO TO PREPARE?

  • Look over the example meta-review for an idea of the depth and breadth of resources that can be included in your review.
  • Delegate responsibilities amongst your team. Who will be the meta-review point-person? Who will be in charge of editing, revising, and organizing your meta-review document? Who will be the initial contact for topical experts and stakeholder? Who will make sure there are enough snacks and coffee for the event?
  • Consider reserving a co-working space that has plenty of power outlets, a white board, an accessible projector or television, and comfortable chairs!
  • Coordinate with other NSPN teams to focus on complimentary topics, sub-topics, or resources so that all areas are covered.

DO WE NEED TO COMMIT TO OUR STAGE 2 PROJECT WHEN SIGNING UP?

If you know what topic you’re interested in, but are not sure how you want to apply your knowledge in Stage 2, don’t worry! You can sign up for a meta-review and decide on Stage-2 later by editing your response in the registration form.

WHAT SHOULD GO INTO A META-REVIEW?

  • Policy Resources: These might be published white papers, government or private reports, academic reviews articles, or other strategic documents that are related to your science policy topic. It is important to note the authors and affiliated organizations, as well as the intended audience and motivating factors for these publications (which may or may not be stated explicitly), in order to capture a full picture of the players and positions surrounding your topic. You might consider limiting your review to publications within the last decade or even past five years.
  • Data Resources: These are sources of data that are relevant to your science policy topic– whether it be large surveys, data sets collected and maintained by government entities, or private industry or polling data. Data sources are often referenced or directly used to inform policy recommendations or decisions, and it is therefore useful to maintain a list of known, existing data sources. Some of these sources may be inaccessible to the public, or requirement academic or government credentials.
  • Organizational Stakeholders: These can be authors of resources, legislation, grassroots campaigns, articles, op-eds, etc. that are included in the meta review. Having a compiled list of relevant stakeholders helps visualize the actors in this science policy topic. These are people who you might partner with for a lobby day, co-author an op-ed with, or address your policy memo to.
  • Relevant Policies and Legislation: These should be any recent or ongoing policies or other initiatives related to your science policy topic– whether they be local, state, regional, national, or international in scope. Many of these should be the impetus, recommendation, or result of the Policy Resources that you found, and created or influenced by the Organizational Stakeholders.

Still have questions?

Email us at scipolnetwork@gmail.com or join the #2020Election Initiative Slack channel!