Content uploaded by Jordan PUSATERI Burroughs
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jordan PUSATERI Burroughs on Mar 25, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
© Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, Volume 18, Number 3 p. 129, (2014)
Copyright © 2014 by the University of Georgia. All rights reserved. ISSN 1534-6104
Outreach and Engagement Education
for Graduate Students in Natural Resources:
Developing a Course to Enrich a Graduate
Outreach Requirement
Jo A. Latimore, Erin A. Dreelin, and Jordan Pusateri
Burroughs
Abstract
Scientists need to engage stakeholders in natural resource man-
agement; however, few graduate programs prepare students to
conduct outreach and engagement. Given this need, the authors’
goals were to (1) create a one-credit course that introduced out-
reach and engagement practices and participatory approaches,
(2) improve the quality of graduate students’ Outreach
Experiences (OEs) within the framework of a university depart-
mental requirement, and (3) share lessons learned in addressing
the training gap. Students in the course met learning objectives
to improve OE plans, evaluate the eectiveness of outreach and
engagement, and improve engagement with varied audiences.
OE plans from students in the course scored signicantly higher
than precourse plans, indicating increased likelihood of eective
engagement with their chosen audiences. Formal training in best
practices and detailed guidance for students and faculty advisors
are likely to improve student professional development and the
outcomes of outreach and engagement activities.
Introduction
Scientists from multiple disciplines have called for increased
engagement with stakeholders and the public to address
shared concerns (Leshner, 2007). As Friedman (2008) noted,
One reason for the failure of science to play a more
dominant role in public discourse is that scientists have
not engaged the general public so that they understand
who we are, what we do, and why the way we look at the
world matters. (p. 11743)
e need for engagement is particularly critical in natural resource
management, where scientists and stakeholders are commonly
tackling complex (or wicked) environmental problems (Allen &
Gould, 1986; Batie, 2008; Haubold, 2012; Rittel & Webber, 1973). Finding
strategies to address most natural resource problems oen requires
130 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement
understanding stakeholder values and balancing those values with
the best available science because these complex problems are not
exclusively technical or scientic issues, but rather conicts over
diering values inuenced by multiple social and political factors
(Duda, Bissell, & Young, 1998; Haubold, 2012).
e approach to scientic outreach, particularly among aca-
demic research institutions, has been shiing from one-way,
researcher-to-public communication (“traditional outreach”)
to two-way, reciprocal engagement with community partners
(Sandmann, 2008; Weerts & Sandmann, 2008). Traditional outreach
in natural resource and environmental elds, as in many other
disciplines, follows an expert model of passing on knowledge
and skills to those outside one’s own discipline (Roper & Hirth,
2005; Weerts & Sandmann, 2008). is one-way approach is oen a
result of decit model thinking (Bauer, Allum, & Miller, 2007; Nisbet
& Scheufele, 2009), in which scientists assume stakeholders do not
know about or understand environmental problems and therefore
fail to act (Groman et al., 2010). us, traditional outreach com-
munication with stakeholders focuses on increasing scientic lit-
eracy. An alternative and more recent approach is the engagement
model. For example, the “public engagement” model described
by Groman et al. (2010) acknowledges that technical or scientic
understanding is just one component of stakeholder characteris-
tics and environmental problems. Engagement builds connections
between researchers and stakeholders by focusing on two-way
communication in which questions, approaches, values, and pos-
sible solutions are created and discussed, and mutually benecial
relationships among partners are established (Decker & Chase, 1997;
Roper & Hirth, 2005). As explained by Sandmann (2008), engagement
within institutions of higher education “incorporates principles of
bidirectional reciprocity expressed through campus–community
partnerships. is two-way dimension dierentiates engagement
from outreach, in which resources are extended in one direction
only: from the university to the community” (p. 95).
Engagement with stakeholders oers unique opportunities
for natural resources researchers and graduate students to gain a
deeper understanding of complicated issues, work cooperatively
with community partners to develop relevant questions, carry out
research collaboratively, and apply results toward real-world solu-
tions. O’Meara and Jaeger (2006) posit that this reciprocal interac-
tion “betters both the discipline and the public or set of stakeholders
for whom the work is most relevant” (p. 3). Because it adheres to
the standards of academic scholarship even as it aligns with the
Outreach and Engagement Education for Graduate Students in Natural Resources 131
principles of engagement (Michigan State University, 1996; Sandmann,
2006), engaged research has a clear place in academia (Sandmann,
2008; UCLA Center for Community Partnerships, 2007).
Despite the importance and benets of scientist–stakeholder
engagement to natural resources research and management, most
graduate degree programs in natural resources focus on developing
students’ technical knowledge and skills and on communicating
to other academics rather than requiring training in outreach and
engagement (Leshner, 2007; Merenstein, Bowdy, & Woolley, 2001). Muir
and Schwartz (2009) conclude that “graduate education does not
currently provide students with the skills they need to solve con-
servation problems in a nonacademic workplace” (p. 1358).
Communication is one fundamental skill necessary for eec-
tive outreach and engagement. Historically, scientic education has
done a poor job of training students to communicate with those
outside their discipline (Whitmer et al., 2010). In a recent survey of
graduate students and employers from multiple sectors, students
indicated they believed communication skills were among their
greatest strengths, whereas employers indicated communication
was one of the areas in need of greatest improvement (Sundberg
et al., 2011). Government and nongovernmental organizations
who participated in the same survey stressed that future natural
resource scientists need to communicate across disciplines and
with multiple audiences and must be “collaborators, policy facilita-
tors and negotiators across a spectrum of stakeholders” (Sundberg et
al., 2011, p. 137) in order to eectively address environmental prob-
lems. ese additional skills are necessary to move from traditional
outreach to engagement.
e importance of outreach and engagement skills cannot be
overestimated, especially when working on the front line between
the state sh and wildlife management agency and the public. State
sh and wildlife agencies consistently emphasize the need for their
employees to be skillful communicators (Sundberg et al., 2011), an
essential trait for eective outreach and engagement. According to
the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Michigan DNR)
wildlife chief, “In order to be truly eective, wildlife managers must
hone communication skills so that they convincingly explain the
overarching importance of healthy wildlife populations and their
habitats” (R. Mason, personal communication, January 11, 2013). Fish
and wildlife managers oen struggle to interact meaningfully with
the public (or a specic set of stakeholders) to address problems
and develop mutually acceptable solutions. e Michigan DNR
sheries chief pointed out that
132 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement
if resource professionals are going to be successful for
managing both a resource and its users, they must be
able to tell a story that will resonate with the users and
that is easily understood. Managing natural resources
is fairly simple. Managing resource users is mostly dif-
cult, and much of that diculty is a direct outcome
of our inability to communicate with users. (J. Dexter,
personal communication, January 7, 2013)
Further, Teague (1979) states that “most wildlife management prob-
lems start out as biological problems but eventually become people
problems” (p. 59).
Given the need for engagement to achieve eective natural
resource decision-making and management and the lack of
training, there have been repeated calls for educational programs
to address the gap (Dann & Payne, 2002; Groman et al., 2010; Jacobson
& McDu, 1998; Leshner, 2007; Moslemi et al., 2009; Whitmer et al., 2010).
Michigan State University implemented a graduate requirement
in 2005 called the Outreach Experience (OE) to provide a “ex-
ible, experiential learning opportunity for students based on their
research or long-term professional interests, while meeting the mis-
sions of the department and institution, a Land Grant University”
(Michigan State University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, 2008, p.
1). e title “Outreach Experience” reects the commonly used
denition of outreach in Michigan State University documents,
wherein “a given for university outreach is mutuality of purpose or
two-way exchange” (Michigan State University, 1996), which evokes
the current denition of engagement. In practice, the OE can fall
anywhere along a gradient from traditional one-way outreach to
two-way engagement.
ere is no prescribed OE; the requirement is designed to
be exible so graduate students can best match their OE to their
research program or professional interests. e guidance for both
graduate students and their faculty advisors for designing and
implementing the OE is minimal. Prior to conducting the OE,
each graduate student develops an OE plan. Departmental require-
ments for the OE plan consist of an abstract, not to exceed one
page, which describes “who will participate in the experience,
the learning objectives of the experience, and where and when
the experience will occur” (Michigan State University Department of
Fisheries and Wildlife, 2012, p. 18). Plans are reviewed and approved
by each student’s faculty advisor and then submitted to the faculty
chair of the departmental graduate committee for nal review and
Outreach and Engagement Education for Graduate Students in Natural Resources 133
acceptance. Since the requirement was introduced, faculty advi-
sors have approved a wide range of graduate OEs, and many have
focused on communicating research results to scientic audiences,
rather than two-way engagement with nonscientic audiences or
stakeholder groups. Once the OE is complete, each student writes
a one-page outcome report that describes the audience, what was
done, and the results. e report is submitted to the faculty advisor,
who determines acceptability.
An online search of sheries and wildlife graduate programs
suggests that very few programs include an outreach or engage-
ment requirement. Only three programs reviewed currently
have such a requirement: the Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
(Virginia Tech); the Department of Forestry and Natural Resources
at Purdue University; and the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
at Michigan State University, the authors’ institution. e program
at Virginia Tech requires that graduate students fulll three out-
reach requirements to be eligible to defend their thesis or disserta-
tion: (1) prepare a poster or presentation for a technical audience
and a manuscript for a peer-reviewed journal; (2) prepare a poster,
presentation, or manuscript for a nontechnical audience; and (3)
prepare a one-page research summary for the department web-
site (Virginia Tech Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation, 2008).
e program at Purdue is modeled on the program at Michigan
State University; both programs require all graduate students to
complete an OE (Michigan State University Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife, 2012; Purdue Forestry and Natural Resources, 2013). In addition,
the students at Purdue must complete a required course, eory
& Application of Natural Resource Extension Programming (FNR
598).
To improve the outreach and engagement training provided
to future natural resource scientists and managers at Michigan
State University, the authors designed, taught, and evaluated a new
graduate course. e goals in creating the course were to (1) intro-
duce graduate students to outreach and engagement practices and
the participatory approaches commonly used in managing natural
resources and (2) improve the quality of Michigan State University
Fisheries and Wildlife graduate students’ OEs so that the pro-
cess fosters learning and benecial experiences for students and
stakeholders within the framework of the departmental require-
ment. roughout the course, the authors aimed to build under-
standing of the spectrum of stakeholder outreach and engagement
and encouraged greater emphasis on engagement for meaningful
134 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement
and eective OEs. In this article, we evaluate the eectiveness of
the course and share lessons learned from this experience to help
others interested in addressing the training gap in natural resources
outreach and engagement.
Methods
Course Design
e authors, three Department of Fisheries and Wildlife fac-
ulty members with substantial appointments in outreach, cotaught
the one-credit, pass/fail course Eective Outreach and Engagement
in Fisheries and Wildlife. e course was taught in 80-minute ses-
sions once per week for 12 weeks during the 2012 spring semester.
Teaching techniques included PowerPoint presentations, lectures,
small group discussions, large group discussions, guest presen-
tations, peer reviews, and written and oral program critiques.
Students were expected to read supporting materials in preparation
for in-class discussions and to actively contribute their experiences,
opinions, and questions to these discussions. e course learning
objectives were intended to enable students to achieve three goals:
1. Design an eective Outreach Experience (OE) plan
with an emphasis on two-way, reciprocal engagement
with a specic audience.
2. Evaluate outreach programs by asking appro-
priate questions, collecting data, analyzing relevant
observations, making interpretations, and oering
recommendations.
3. Communicate research via multiple formats to a
variety of audiences.
e development of OE plans was an overarching theme of the
course. Course topics included public perceptions of science, advo-
cacy and politics, program evaluation, meeting management, and
stakeholder engagement (see Appendix). Students were required
to participate in an outreach activity or program of their choice
(the course “eld trip”) and provide a written and oral critique of
the activity or program. e eld trip allowed students to conduct
a real-world assessment of outreach, in contrast to learning about
outreach third-hand via course readings and lectures. A semistruc-
tured guide based on course topics was provided to assist students
in evaluating the program and recording their observations during
their eld trip. e purpose of the observation guide was to provide
Outreach and Engagement Education for Graduate Students in Natural Resources 135
a consistent evaluation framework among outreach activities to
facilitate comparisons during the oral critique of each individual’s
eld trip.
Development of Outreach Experience Plans
Students were expected to adhere to the departmental require-
ments when developing their one-page OE plan (i.e., identifying
their audience, learning objectives, location, and timing) to ensure
“acceptance” by the departmental graduate committee chairperson.
One critical component possibly overlooked when developing the
departmental OE requirements was evaluation. erefore course
instructors requested that students describe possible evaluation
strategies within their outreach plan. Within OE plans meeting
departmental requirements, the extent of the OE could fall any-
where along a gradient from one-way outreach to two-way engage-
ment. It was the intention of the course instructors to encourage
students to focus on the engagement side of the spectrum. To
incorporate generally accepted best practices for eective outreach
and engagement, students in the course were asked to address the
following questions in their outreach plans (Jacobson, 2009; Lauber,
Decker, Leong, Chase, & Schusler, 2012; Shanahan, Gore, & Decker, 2012):
1. What is the need that your proposed OE is aimed to
address?
2. What are the desired outcomes or goals? is can
include what you are seeking to learn by conducting
the outreach.
3. Who is your priority audience?
4. What is your strategy/approach? at is, what are you
going to do?
5. What resources do you need to create your outreach
product or activity?
6. How will you evaluate the eectiveness of your out-
reach? What indicators will be used to evaluate impact?
e authors believe the integration of these questions into the
students’ plans extends beyond the departmental requirements to
enhance students’ overall experience. To comply with the one-page
length constraint, course instructors encouraged students to
1. Stay focused on the outreach project itself. Limit back-
ground information to needs addressed by the out-
reach project. Omit citations.
136 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement
2. Write in a direct, concise style to an audience that
includes nonscientists. Avoid jargon and lengthy
research descriptions.
3. Write in rst person, active voice.
During the semester, students were required to submit rst and
second dras of their OE plans for written peer review, discussion,
and instructor feedback.
Course Evaluation
Students were provided with three formal opportunities to pro-
vide anonymous assessment of the course. e instructors solicited
feedback via instructor-designed questionnaires at midsemester
and again at the end of the course in addition to the standard uni-
versity end-of-semester evaluation. e mid-semester evaluation
sought student opinions on course content and structure, depth
of topic coverage, and utility of the course in developing their OE
plans. e timing of the survey allowed for adjustments to the
teaching approach, if warranted, for the remainder of the course.
e in-class questionnaire administered 1 week prior to the end
of the course gave students an opportunity to suggest topics for
further discussion before the course concluded and to provide
anonymous feedback about the course. Students also were encour-
aged to complete a standard Student Instructional Rating System
(SIRS) end-of-course online evaluation provided by the university.
All data used in this research were anonymized (names on past
OE plans were redacted by the department graduate secretary, and
surveys administered to current students were anonymous), and
the University Social Science/Behavioral/Education Institutional
Review Board (IRB) conrmed that the study did not meet the de-
nition of human subjects research [45 CFR 46.102(f)]. erefore,
IRB approval was not required.
Evaluation of Outreach Experience Plans
One intended outcome of the course was to improve the stu-
dents’ OE plans. To evaluate whether this outcome was achieved,
a rubric was developed to compare the quality of the proposals by
students in the course to a random sample of approved OE plans
written prior to this course (“precourse” plans). e precourse plans
were randomly selected by the graduate secretary, with approval of
the department chair, and all identifying information was redacted.
e authors also evaluated the quality of rst- and second-dra
Outreach and Engagement Education for Graduate Students in Natural Resources 137
plans developed by students in the course to document improve-
ment over the semester. Seventeen plans for each of the three types
(i.e., precourse, rst dra, second dra) were evaluated to maintain
equal sample sizes across groups. e rubric examined whether the
plan (1) identied need, (2) dened the desired outcomes/goals, (3)
identied priority audience, (4) described strategy/approach, (5)
discussed resources needed, and (6) evaluated the eectiveness of
the outreach activity. ese criteria were identied by the authors
as essential for high-quality plans. Each plan was also examined
to determine whether the proposed OE consisted solely of one-
way communication (giving a presentation or producing a written
product, i.e., traditional “outreach”) or included two-way interac-
tion (i.e., engagement) with the audience beyond a question and
answer session. ese additional criteria were used to assess move-
ment from one-way to two-way communication with stakeholders;
the authors considered one-way communication unsatisfactory for
this course. If a plan addressed a component satisfactorily, it was
scored a 1 in that category; if the plan did not address the compo-
nent satisfactorily, it was scored a 0 for that category.
Dierences between total scores (sum of all category scores)
for precourse plans and plans written by students in the course
were analyzed using t-tests. A paired t-test was used to analyze dif-
ferences between in-course rst and second dras. McNemar’s test
was used to examine dierences between each category in the rst
and second dras. All statistical analyses were performed using
SYSTAT 12 soware (SYSTAT Soware, Inc.).
Results
e course lled up quickly once announced, reaching the
enrollment limit within a few days. Nineteen graduate students
(10 female, 9 male) completed the course, all in master’s (58%) or
doctoral (42%) degree programs in the Department of Fisheries
and Wildlife.
Student Feedback
On the midsemester evaluation, all respondents agreed that the
course had been helpful in designing or evaluating their Outreach
Experiences (OEs), and on average, students felt that the depth of
coverage of topics through Week 6 was “Just right.” In an open-ended
question asking what aspects of the course they felt were most
benecial, the most common response (6 out of 19) was evalua-
tion—students commented specically that they were thinking and
138 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement
learning about evaluating outreach and engagement eorts more
than they would have without taking this course. Additional topics
noted as benecial included setting objectives, understanding and
working with public perceptions, and strategies for working with
various stakeholder groups. Several students also commented on
particular in-class teaching and learning approaches as being ben-
ecial: feedback from and discussion with peers, readings from the
literature, and reection on one’s own perspectives and values on
science outreach. Six students recommended less lecture time and
more discussion.
is midpoint evaluation also gauged student interest in
a three-credit version of the course in the future. Students were
asked, “If this seminar were oered as a 3-credit graduate course,
would you enroll? Why or why not?” Responses were mixed, with
as many students interested in a three-credit version as not. ose
who stated that they probably would take a three-credit course
tended to indicate that the content warranted more in-depth cov-
erage. ose who were unlikely to enroll in a three-credit course
tended to state that they were interested in other course oerings
more closely related to their scientic research given limits on
credit hours. Overall, students were likely to recommend a three-
credit course to a friend, especially if that friend had an interest in
outreach.
At the conclusion of the course, students had the option of com-
pleting two course evaluations. e instructor-designed question-
naire was completed by 17 of the 19 students during class. Because
this questionnaire was given 1 week before the last class, students
were oered the opportunity to request additional information on
outreach topics not covered during the course. Responses varied
widely, from general requests for additional readings on the broad
topic of outreach and engagement to specic topics, including the
following:
• Outreach activities and environmental education for
youth
• How to change people’s perceptions (both those of sci-
entists and “the public”)
• Science education and scientic advocacy
• How to “sell” outreach and engagement as important
• How to nd graduate student or faculty positions in
outreach and engagement
Outreach and Engagement Education for Graduate Students in Natural Resources 139
• Why do research scientists do outreach? How does it
aect decisions?
• Citizen science
• How to publish outreach work
• How to deal with a dicult public without losing your
cool
• How to become a more condent public communicator
A list of additional references and resources addressing these topics
was provided in response to student feedback and is available from
the authors.
is questionnaire also oered students an open-ended oppor-
tunity to share anonymous feedback with the instructors. Most
comments expressed students’ enjoyment of the course and their
appreciation for how the course helped to improve their under-
standing of engagement and execution of their OE. Specic feed-
back included nding student presentations valuable, especially the
two-way interactions, as well as a desire to hear more “stories from
the eld” from scientists who have faced challenging outreach and
engagement situations. One student responded that the value of
the eld trip could have been improved by an observation guide
with more specic questions that prompted more critical thinking
as opposed to the general guide provided.
e university’s standard online course evaluation focused on
student satisfaction with the instructors and course. Seventeen (17)
of the 19 students in the course completed the university survey by
rating various factors on a scale of 1 (highest) to 5 (lowest). Students
responded particularly favorably to “e instructor’s use of exam-
ples or personal experiences to help get points across in class”
(M = 1.29, SD = 0.57). Overall, respondents recognized an
“improvement in [their] competence in this area due to this course”
(M = 2.17, SD = 0.85) but did not see the course as a particular
intellectual challenge (M = 3.23, SD = 0.87). Respondents gave the
course an overall mean rating (“grade”) of 1.41 (SD = 0.59) and the
instructors an overall mean rating of 1.05 (SD = 0.23).
Evaluation of Outreach Experience Plans
Students developed a broad variety of OE plans, reecting the
diversity of their graduate research areas. In one example, a stu-
dent proposed creation of a land management guide for promoting
habitat for sharp-tailed grouse, a species of interest to hunters
140 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement
and birdwatchers alike. e student planned to collaborate with
the state natural resource agency and an advisory committee of
stakeholders to determine the content and design of this guide
and to evaluate its usefulness. Another student proposed engaging
youth and their teachers and parents in understanding the roles of
native and invasive species of lamprey in local aquatic ecosystems
where economic impacts have been felt by taking them out in the
eld and giving them hands-on experience with live organisms.
Yet another planned in-depth involvement in a science program
for refugee and minority high school students with a focus on
inspiring interest in science as a career with an evaluation strategy
including student surveys and consultation with teachers regarding
behavioral changes (e.g., interest in science classes, participation,
and performance).
Precourse plans versus in-course plans. Total scores between
precourse plans and in-course rst dras were signicantly dif-
ferent (t = 3.189, p = 0.003), as were total scores between precourse
plans and in-course second dras (t = 5.287, p < 0.001; see Figure
1). In-course rst and second dras scored higher than precourse
plans in identifying needs, dening goals, discussing resources
needed, and evaluating eectiveness (see Figure 2). ere was no
dierence in identifying a priority audience because all students
included it in their plans. Measures of two-way communication
increased from rst to second dras (see Figure 3). Fewer students
in the course proposed OEs that were solely a written product or
presentation, without interaction with audiences, as compared to
precourse plans.
Figure 1. Total mean scores for precourse plans and in-course rst and second drafts.
Signicant differences are shown with an asterisk (*).
Outreach and Engagement Education for Graduate Students in Natural Resources 141
Figure 2. Percentage of precourse, rst draft, and second draft plans that included key
components of satisfactory Outreach Experience (OE) plans. Signicant differences are
shown with an asterisk (*).
Figure 3. Percentage of precourse, rst draft, and second draft plans demonstrating
two-way communication as assessed by products and activities described in Outreach
Experience (OE) plans.
142 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement
In-course student plans: rst versus second dras. Tot al
scores for rst and second dras were signicantly dierent
(t = 3.429, p = 0.003; see Figure 1). Scores increased between
rst and second dras for four categories: identify need, discuss
resources, evaluate eectiveness, and two-way interaction (see
Figures 2 and 3). However, upon examining each category indi-
vidually, only evaluation diered signicantly between the rst
and second dras (McNemar’s χ2 = 10, p = 0.002; see Figure 3).
Two categories, outreach = presentation and outreach = written
product, decreased from rst to second dra, but the dierence
was not signicant. ere was no change between rst and second
dras for the “identify priority audience” category because all stu-
dents included this component in their proposals. ere was also
no change in the “dene goals” and “describe approach” categories.
Discussion
Overall, we believe that the learning objectives of this course
were achieved. First, all students developed clear plans for graduate
Outreach Experiences (OEs) that, in our opinion, were likely to
result in eective engagement with their chosen audiences. In their
nal one-page plans, nearly every student clearly identied a need,
desired outcome(s), priority audience, and required resources and
explicitly described his or her intended approach and evaluation
plan. Providing the students the opportunity to submit two dras
improved the plans. e greatest improvement between rst and
second dras was made in the evaluation category. In the rst
dras, students oen proposed to evaluate eectiveness by whether
their priority audience asked questions. In the second dras, which
were submitted aer evaluation was covered in class, most stu-
dents incorporated pre- and post-surveys or short questionnaires
to evaluate the eectiveness of their OE. Although not statistically
signicant, improvement was noted in other categories as well.
All plans identied a primary audience, which was not surprising
given that it is an explicit requirement in the graduate handbook,
but second dras oen identied a more specic audience rather
than “general public” or revised the audience to align better with
the student’s goals. An increase in two-way interaction, or move-
ment from traditional outreach toward engagement, was evident
between the rst and second dra. is was reected by a decrease
in the number of plans in which students were solely giving a pre-
sentation or producing a written document as their OE. Although
these components were required on both dras, the improvements
Outreach and Engagement Education for Graduate Students in Natural Resources 143
in the second dras demonstrated a deeper understanding of the
outreach and engagement spectrum.
e level of detail in the in-course plans was not common
in precourse plans, but the authors believe that the components
listed above are critical for preparing graduates to conduct suc-
cessful OEs. Providing students with training and guidance about
best practices in outreach and engagement increased the quality
of the proposals, as demonstrated by the dierences found not
only between rst and second dras but between students who
had completed the course and those who had not. Shortly aer the
course, the departmental associate chairperson commented that
the plans submitted by his students who participated in the course
were “clearly superior to those submitted by those students who
did not. Proposals submitted by the seminar participants are better
focused, more appropriate for graduate students and contain evalu-
ation procedures and metrics” (S. Winterstein, personal communica-
tion, April 18, 2013). One of the students also contacted the instruc-
tors regarding the value of the course, saying,
I just wanted to send out an e-mail to thank you all
for the wonderful seminar last semester! I successfully
completed my outreach presentation this summer and
it went very well! I did the pre- and post-evaluation and
found out all my participants met my objectives and
eectively learned what I wanted them to. It was a very
rewarding experience! ank you for all your input in
helping me prepare for it!
e second course objective focused on evaluation. e inten-
tional emphasis on the importance of evaluating outreach eorts
seemed to resonate with the students as both a novel idea and an
important one. Several course lectures, readings, and discussions
focused on evaluation. A key take-home message for students was
that evaluation is extremely important and should be conducted
throughout the process—during planning, formative and devel-
opmental stages, and for summative outcome purposes (Michigan
State University, 1996). e students included evaluation strategies
in their OE plans and gained experience in conducting evaluation
by providing peer feedback, evaluating outreach products (such
as brochures and websites) as a group in class, and individually
evaluating a variety of local outreach programs (the eld trip) and
presenting their ndings to the class. During the eld trip critique,
students acknowledged that most program organizers failed to
144 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement
identify objectives or evaluate their programs. In some cases, stu-
dents recognized a mismatch between program content and audi-
ence. Students appeared to gain more insight by evaluating what
did not happen during their eld trips and had many suggestions
for program improvements.
e third major course objective was to enable students to
communicate research eectively to various audiences. Although
the design and time constraints of this one-credit course did not
allow students to actually implement their OEs, the authors feel
that the students’ abilities to identify eective and ineective prac-
tices and products and to incorporate best practices into their own
OE plans improved during the course. Critique and discussion of
example outreach materials and their eld trip generated some of
the most lively class discussions, much of which focused on char-
acteristics that made the outreach material or program successful.
For many students, this course may have been their rst exposure
to the literature and knowledge base surrounding eective natural
resource outreach and engagement.
Course instructors demonstrated outreach and engagement
techniques throughout the semester to reinforce course material
from an applied perspective. e students grasped the material
exceedingly well and, during the midcourse evaluation, identied
areas in need of improvement in teaching methods (e.g., lengthy
PowerPoint presentations, text-heavy slides, shortage of two-way
interactions, guest lecturers’ presentations misaligned with student
needs).
Student feedback and instructor observations allowed for some
midcourse adjustments and recognition of areas for improvement
in future versions of this course. A key design change made mid-
course was to increase time for discussion. e authors initially
had succumbed to the temptation to cover more material than
was suitable for a one-credit course, an inclination exacerbated
by involving three instructors with somewhat dierent areas of
outreach expertise. As a result, several early course sessions were
heavy on lecture and le little time for group discussion. Group
discussion frequently needed to be cut o just as the students
were really engaging with the topic because the class period was
over. e students were eager to point this out on the midcourse
evaluation survey, and adjustments were made. As a result, discus-
sions in the second half of the course were richer and, the authors
believe, more valuable to all participants. In the future, the authors
would consider changing to a 2-hour course period, rather than
the 80-minute period used in this course, to ensure plenty of time
Outreach and Engagement Education for Graduate Students in Natural Resources 145
for lecture and discussion. An intensive, workshop-style model
(perhaps two or three full days for the entire course) could also be
considered.
It was clear that in the future more time must be devoted to dis-
cussing the fundamental topic of why it is important for research
scientists to conduct outreach and how to justify its importance
to others in academia. Several students highlighted this need on
the end-of-class questionnaire (e.g., Why do researchers do out-
reach? How does one “sell” the idea of outreach and engagement?).
Within the scientic research community, there remains plenty of
resistance to conducting outreach (Ecklund, James, & Lincoln, 2012).
ese barriers to outreach and engagement include the focus on
disciplinary expertise at research universities, reward systems that
do not value outreach and engagement as highly as research or
teaching, lack of funding and resources, and the misperception
that outreach and engagement is not scholarship (O’Meara & Jaeger,
2006). Graduate students are likely to hear mixed messages about
the value of outreach and engagement from the professionals they
interact with and may have mixed or negative feelings themselves
about outreach and engagement and the departmental outreach
requirement. Perhaps because the authors were all trained as
research scientists and now spend a majority of their professional
time in the outreach and engagement arena, they unintentionally
minimized the importance of what is a critical and foundational
issue that deserves more exploration. Feedback from the class
suggested that even though students understood the importance
of outreach and engagement, they were uncertain about how to
justify and communicate its importance to others in academia. In
the future, the course could be improved by including readings or
lectures from established academic scientists who actively conduct
outreach and engagement work, open dialogue about the value
of that work to advancing natural resource science and manage-
ment, and information on how to discuss the value of outreach
scholarship and scholarly activities with academic colleagues and
administrators.
To further assess the eectiveness of the course, a longitudinal
study could be undertaken to evaluate student application of the
new outreach and engagement education gained from this course
to community projects. Currently, the department does not assess
the eectiveness of the OEs as described in the outcome reports
written by each graduate student or by any other measures. e
authors recommend that the department adopt the project evalu-
ation guidelines presented by Michigan State University (1996) to
146 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement
assess the “four fundamental characteristics of any outreach project
in higher education” (p. 18): signicance, context, scholarship, and
impact. is would ensure alignment of departmental and univer-
sity outreach and engagement goals.
In addressing the outreach and engagement training gap, the
authors identied several areas where current department prac-
tices could be improved. e authors recommend that the depart-
ment provide more detailed guidance to faculty and students on
how to develop an OE plan that will be eective and relevant to
students’ research and professional interests. e fact that course
enrollment reached maximum capacity within a few days of being
announced suggests that students feel the need for more guidance
and are interested in outreach training. Student responses to the
course evaluations also demonstrated that students believed out-
reach and engagement training was valuable and likely to increase
the eectiveness of their OEs.
A clear tension exists within the departmental culture between
the desire to remain exible and responsive to the broad range of
student research areas and interests and the need to provide stu-
dents with the necessary engagement knowledge and skills for
becoming eective natural resource professionals. e authors sug-
gest that exibility can be maintained while a core set of minimum
requirements be adopted in order for the OE requirement to be
valuable and eective and to make clear that engagement is valued
within the department and the university (Michigan State University,
1996). For example, some level of departmental evaluation of the
OE must be incorporated. What does “accepted” by the graduate
committee chairperson mean? Are there departmental metrics
by which OEs are deemed acceptable? Where along the spectrum
from one-way outreach communication to true two-way engage-
ment does an individual student’s OE plan lie? Is the student’s pro-
posed OE appropriate for his or her career goals, or is the student
(and faculty advisor) merely looking to check o the OE require-
ment? Departments need open dialogue regarding outreach and
engagement to develop a common vision for how to best integrate
appropriate training opportunities into their curriculum (O’Meara
& Jaeger, 2006).
Students should be provided opportunities to learn eective
communication and engagement strategies through coursework
and experiences that are integrated into their degree programs.
Training in outreach and engagement would address the skills gap
identied by stakeholders and management agencies. e OE, and
engagement in general, enhances the educational experience and
Outreach and Engagement Education for Graduate Students in Natural Resources 147
creates opportunities for graduate students to develop critical skills
required not only for connecting with stakeholders but for devel-
oping a deeper understanding of their own discipline (O’Meara &
Jaeger, 2006). Michigan State University, like many land-grant insti-
tutions, is at the forefront of engagement with its Extension pro-
grams and Oce of Outreach and Engagement; however, graduate
education and faculty reward structures focus on research skills.
is course and others like it present the opportunity to harness the
expertise on campus and better align the missions of the land-grant
institution to both conduct top-level research and engage society.
rough the development and implementation of this graduate
course, the authors have identied areas where the departmental
OE requirement could be improved, particularly by providing
more guidance to faculty advisors and students about the essential
components of an eective outreach and engagement plan. e
course also provided the guidance needed to develop more eec-
tive and meaningful OEs for the students enrolled in the course.
Improving training in communication, outreach, and engagement
will better prepare students to be natural resource scientists and
professionals who can engage a broad group of scientists, stake-
holders, and decision makers to tackle more eectively the complex
problems related to natural resource management.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the Michigan State
University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife grad-
uate students who participated in the course and Henry
Campa III and Lois Wolfson for assistance in manuscript
preparation.
Note: Authorship order determined by random draw; all
contributed equally.
References
Allen, G. M., & Gould, E. M. (1986). Complexity, wickedness, and public
forests. Journal of Forestry, 84, 20–23.
Batie, S. S. (2008). Wicked problems and applied economics. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(5), 1176–1191.
Bauer, M., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25
years of PUS research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public
Understanding of Science, 16, 79–95.
Dann, S. L., & Payne, J. M. (2002). Learning and living: Connecting graduate
education in natural resources with the scholarship of engaged learning
148 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement
institutions and the outreach mission of land-grant universities. Natural
Resources and Environmental Issues, 9(40), 1–8.
Decker, D. J., & Chase, L. C. (1997). Human dimensions of living with wild-
life—a management challenge for the twenty-rst century. Wildlife
Society Bulletin, 25, 788–795.
Duda, M., Bissell, S. J., & Young, K. C. (1998). Wildlife and the American
mind: Public opinion on and attitudes toward sh and wildlife manage-
ment. Harrisonburg, VA: Responsive Management.
Ecklund, E. H., James, S. A., & Lincoln, A. E. (2012). How academic biologists
and physicists view science outreach. PLoS ONE, 7(5), e36240.
Friedman, D. P. (2008). Public outreach: A scientic imperative. e Journal
of Neuroscience, 28(46), 11743–11745.
Groman, P. M., Stylinski, C., Nisbet, M. C., Duarte, C. M., Jordan, R., Burgin,
A., . . . Coloso, J. (2010). Restarting the conversation: Challenges at the
interface between ecology and society. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 8(6), 284–291.
Haubold, E. M. (2012). Using adaptive leadership principles in collaborative
conservation with stakeholders to tackle a wicked problem: Imperiled
species management in Florida. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 17(5),
344–356.
Jacobson, S. K. (2009). Communication skills for conservation professionals
(2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Jacobson, S., & McDu, M. (1998). Training idiot savants: e lack of human
dimensions in conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 12(2),
263–267.
Lauber, T. B., Decker, D. J., Leong, K. M., Chase, L. C., & Schusler, T. M. (2012).
Stakeholder engagement in wildlife management. In D. J. Decker, S. J.
Riley, & W. F. Siemer (Eds.), Human dimensions of wildlife management
(pp. 139–156). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Leshner, A. I. (2007). Outreach training needed. Science, 315, 161.
Merenstein, R., Bowdy, M. A., & Woolley, M. (2001). Participating in science
outreach: A civic responsibility for scientists. Molecular Interventions,
1(3),138–140.
Michigan State University. (1996). Points of distinction: A guidebook for
planning and evaluating quality outreach (Rev. ed.). East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University Board of Trustees.
Michigan State University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. (2008).
Graduate student outreach experience. Retrieved from http://www.
fw.msu.edu/graduates/
Michigan State University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. (2012).
Graduate student handbook (Revised September 2012). Retrieved from
http://www.fw.msu.edu/graduates
Moslemi, J. M., Capps, K. A., Johnson, M. S., Maul, J., McIntyre, P. B., Melvin,
A. M., . . . Weiss, M. (2009). Training tomorrow’s environmental problem
solvers: An integrative approach to graduate education. BioScience,
59(6), 514–521.
Outreach and Engagement Education for Graduate Students in Natural Resources 149
Muir, M. J., & Schwartz, M. W. (2009). Academic research training for a non-
academic workplace: A case study of graduate student alumni who work
in conservation. Conservation Biology, 23(6), 1357–1368.
Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communica-
tion? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal
of Botany, 96, 1–12.
O’Meara, K., & Jaeger, A. J. (2006). Preparing future faculty for commu-
nity engagement: Barriers, facilitators, models, and recommendations.
Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 11(4), 3–26.
Purdue Forestry & Natural Resources. (2013). FNR graduate student
policy manual. Retrieved from https://ag.purdue.edu/fnr/Documents/
FNRPolicyManual2013.pdf
Rittel, J., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning.
Political Science, 4, 155–169.
Roper, C. D., & Hirth, M. A. (2005). A history of change in the third mis-
sion of higher education: e evolution of one-way service to interactive
engagement. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement,
10(3), 3–21.
Sandmann, L. R. (2006). Scholarship as architecture: Framing and enhancing
community engagement. Journal of Physical erapy Education, 20(3),
80–85.
Sandmann, L. R. (2008). Conceptualization of the scholarship of engagement
in higher education: A strategic review, 1996–2006. Journal of Higher
Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(1), 91–104.
Shanahan, J. E., Gore, M. L., & Decker, D. J. (2012). Communication for
eective wildlife management. In D. J. Decker, S. J. Riley, & W. F. Siemer
(Eds.), Human dimensions of wildlife management (pp. 157–173).
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sundberg, M. D., DeAngelis, P., Havens, K., Holsinger, K., Kennedy, K.,
Kramer, A. T., . . . Zorn-Arnold, B. (2011). Perceptions of strengths and
deciencies: Disconnects between graduate students and prospective
employers. BioScience, 61(2), 133–138.
Teague, R. D. (1979). e roles of social science in wildlife management. In
R. D. Teague & E. Decker (Eds.), Wildlife conservation: Principles and
practices (pp. 55–60). Washington, DC: e Wildlife Society.
UCLA Center for Community Partnerships. (2007). New times demand
new scholarship II: Research universities and civic engagement:
Opportunities and challenges. Retrieved from http://www.compact.org/
initiatives/research_universities/Civic_Engagement.pdf
Virginia Tech Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation. (2008).
Graduate policies and procedures. Retrieved from http://shwild.vt.edu/
graduate/graduate_pol_and_pro.htm#requirement
Weerts, D. J., & Sandmann, L. R. (2008). Building a two-way street: Challenges
and opportunities for community engagement at research universities.
e Review of Higher Education, 32(1), 73–106.
Whitmer, A., Ogden, L., Lawton, J., Sturner, P., Groman, P. M., Schneider,
L. . . . Killilea, M. (2010). e engaged university: Providing a plat-
form for research that transforms society. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 8(6), 314–321.
150 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement
About the Authors
Jo Latimore is an academic specialist in the Department of
Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University. Her research
and outreach interests focus on community-based monitoring
and management of freshwater ecosystems and aquatic inva-
sive species issues. Latimore earned her Ph.D. in Fisheries and
Wildlife at Michigan State University.
Erin Dreelin is a visiting assistant professor in the Department
of Fisheries and Wildlife and associate director of the Center
for Water Sciences at Michigan State University. Her research
and outreach interests focus on aquatic ecology and stakeholder
engagement for managing water resources. Dreelin earned her
Ph.D. in Ecology from the University of Georgia.
Jordan Pusateri Burroughs is an academic specialist at Michigan
State University in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. Her
position is a jointly funded partnership between Michigan State
University Extension and the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources. Burroughs’s areas of interest include stakeholder
engagement, human dimensions of wildlife management, pro-
gram evaluation, and community-based wildlife management.
Burroughs received her M.S. in Fisheries and Wildlife from
Michigan State University.
Outreach and Engagement Education for Graduate Students in Natural Resources 151
Appendix
Course Syllabus for “Effective Outreach and
Engagement in Fisheries and Wildlife”
Week Topics Readings
1Course Overview
What is the denition of outreach? How
is engagement dened?
What are some examples of outreach and
engagement in academia and practice?
List of denitions of outreach and
engagement compiled from various
sources by instructors
2Public Perceptions
How does the public view science?
How do scientists view the public?
What are the implications for outreach?
Required:
Miller 2004. Public understanding of,
and attitudes toward, scientic research:
What we know and what we need to
know. Public Understanding of Science 13:
273–294.
Besley & Nisbet 2011. How scientists
view the public, the media and the
political process. Public Understanding of
Science, 1-16.
Optional:
Science and Engineering Indicators
2010. Chapter 7: Public Attitudes &
Understanding
Pew Research Center Science Literacy
Quiz
3Science and Advocacy (Guest
Speaker—Executive Director Michigan
Trout Unlimited)What are the differences
between policy and politics?
Should scientists advocate on policy-
related matters?
Does advocacy conict with science?
Nelson & Vucetich 2009. On advocacy by
environmental scientists: What, whether,
why, and how. Conservation Biology 23:
1090–1101.
Pielke, R. A., Jr. 2007. Chapters 1–3 in The
honest broker: Making sense of science in
policy and politics. Cambridge University
Press, New York.
Optional:
Lackey, R. T. 2007. Science, scientists, and
policy advocacy. Conservation Biology 21:
12–17.
152 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement
4Outreach Experience (Guest Speaker—
Associate Provost for University Outreach and
Engagement)
How does the University view outreach?
What does it mean to be an engaged
university?
How can outreach be incorporated into
your career?
Optional:
University Outreach and Engagement—
Michigan State University website
Engagement Scholarship Consortium
website: http://www.engagementscholar-
ship.org/
An Example Engagement Dossier
5Outreach Strategies (Guest Speaker—
Michigan State University FW Graduate
Committee Chair)
How do you dene your audience?
What are your outreach goals, objectives,
and expected outcomes?
What are the requirements of the
Outreach Experience?
Required:
US Fish and Wildlife Service. A eld guide
to outreach. Pacic Region U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue,
Portland, Oregon 97232-4181.
Duda, M., S. J. Bissell, & K. C. Young.
(1998). Wildlife and the American mind:
Public opinion on and attitudes toward sh
and wildlife management. Harrisonburg,
Virginia: Responsive Management.
6Program Evaluation
Why do we evaluate?
What are the types of evaluations
and methods used to assess program
outcomes?
Required:
Lok, C. 2010. Science for the masses.
Nature 465: 416–418.
A look at NSF’s Broader Impacts review
criteria
NOAA Ofce of Education
and Sustainable Development. Available
online at http://wateroutreach.uwex.edu/
use/documents/NOAAEvalmanualFINAL.
pdf
My Environmental Education Evaluation
Resource Assistant (MEERA) website:
http://meera.snre.umich.edu/
Online resource for evaluation
7Critique Outreach Examples
What are some real life examples of out-
reach products?
What makes your outreach example effec-
tive or ineffective?
8Design Effective Outreach
What words can be used to resonate
better with the public?
What terms and phrases inspire conserva-
tion action?
Outreach and Engagement Education for Graduate Students in Natural Resources 153
9Engagement: Partnerships,
Stakeholders, and Collaborative
Processes
How is stakeholder engagement dened?
What are some considerations when plan-
ning partnerships?
How is engaged scholarship different from
traditional scholarship?
Required:
International Association for Public
Participation. 2007. IAP2 Spectrum of
Public Participation. http://www.iap2.
org/associations/4748/les/IAP2%20
Spectrum_vertical.pdf
International Association for Public
Participation. 2006. IAP2 Public
Participation Toolbox. http://iap2.afniscape.
com/associations/4748/les/06Dec_
Toolbox.pdf
Reed, M. S. 2008. Stakeholder participa-
tion for environmental management: A
literature review. Biological Conser vation
141: 2417–2431.
10 Effective Meetings
How do you design an effective meeting?
What are the most effective ways to com-
municate with meeting participants?
Required:
University of Nebraska Extension. How to
organize and run effective meetings. http://
www.unce.unr.edu/publications/les/cd/
other/fs9729.pdf
AAAS Communicating Science website:
http://communicatingscience.aaas.org/
Website from AAAS on communicating
science to nonscience audiences
How to Lead Effective Meetings
website: https://www.ohrd.wisc.
edu/AcademicLeadershipSupport/
LeadMeetings/tabid/74/Default.aspx
This site from the University of
Wisconsin was designed for academic
committees and units, but the principles
apply to any meeting
University of Wisconsin Facilitator Tool
Kit. http://oqi.wisc.edu/resourcelibrary/
uploads/resources/Facilitator%20
Tool%20Kit.pdf.
Background info (not required reading);
chapter 4 is on meetings
Planning and Conducting Effective
Public Meetings. Ohio State University
Extension Fact Sheet. http://ohioline.osu.
edu/cd-fact/1555.html
154 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement
11 Field Trip Critique
What were the strengths and weaknesses
of the meeting/activity?
What improvements would you suggest?
Did the organizers evaluate participants
or collect any data to assess effectiveness
of their program? If so, what method(s)
did they use?
12 Course Wrap-Up
What were the main messages you
learned from the course?
What questions about outreach and
engagement do you still have?
Required:
Sandmann, L. R. 2006. Scholarship as
architecture: Framing and enhancing
community engagement. J Physical
Therapy Ed 20(3): 80–84.
UCLA Center for Community
Partnerships. (2007). New times demand
new scholarship II: Research universities
and civic engagement: Opportunities
and challenges. http://www.compact.
org/initiatives/research_universities/
Civic_Engagement.pdf
