In recent years, universities and professional societies have invested in the idea that science communication and research translation training are needed to expand research impact and public relevance. They are not wrong that our scientific training programs rarely train on nonacademic communication skills, but it’s not the full picture. 

Training the STEM workforce on research translation and engagement is meaningful progress. But training alone does not shape opportunity.

Training builds awareness. In our training program, we clarify what it means to serve as a nonpartisan honest broker. We prepare scientists for engaging in public policy without lobbying so that their tact is appropriate and aligned with scientific or philanthropic grants. This is also a role that many educators prefer over political activism. It strengthens communication skills and answers the question, “How should I show up in a meeting?”

It does not answer, “How do I get the meeting?”

Workshops provide foundational knowledge. They prepare researchers to be effective once they are in conversation with policymakers. Training generally does not offer contact databases, provide systems for identifying legislative champions, teach supportive team members to implement structured scheduling protocols, establish tracking systems, or advise creative outreach pivots. Ultimately, polite persistence is required to secure meetings with policymakers because they have a line of people demanding action, knocking at their door. Preparation without experienced implementation support rarely results in sustained engagement.

Opportunity Requires Precision

Not every policymaker is working on issues related to a scholars’ research area. In fact, this creates a mismatch when we rely on district-based matches alone. Many outreach strategies rely on mass communication and a wide map of possible interactions in a single legislature. That approach is inefficient and often misaligned. 

You do not have to engage with every single policymaker in order to be effective. Similar to scholars, policymakers also tend to specialize in issue areas, and then their colleagues go to them to lead and shape opinions on that domain. This is why Dr. Karen Bogenschneider coined the term “go-to” legislators. We also call them “champions”.

Efficient engagement requires quickly identifying policy champions. These are legislators who are actively introducing bills, shaping committee discussions, or publicly advancing a specific issue area. Precision increases the likelihood that a meeting will be scheduled and strengthens the quality of the conversation once it occurs.

Researchers’ time is limited. Policymakers’ attention is strained. Alignment matters because it improves the efficiency in initiating compatible, successful partnerships.

Scheduling Is a Capacity Problem

Even when the right policymakers are identified, securing a meeting requires persistence and infrastructure.

Researchers do not have time for the laborious process of tracking outreach, following up repeatedly, monitoring shifting policy windows, and adjusting timing. They are busy doing their full time jobs of generating new knowledge. Many are unsure which policymakers to contact or when in a legislative cycle that their engagement can be most productive.

This is not a motivation problem. It is a systems problem. Without scheduling infrastructure, even highly trained scholars may never get “in the room where it happens”.

Training builds readiness. Infrastructure builds access.

This is where dedicated legislative engagement infrastructure becomes essential. Identifying policy champions, managing contact databases, implementing scheduling tracking protocols, and maintaining structured outreach systems are not peripheral tasks. They are the mechanisms that make engagement possible. When these functions are intentional and supported, researchers can focus on their expertise while the pathway to policymakers becomes clearer and more strategic.

Why This Matters Now

Grant-funded researchers and professional societies face increasing expectations to demonstrate the public relevance of their research. Broader impact statements are no longer theoretical exercises. Research translation activities should be held to the same rigorous evidence standards that guide original scientific research. We are past the point of creating more briefs or syntheses that rest on a dusty shelf. Studies of research impact repeatedly underscore the need for engagement with “end-users” of research.

Training alone does not automatically result in an opportunity for engagement. Spinning wheels on who to contact and when creates inefficiencies. Engagement becomes more effective and feasible with adequate infrastructure. And these engagement opportunities transform didactic course learning into experiential and tacit knowledge that enables fuller integration of policy relevance into scholars’ research and teaching. 

Impact occurs through a combination of preparation and active outreach. Training increases researchers’ awareness and preparedness for engagement. Engagement infrastructure positions them to succeed in actually doing it.

If your team is investing in training, the next question is whether you have the implementation resources to support it. Building that capacity internally or partnering to accelerate it can determine whether engagement remains aspirational or becomes measurable. Read more about how TrestleLink supports researchers’ policy engagement.

Authors: Taylor Scott, PhD & Sara DeLeon, MS