Skip to main content

Trailblazing Work in Science Policy

Trailblazing Work in Science Policy

Award Description 

  • This award seeks to recognize and highlight outstanding individuals who have done commendable work in Science Policy related to Ecology. Judging criteria include but are not limited to: research done in Science Policy, projects/ initiatives undertaken related to Science Policy and the impact it will have in the field of Ecology. We are seeking individuals who put both effort and passion into their work with the goal of inspiring future change in the field of Science Policy.

Eligibility

  • You must be a member of ESA and the Student Section, or a first time meeting attendee.
  • You must be enrolled as a student (high school, undergraduate, Masters or Ph.D) or one year post-graduation.
  • You must be in good academic standing.
  • You must attend the Student Section Business Meeting & Trailblazing Student at ESA Award Ceremony and your attendance at other Student Section events is strongly encouraged. 
  • Preference will be given to applicants who identify as an underrepresented minority.

Application Questions

  • Demographic Information
  • Presentation info (research presentation or presentation on work in ecology science policy?)
  • Involvement/leadership in Science Policy. (include previous work and current work)
  • Describe work (summarize work you are doing in Science Policy, projects/initiatives you have been apart of, your role in the work, duration of work, etc.)
  • Impact of work
  • Future aspiration in field 

Selection Criteria

  • To prevent any biases (especially sub-conscious) all applicant names, addresses, and any other personal information will be removed prior to distribution to judges. The applications are evaluated on the following criteria:
    • Leadership Abilities: The applicant lead initiatives focused on improving, developing, and/or implementing Science Policy.
    • Rating Criteria:
      • 5: The applicant lists and clearly describes their leadership role in each of the science policy initiatives/programs they have been apart of. The applicant demonstrates extensive leadership skills in their past and current work.
      • 4: The applicant lists the science policy initiatives/programs they have been apart of, but fails to clearly describe their leadership role in each initiative/program. The applicant demonstrates extensive leadership skills in their past and current work.
      • 3: The applicant ONLY lists the science policy initiatives/programs they have been apart of. The applicant demonstrates some leadership skills in their past and current work.
      • 2: The applicant ONLY lists the science policy initiatives/programs they have been apart of. The applicant’s leadership skills are unclear. 
      • 1: The applicant does not mention any science policy initiatives/programs they have been apart of and lacks leadership experience. 
    • Description of Work: The applicant must explain the work that they have done/currently do within the field of Science Policy. The applicant should clearly describe their work and its importance to the field of ecology.
    • Rating Criteria:
      • 5: The applicant clearly explains the importance of their science policy work to the field of ecology as a whole, and provides specific details/examples of their work. 
      • 4: The applicant clearly explains the importance of their science policy work to the field of ecology as a whole, but fails to provides specific details/examples of their work. 
      • 3: The applicant provides a clear but generic explanation of their science policy work and fails to describe its importance to the field of ecology as a whole.
      • 2: The applicant provides an unclear and generic explanation of their science policy work and fails to describe its importance to the field of ecology as a whole. 
      • 1: The applicant does not explain their science policy work and fails to describe its importance to the field of ecology as a whole. 
    • Impact of Work: The applicant must explain the broad impacts of their work. How does their work impact the field of ecology? other students? the general public? science policy? etc. 
    • Rating Criteria:
      • 5: The applicant clearly explains multiple broad impacts of their science policy work and provides specific examples to support their claim.
      • 4: The applicant clearly explains one broad impact of their science policy work and provides specific examples to support their claim.
      • 3: The applicant provides a clear but generic explanation of the impact of their science policy work and fails to provide specific examples to support their claim.
      • 2: The applicant provides an unclear and generic explanation of the impact of their science policy work and fails to provide specific examples to support their claim.
      • 1: The applicant does not discuss the impact of their science policy work.
    • Future Aspirations: The applicant should describes the science policy work they aspire to do in the future and how they will continue to be involved with science policy work throughout their career.
    • Rating Criteria:
      • 5: The applicant provides specific details about the science policy work they aspire to do in the future, and clearly explains how they will continue to be involved with science policy work throughout their career.
      • 4: The applicant provides specific details about the science policy work they aspire to do in the future, but fails to clearly explain how they will continue to be involved with science policy work throughout their career. 
      • 3: The applicant provides a clear but generic description of their future science policy work and does not discuss how they will continue to be involved with science policy work throughout their career.
      • 2: The applicant provides an unclear and generic description of their future science policy work and does not discuss how they will continue to be involved with science policy work throughout their career.
      • 1: The applicant does not mention their future science policy work and does not discuss how they will continue to be involved with science policy work throughout their career.
    • Diversity and Inclusion: The applicant should describe the ways in which their current or future work promotes diversity and inclusion, with regards to culture, ethnicity, gender identity or expression, national origin, physical or mental difference, politics, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, and/or subculture, as described in ESA’s Diversity Statement. The diversity of geographic locations and/or ecology subdisciplines does NOT meet the diversity and inclusion criteria.
      • Rating Criteria:
        • 5: The applicant provides specific examples (e.g. partnering organizations, collaborators, and/or applicant led- initiatives/programs) of things they have done or plan to do in the future and clearly explain how these examples promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology
        • 4: The applicant provides specific examples (e.g. partnering organizations, collaborators, and/or applicant led-initiatives/programs) of things they have done or plan to do in the future but fails to clearly explain how these examples promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology
        • 3: The applicant provides a clear but generic example work they have done or plan to do in the future to promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology. 
        • 2: The applicant provides an unclear and generic example work they have done or plan to do in the future to promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology.
        • 1: The applicant does not mention the work they have done or plan to do in the future to promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology.
    • Syntax and Overall Quality: The application must be clear and well written. It must be apparent that the applicant thought through each question and provided thorough, proof-read responses.
      • Rating Criteria:
        • 5: The application is well written and thorough. There are almost no syntax errors indicating a proofread application.
        • 4: The application is thorough but contains some syntax errors.
        • 3: The application is thorough but contains several syntax errors, grammatical errors, and inconsistent language.
        • 2: The application is not well written and in some areas not thorough (e.g. too short, lacking details, not logically organized).
        • 1: The application lacks thoroughness throughout and is poorly written.
    • Optional Uploads & Web Links: Bonus creativity points will be given to applicants who including optional uploads and/or links that illustrate: 1) the applicant’s work, 2) the impact and/or significance of their work, and/or 3) address any of the application questions in a creative/non-traditional way. Examples: videos that depict your work/research, social media sites used to educate the public, infographics created during a project, creative websites used to explain your work.
      • Rating Criteria:
        • 5: Optional uploads and/or web links are original, interesting, and engaging/interactive. Applicant shows exceptional creativity.
        • 3: Optional uploads and/or web links are original and interesting. Applicant shows some creativity
        • 1: Optional uploads and/or web links has some creative elements, showing an attempt to be creative