The impacts of recent federal policy changes on school psychology research have been deep and wide. That's the clearest message from the 83 colleagues who completed the Scientific Advocacy Initiative (SAI) survey this fall, including SSSP members and early-career researchers who participated in the School Psychology Research Consortium Conference (SPRCC) over the past three years.
Nearly all respondents (91.6%) reported negative impacts. Most described them as posing significant disruption, or the imminent threat of it, to their research, funding, training, or position. Respondents reported an average of more than four distinct impacts, including the elimination or restructuring of federal agencies and funding programs, delays in grant reviews, required changes in the scope of their work, and restrictions on what researchers could study or report. For Assistant Professors, the loss or restructuring of training grants was among the most frequently reported impacts. Not surprisingly, these experiences took a toll. Half of respondents reported stress or burnout, and early-career respondents worried most about their career paths. As one respondent described it, “All of the subtle changes seem like they are not fatal blows, but it is worse than a fatal blow because it is death by 1,000 paper cuts.”
But respondents' concern wasn't only for themselves. They were also worried about the future of science itself, the people being trained to advance it, the institutions that support it, and the schools and communities the research is intended to serve. Over 70% said trainees had been affected, and over half reported impacts on community partners. That matters for the questions we can answer, the research partnerships we can sustain, and the evidence schools have to draw on. One respondent described the risk as “halting progress toward evidence-based solutions [for] problems of practice in schools at a time when they are needed even more.” Another described what it meant for students: “The financial impact to me was one thing, but the impact on my students who were supported by these funds was nothing short of heartbreaking.”
When asked what kinds of support would be most helpful, respondents highlighted resources for communicating the value of school psychology research to policymakers and the public. Early-career mentoring related to research funding was another identified need. These responses suggest that researchers want more than information about changing funding opportunities. They also want ways to explain why this work matters, reach audiences beyond academia, and help sustain the people and partnerships needed to move the science forward. Respondents understand that communicating the value of school psychology research is about helping policymakers, the public, and other decision-makers understand how research can inform the decisions schools make and improve outcomes for children and families.
SAI is already acting on what you told us. We are building connections with organizations that share an interest in research and scientific advocacy, including the Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences (FABBS), which SSSP joined this year, along with APA and AERA. We are also fostering conversations with Division 16 and NASP about opportunities for coordination and collaboration. And we are working to identify and share relevant training opportunities as they arise, and to plan resources and activities of our own.
We recognize that no single initiative can address the structural challenges facing research, and we do not want to duplicate work already underway. Our goal is to identify where SAI can contribute and where collaboration can make us more effective. We will share the full survey findings at the SSSP member meeting at NASP in February. In the meantime, thank you to everyone who took the time to tell us what this moment has been like for you.
