Rethinking How We Work with Advisors

In this project, I have had the opportunity to work with a highly skilled and diverse team focused on increasing the inclusion of children on the autism spectrum in informal STEM institutions. One of the most rewarding parts of this work has been the chance to collaborate with experts from across the country. Our advisory group brings together a wide range of perspectives, experiences, and areas of expertise, and that breadth has made the project stronger at every stage. Rather than treating the advisory group as a procedural requirement, our team wanted to create a structure that would allow members to engage in meaningful, ongoing ways.

As with many grant-funded projects, we had assembled a nationally recognized advisory board to review progress and provide guidance. From the beginning, we recognized that this group had the potential to offer much more than periodic feedback. Because advisory members were located across the country and brought different forms of knowledge to the table, we saw an opportunity to create a more connected and useful model of engagement. Our relatively simple structure has created one of the most dynamic and meaningful advisory experiences I have seen across the many grants I have supported. Meeting regularly allows us to share timely updates, bring forward focused questions, and engage advisors as project needs emerge. Instead of asking members to absorb a large amount of information all at once, we can keep them connected to the work as it unfolds. That makes their feedback more relevant, more specific, and more actionable.

The one-on-one conversations have added another important layer. In group meetings, not every advisor has the same space to reflect in depth or connect their expertise to a particular challenge. Individual conversations create room for that deeper exchange. They allow advisory members to ask detailed questions, offer more nuanced insights, and identify concrete ways they can support the project. These conversations also strengthen relationships and help advisory participation feel more collaborative and purposeful.

That approach has already led to meaningful contributions. A researcher helped connect the project to synergistic grant programs and related work in the field. An undergraduate student gained valuable experience by supporting the research team. A professional association leader helped disseminate project findings to member organizations. A parent of a child on the autism spectrum shared insights grounded in lived experience that helped the program team think more carefully about family needs and priorities. Adults on the autism spectrum also offered direct feedback and ideas that strengthened the project’s relevance and responsiveness. These contributions did not just add perspective in a general sense. They shaped the work in concrete ways.

This experience has reminded me that advisory groups can do far more than review project updates. When teams engage advisory members strategically and consistently, advisors can become active thought partners, connectors, and contributors. That kind of engagement strengthens the project, but it also creates a more meaningful experience for advisory members themselves. They are not simply asked to react to the work from a distance. They are invited into an ongoing process of reflection, problem-solving, and support.

As the project continues, we plan to maintain this model of advisory engagement. It has helped us build stronger connections, gather more useful feedback, and make better use of the expertise our advisors bring. Most importantly, it has shown us that when we create intentional ways for people to contribute, advisory work becomes more than a checkpoint. It becomes an active part of how a project learns, grows, and improves.