The Science, Business and Policy Program (SBP) of the University of Groningen has been a work-based learning program for science master students since two decades. This program, a direct consequence of the Bologna declaration of education in Europe, has a distinctive position in European science curricula. Here, we use a web-based survey (N = 242), comparing alumni perceptions on the SBP program (N = 111) with a research oriented master (ROM, N = 131). Alumni from both programs predominantly had a content-driven motivation to choose for either the ROM or SBP format. For SBP alumni, this preference was also inspired by the master's focus on society and a career outside academia. We assessed self-perceived learning outcomes using an extended version of the Science Student Skills Inventory. Both groups were positive about the academic level of their program. Scientific content knowledge and practical research skills were perceived as sufficient by both groups, although significantly higher in the ROM group. Both groups were equally positive about obtained skills in academic reasoning and would have preferred more disciplinary content knowledge. The SBP group perceived their skills on teamwork, multidisciplinary working, leadership, ethical thinking and project work to be significantly higher compared to ROM alumni. The SBP group felt significantly more prepared for a career outside academia and the ROM group for a career in academia. Relatively the ROM group missed career preparation. Both specific work-based learning and classical research approaches were seen as valid ways to obtain a high-quality, science master level, although for different career ambitions.
Keywords: work-based learning; science; Business and Policy; alumni perceptions; career; curriculum comparison
The Science, Business and Policy Program (SBP) of the University of Groningen has been a work-based learning program for science master students since two decades. This program, a direct consequence of the Bologna declaration of education in Europe, has a distinctive position in European science curricula (Grooters et al., [
A promising solution lies in providing work experience within the academic framework. Work-based learning (WBL) is an educational form enabling this. WBL is also criticized upon (cf: Lester & Costley, [
Our main research question is: "To what extent do ROM-alumni and WBL-alumni differ in the perception of their master's programs, specifically with regard to bridging science and society?"
More specifically, we want to know whether the WBL-program is distinctive, and qualitatively comparable to a ROM-program based on alumni perceptions; which skills alumni perceived to have acquired and missed during the master's program; to what extent alumni appreciated, and were satisfied with the program; and finally, did alumni feel prepared for the career they were heading for?
To answer those questions from a (former) student perspective, a web-based survey is conducted among alumni who graduated between 2 and 18 years ago. They answered questions comprising a long-term reflection on the content and experience of their master, using (partially) standardized questionnaire items suitable for comparison between programs.
Situating the development of a European bachelor-master structure (Bologna Working Group, [
FSE students follow a 2 year 120 ECTS master program (ISCED level 7). In the first year, discipline-specific research courses are taken as well as a research thesis (of usually 30–40 ECTS). In the second year, students can choose between:
- A Research Oriented Master in which students do a second research thesis (30–40 ECTS), supplemented with an essay, a colloquium and more research courses. This route is aimed at acquiring scientific knowledge and preparing for an academic career.
- The Science, Business and Policy program in which students first do two courses with a theory part on Business and Policy and group projects for real clients in the business sector or with governmental agencies. The courses are followed by a relatively long individual work placement (six months, 40 ECTS). During this work placement outside academia the students learn on the spot to become a science advisor and apply academic knowledge to societal, (i.e.-business or policy) problems (for a more detailed description and learning outcomes: Grooters et al., [
23 ]).
SBP can be described as a WBL-program. The educational strategy of SBP is to offer work experience within the curriculum to students at companies or (non-) governmental organisations where they can apply their academic knowledge and combine and integrate this with Business or Policy. Hereby students can work on their employability and skills required for a non-academic career.
The concept of work-based learning is explained in many different ways for many different groups. In this article, our focus is on science students in a conventional cohort of young full-time students who follow a regular study route (i.e. excluding adult learners) and we focus on the program of the last year of their master. We define WBL as: "The term 'work-based learning' logically refers to all and any learning that is situated in the workplace or arises directly out of workplace concerns." (Lester & Costley, [
The number of work-based learning programs offered at universities is rapidly increasing, which is not surprising given the multiple positive influences of WBL. First, WBL-programs have shown to effectively foster students' personal, professional and academic development. WBL students gain—next to the regular academic theoretical development—more practical expertise and skills and reported increased levels of confidence, competence, the ability to reflect and understand, as well as an ongoing desire to learn and develop (Costley & Stephenson, [
Second, WBL-programs can have distinct benefits for organizations that offer work placements. To start, the work placement project itself brings value when the WBL-student and WBL-organization match well. The work placement project adds knowledge to the organization's intellectual capital (Garnett, [
From an academic educational point of view, an important argument for WBL is providing education that optimizes career perspectives and enables students to keep up with requirements from the work field. Modern education can thereby focus on the ability to train students in dealing with the ongoing changing environment, the enormous pace of technological change and complex context, as stressed important in literature (Barnett, [
There are also a number of critiques concerning offering WBL at science education on a master's level. First, WBL in general is sometimes considered a non-academic practice. In the Netherlands, gaining experience during a placement is seen as typical for applied education (bachelors, ISCED level 5) and not as master's level (ISCED level 7) education. Critics mention WBL's absence of a proper curriculum, a lack of theoretical exams, written assignments and academic specialization (Lester & Costley, [
Second, by transferring part of the academic education to a place outside academia you also transfer control over the curriculum and learning outcomes, which might not be desirable (Powell & Walsh, [
The third point of critique is perhaps more specific for science education. From literature, we know that science programs usually tend to value scientific content knowledge over skills required to apply the content knowledge (Wieman, [
To answer our research questions, a survey was conducted among alumni. This survey contained questions about perception of the study program, that are shown in this article and about career perception, which will be published separately. Permission for the distribution of the survey has been given by the ethical committee of the University of Groningen (CETO submission number 63,104,880).
In total 2,473 FSE alumni were approached (for the selection procedure see, appendix A). The participants invited were all alumni of programmes that offer SBP and ROM in the second master's year. In total, 242 alumni who graduated between the academic years 2001/2002 and 2017/2018 from the FSE of the University of Groningen completed the questionnaire and were included for analysis. More specifically, 111 SBP alumni (32.0% of approached SBP alumni) and 131 ROM alumni (6.2% of approached ROM alumni) completed the questionnaire. Respondents were able to skip questions if they did not want to answer, therefore the number of participants varies per item.
Table 1 shows participants' age and gender distribution. On average, participants were between 29 and 32 years old. For the SBP group, there was a significant difference between the age of male and female participants (F(
Table 1. Age and years since graduation, per gender/program
Age in years N Min Max Mean SD Male 61 24 57 32.15 5.78 Female 50 24 50 29.88 4.86 Male 64 24 41 29.61 3.79 Female 62 25 37 29.09 3.27 Other 4 25 39 31.80 5.07 Male 61 2 16 7.67 4.48 Female 50 2 18 6.64 4.70 Male 64 2 15 5.38 3.24 Female 61 2 18 6.43 3.39 Other 4 2 12 7.00 4.40
The alumni graduated on average 6.5 years prior to participation in the survey (Table 1). There is a significant difference between the SBP and ROM alumni for graduation year (F(
Table 2 shows the disciplinary backgrounds of the SBP and ROM group. Biology alumni form the largest group of respondents. The second largest group had a medical discipline, biomedical alumni in the SBP group and medical pharmaceutical alumni in the ROM group.
Table 2. Percentual disciplinary background of alumni, SBP group n = 110, ROM group n = 131
Science Discipline SBP ROM Biology 40% 22% Biomedical Sciences 32% 12% Medical Pharmaceutical Sciences 9% 21% Chemistry 4% 4% Physics/Astronomy 4% 16% Mathematics 4% 9% Computer Sciences/Artificial Intelligence 3% 14% Energy & Environmental Sciences 2% 0% Other 3% 4%
The questionnaire was based on previously developed standardized questionnaires in addition to non-standardized questions constructed by the researchers of this paper. All questions were checked on questionnaire design recommendations (cf., Dijkstra et al., [
Preceding academic quality assurance in general is the need for universities for each bachelor's and master's program to formulate learning outcomes for degree programs they offer (Mercer-Mapstone & Matthews, [
To assess academic skills, all six original items of the SSSI were used: (1. Scientific content knowledge in your field(s) of study; 2. Communication skills (oral scientific presentations); 3. Writing skills (scientific writing); 4. Quantitative skills (mathematical & statistical reasoning); 5. Team work skills (working with others to accomplish a shared task); 6. Ethical thinking (ethical responsibilities and approaches)). The following question was asked for every skill: "During the entire master's degree programme I followed at the FSE, I improved (skill) ... ". Participants had to evaluate these statements on a 5-point-scale (ranging from I totally disagree to I totally agree).
To the SSSI four additional skills were added, based on the SBP's learning outcomes (7. Practical research skills (i.e. lab work and modelling); 8. Academic reasoning (i.e. analytical and critical thinking); 9. Project-based working skills (to achieve a certain goal with limited resources); 10. Leadership skills (i.e. guiding & managing a team)). Furthermore, participants were asked to assign their master's program a general grade (ranging from 1 to 10), and to evaluate statements on a 5-point scale (ranging from I totally disagree to I totally agree) about their master's program in relation to its value in the faculty's curriculum and career preparation (Generally speaking, I believe the SBP track ... 1) is a positive addition to the curriculum of master's programmes that can be followed at the FSE; 2) should remain available as an optional master's track within a master's programme of the FSE; 3) contributes to students' career preparation for a career in academia; and 4) contributes to students' career preparation for a career outside academia).
In this survey, three open-ended questions were posed (Table 3). Responses were coded by two independent coders and an intercoder reliability (Cohen, [
Table 3. Open-ended questions
Topic Question Kappa Motivation of choice Do you remember the most important reason or reasons for choosing to follow the SBP track/ research track? If you do, please enter the reason/reasons below. 0.96 Acquired Skills What do you believe are the most important skills you still use in your professional life today, that you have developed (further) by following the SBP track/ research track? 0.97 Missed Skills Think about the information and/or skills that you miss, or have missed during your professional life. What do you believe should have been included in the SBP curriculum that was not included'? 0.85
The data were collected using survey software Qualtrics. Before participation, respondents were asked for informed consent. After giving consent, participants answered demographic questions and the open-ended questions. Then, items from the SSSI, additional learning goals and program satisfaction were presented to respondents. Lastly, participants were asked several questions on their first job after graduation and current job. The latter questions go beyond the scope of this paper and are part of another study. After data collection, any identifying information was removed from the data. Statistical analyses were carried out with statistics software SPSS. Depending on meeting assumptions, (i.e., normality, equality of variances), parametric tests (Univariate ANOVA's) or non-parametric alternative tests (Welch & Brown-Forsythe tests) were carried out.
For the open-ended questions, using an inductive coding strategy, participants' responses were coded based on non-predefined categories. The data was first coded by two student-assistants, not involved in the data collection. Then, overarching coding categories were created that merged similar coding categories (For the code book see table A1 in Appendix B). Lastly, all data was coded based on these merged categories by the second author of this article. The first author double-coded 100 responses (50 SBP, 50 ROM).
The SBP alumni and ROM alumni responded in a different way to the open-ended question "Motivation of choice" (Figure 1). Study content was frequently mentioned by both groups. For the SBP alumni frequent motivations to choose the SBP program also included the focus outside academia and the focus on society. For the ROM alumni, their choice was motivated mostly by the alumni's personal interest. The focus on academia (research) was a motivation for 14% of this group, among the SBP alumni nobody mentioned this. Other motivations were recommendation of others (1% for the SBP group and 14% of the ROM group) and career in general.
Graph: Figure 1. Motivation of choice of the study program, open-ended question, SBP group n = 110, ROM group n = 125.
On average, alumni of FSE evaluated their education rounded an 8 out of 10 but ROM alumni give a slightly, but significantly, higher grade than SBP alumni (Table 4) when it comes to evaluating their master's program F(
Table 4. Grade alumni give to their study program, scale 1–10
N Min Max M SD 110 4.10 9.50 7.76 0.87 130 3.80 10.00 8.00 0.79
Table 5. Appreciation, academic level and career preparation of second master year, measured with a statement, agreeing on Likert-scale 1–5 (1 strongly disagree – 5 strongly agree) ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05
Statement Group N M SD Percentage agreement (4 or 5) SBP 111 4.44 0.64 95.5% ROM 125 4.31 0.81 88.0% SBP 111 4.63 0.60 95.5% ROM 112 4.32 0.90 84.8% SBP 111 4.06 0.70 83.8% ROM 128 4.42 0.87 91.4% SBP 111 3.22 0.98 41.4% ROM 131 4.39 0.89 90.1% SBP 111 4.35 0.63 96.4% ROM 126 3.08 1.09 39.7% SBP 111 4.16 0.57 92.8% SBP 110 4.19 0.66 89.2%
SBP alumni only were asked questions on their satisfaction with the track and whether they would recommend their track to others. For both statements, SBP alumni generally agreed with the given statements.
In their perceived academic level of the program (Table 5), almost all participants scored 4 or higher. This shows that the alumni generally agreed with the statement that their master's program led to obtaining a sufficient academic level. There is a significant difference between the two groups, SBP alumni score a bit lower in their perception (M = 4.06) than the ROM group (M = 4.42), F(
Figure 2 the results of the SSSI, assessing the learning outcomes more specifically. Zooming in on the alumni's reflection on their learned skills, both groups indicate that they have increased their scientific knowledge fairly. ROM alumni thought they improved their scientific content knowledge during the whole master's program more so than SBP alumni (F (
Graph: Figure 2. SSSI skills precepted by alumni right after graduation on Likert-scale (1 strongly disagree- 5 strongly agree). SBP group n = 109–111, ROM group n = 130–131. *** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
Figure 3 shows the results for the added skills. For practical research skills (lab work), both groups indicated that they have increased fairly. The ROM alumni thought they improved their practical research skills during the whole master's program more so than SBP alumni, F(
Graph: Figure 3. Additional skills precepted by alumni right after graduation on Likert-scale (1 strongly disagree- 5 strongly agree). SBP group n = 110–111, ROM group n = 131. *** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
For the ROM group, the most frequently mentioned acquired skills were scientific/research skills (Figure 4), followed by disciplinary content knowledge. For the SBP group the frequently mentioned skills acquired vary more and included teamwork, personal development, communication and disciplinary content knowledge.
Graph: Figure 4. Acquired skills in final master year, open-ended question. SBP group n = 106, ROM group n = 126.
For the most important skills that participants missed that should have been included in their master's program (Figure 5), disciplinary knowledge was most often missed among SBP alumni (33%) and was missed almost equally by ROM alumni (29%). However, ROM alumni most often missed career preparation skills (45%). A smaller percentage of the SBP alumni missed career preparation skills as well (29%). Other missed skills by both groups were on communication. A part of the SBP group also wanted to have acquired more business skills (25%).
Graph: Figure 5. Missed skills after final master year, open-ended question. SBP group n = 91, ROM group n = 110.
When alumni reflected on career preparation (Table 5), both groups scored well for preparation for an academic career. However, there is a significant difference between SBP alumni and ROM alumni in their perception of being prepared for a career in academia, F(
In this article, we aimed to find an answer from an alumni perspective to the question whether work-based learning (WBL) and research oriented master's (ROM) programs differ with regard to bridging science and society. Being a new educational development we wanted to find out if the work-based learning master's program Science, Business and Policy (SBP) offers sufficient basis for a successful societal science career. To answer this question, web-based surveys were conducted in two groups of alumni who had completed different programs at the same faculty and university, the SBP group (WBL) and the ROM group (research oriented master). From SBP alumni's perception the WBL-program was considered distinctive, qualitatively good and on sufficient academic level. Participants appreciated SBP and reported that the program prepared the students well for a different career than the classic research program. It is perceived suitable for those who aspire a career outside academia, where experience in the work field is so important.
First, we had to check whether the SBP group is indeed comparable to the ROM group. Both group samples include well over 100 alumni. The response rate was higher in the SBP alumni group, which can be explained by the reminder email this group received. Possibly, SBP alumni felt more directly addressed or involved in improving the SBP program by participation in the survey. Diversity was the overarching theme in the participants' backgrounds. In SBP and ROM we find alumni with different disciplinary background, of different ages and gender. To review a multidisciplinary program, it is advantageous that alumni from various backgrounds have responded. Fortunately, we found this in both alumni groups, with minimal differences between the groups.
There were however some noticeable differences between the groups in general characteristics. SBP participants graduated on average a bit more than a year earlier than FSE participants. This bias could be explained by the more intensive alumni-university relation of the SBP alumni. This is important information since they have had longer development time, might respond differently due to longer involvement or had more difficulty to retrieve details about their education because of the longer time frame (Bradburn et al., [
The SBP and ROM groups also differed in their perceived learning outcomes. Compared to the ROM group, SBP alumni reported more development of oral communication skills, ethical thinking, teamwork skills, project-based working skills and leadership skills. These are all skills that are specifically trained during the SBP program (Grooters et al., [
We also investigated whether SBP, as a distinctive program, still was perceived as qualitatively comparable and up to standards on an academic level. Alumni in both groups feel that they have increased their academic skills in their program. For most skills, alumni felt that their program provided sufficient development. Exceptions to this are seen in the ROM group's leadership skills (moderate growth), whereas the SBP group did not score any skills insufficiently. For writing skills and quantitative skills, no differences were found between the two programs. Also, no differences were found for academic reasoning, a skill that is often considered responsible for academic level (Gaast van der et al., [
For a next step in the evaluation of WBL master programs like SBP, it would also be interesting to investigate how the SBP alumni performed after their graduation and to see whether the effects reported here continue to play a role in their professional live. This would allow to study the impact of WBL education in science on the career perspective. Furthermore, it will also be interesting to extend research (Lester et al., [
We thank M.J. van den Nieuwenhof, J.Zevenberg, M.van Rijssel, B. Piersma and H.J. van der Windt for their helpful comments and thank student-assistants Allard de Vries and Nina van den Velden for coding and data support.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
SBP alumni participants were recruited from the SBP alumni subject pool of the Science, Business and Policy database. The SBP program keeps its own alumni database containing only alumni who granted permission to contact them (almost all). All of the SBP alumni from the database got an invitation to join if they graduated before 2019 (n = 347). The SBP alumni also received a reminder. The ROM alumni, who followed a 2 year research program, were recruited from the general alumni subject pool of the University of Groningen (SBP students excluded). In total, 2,126 invitations were sent to the ROM alumni that granted permission for contact. They received an invitation once, i.e., no reminder. Programs that do not give access to SBP were excluded from the ROM group, i.e., all engineering programs and technical business administration.
For both groups, invitations were send via email. In this email, participants were informed that they were invited for an online study about their perceptions of the master's programme(s) they followed at the FSE of the University of Groningen, that this study was aimed at improving the FSE's knowledge regarding teaching programmes, that it could be used for making evidence-based choices with regard to the FSE's future curriculum and for writing external reports. Participants had to grant informed consent before they could participate in the research. This consent also indicated the anonymisation and integer use of data. Partial completion of the survey was also possible. When finished, participants were thanked for their participation. There was no reward, bonus or compensation system for filling in the survey. Contribution to this research was completely voluntary.
The coding procedure was as follows: the code was scored as present (
Table A1. Coding justifications "Acquired skills"
Skills Acquired Justification Code Scientific/Research skills Mastering scientific and research skills (within all facets of research). This includes: critical thinking, being able to analyse, logical thinking, but also policy and business analyses (being able to master tools) and lab work. Preparing for academic careers. Disciplinary content knowledge Having specific, professional knowledge within various components such as being able to program and perform for example, a genetic screening. To be in possession of knowledge in the field of business and policy and to be able to bridge the gap between science and business/policy. To translate scientific knowledge into practice. Communication skills Having communication skills for different situations and target groups. The development of presentation and teaching skills. Being able to deal well with people/colleagues/customers by listening and connecting them. Having useful social contacts within and outside the study program. Have a network and can maintain it. To perform the role as (science) advisor. To be able to deal with different cultures. Being able to give feedback. Writing skills Conducting reports, writing advisory reports, but also academic writing, creating papers. Teamwork skills Working together, collaborating with others, but also less direct formulations are allowed: working with people/others. Finding a place in a group, adaptability, managing teams. Social skills. Project-based working skills Being able to work on a project or issue in a team or individually. Working towards a specific goal (with limited resources/time). Being able to provide structure to solving a problem. Leadership skills Role of supervisor. Being able to lead employees and/or fellow students and take responsibility in this. Daring to take decisions, making (difficult) decisions and being able to take responsibility for this. The ability to think in solutions and think strategically. Multidisciplinary thinking/working To have a broader view than your own discipline and to be able to approach matters from different perspectives and to be able to collaborate with others from different backgrounds or disciplines. Combining scientific knowledge with practice. Switch between science/practice Personal development Developments on a personal level, psychological changes, especially the development of soft skills, such as self-reflection, personal growth, being able to work independently, planning, becoming more assertive. Hands-on experience Experience in practice and/or practical experience during the internship. Being able to work application-oriented. Having (international) experience and being able to deal with different cultures. Using or applying skills (in practice). No skills Alumni indicates that he or she has not acquired any skills during the study.
Pre-testers were 30 bachelor students following the second year bachelor's course "Questionnaire and interview design" of the study "Communication and Information sciences" (from now on CIS) at the University of Groningen. Every CIS-student was instructed to carry out and analyse cognitive interviews based on a first draft of the questionnaire. The CIS-students received interviewer training and relevant literature (e.g., Beatty & Willis, [
The CIS-students practiced with two methods of cognitive interviewing. First, the think-aloud method, which implies that participants are asked to evaluate a questionnaire by verbalizing all their thoughts during the entire process of filling out the questionnaire (Haak Van den et al., [
Participants were 29—at the time of the interview—SBP students, 14—at the time of the interview—master's students of an unrelated master program and 35 master's alumni (from different backgrounds). All participants were between their early twenties and late thirties and around seven out of ten participants were female and three out of ten were male. All CIS-students had to analyse three interviews. In total, 78 cognitive interviews were conducted, on which 90 analyses were carried out (i.e., some students analysed (recordings of) cognitive interviews that were conducted and also analysed by other students, thereby doubling some cases). One cognitive interview was never analysed more than twice.
The choice to carry out cognitive interviews with members of similar populations (e.g., other master's students and master's alumni) and not with actual members of the population of the final study (SBP alumni) was a conscious choice, based on the fact that the SBP population is relatively small, and the whole population is targeted in the actual study (i.e., no sample of the population was drawn).
Participants of the cognitive interviews were informed about the purpose of the study, and instructed and able to practise to think-aloud during filling in the questionnaire. Before the actual study started, all participants had to give explicit consent by filling out a consent form. After about 30 interviews data saturation took place. Still, all input from the pre-test assignment of the CIS-students was used by the (second and third) author of this paper to refine and optimize the questionnaire.
This optimized questionnaire was cognitively tested again by the (second) author of this paper and a student-assistant in a cumulative way: after each cognitive interview the questionnaire was adjusted based on the findings of the prior interviews). In this way, the adjustments that were made could be tested in the next cognitive interview to make sure the adjustments did not result in new cognitive problems or unclarities. The sequence of cognitive interviewing and adjusting the questionnaire was carried out until no cognitive problems or unclarities were found during the cognitive interview. After six of these cumulative cognitive interviews no new cognitive problems arose, and as such, the final questionnaire was constructed together with the other authors of this paper.
By Saskia Grooters; Emma Zaal; Yfke Ongena and Menno Gerkema
Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author
Saskia Grooters works as a coordinator of, and lecturer in the work-based learning track Science, Business and Policy (SBP) at the Faculty of Science and Engineering of the University of Groningen. Based on real-life projects, she develops educational programs and promotes experience-based learning based on collaboration with the professional field. The SBP program was selected as best-case practice of WBL in Europe (WEXHE project, European Union) in 2018. Saskia obtained master's degrees in Biomedical Sciences, Neurosciences and Psychology. Based on her experience in the corporate world and theoretical knowledge, she tries to bridge science and society on multiple levels.
Emma Zaal is a member of the Discourse and Communication group, Faculty of Arts, University of Groningen. Emma is currently working on her PhD-project, in which she investigates how socially desirable responding can best be predicted, measured and reduced in online survey research. She also teaches the course questionnaire- and interview design at the Faculty of Arts of the University of Groningen. Before her PhD, Emma worked as research-assistant at the Faculty of Science and Engineering, where she investigated the societal impact of the work-based learning track Science, Business and Policy.
Yfke Ongena is a member of the Discourse and Communication group, Faculty of Arts, University of Groningen. She is a communication expert, specializing in survey research methodology. Her interests lie in verbal interaction between interviewers and respondents, and the phenomenon of social desirability and its effects on answering behavior in surveys. Yfke also teaches courses like statistics, academic skills and questionnaire- and interview design at the Faculty of Arts of the University of Groningen.
Menno Gerkema is an emeritus professor Science, Business and Policy (SBP) and Chronobiology, at the Faculty of Science and Engineering of the University of Groningen. He is co-developer of the curriculum of the work-based learning program SBP and is co- founder of Chrono@Work. Menno supervised a variety of PhD-projects on Science and Society interactions. Within his main field of chronobiological research he studied ultradian rhythms in animal behavior, neurophysiological regulation of circadian output, mechanisms of daily memory, evolution of night- and day active behavior and long-term consequences of shift-work.