In this study, we conducted in-depth interviews with 52 college graduates as they entered a Postbaccalaureate Research Education Program (PREP). Our goal was to investigate what it means for these aspiring scientists, most of whom are from groups underrepresented in the sciences, to feel ready to apply to a doctoral program in the biomedical sciences. For our analysis, we developed and used a theoretical framework which integrates concepts from identity-inpractice literature with Bourdieu's formulation of cultural capital and also examined the impact of racial, ethnic, and gender identities on education and career trajectories. Five patterns of identity work for expected engagement with PREP grew out of our analysis: Credential Seekers, PI Aspirants, Path Builders, Discipline Changers, and Interest Testers. These patterns illuminate differences in perceptions of doing, being, and becoming within science; external and internal foci of identity work; and expectations for institutional and embodied cultural capital. Our findings show that preparing for graduate education is more complex than acquiring a set of credentials as it is infused with identity work which facilitates readiness beyond preparation. This deeper understanding of individual agency and perceptions allows us to shift the focus away from a deficit model where institutions and programs attempt to "fix" students, and to offer implications for programs designed to support college graduates aspiring to become scientists. HHS Public Access Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Author ManuscriptIt is well known that African American, Hispanic, and Native American students are underrepresented in the sciences, including the biological sciences (Chen, 2009; National Academies of Science, 2011; National Science Foundation [NSF], 2013). This underrepresentation increases as students progress through higher education. While African American and Hispanic students receive around 16% of bachelor degrees in the biological sciences, they represent only about 11% of the graduate students in these fields and around 7% of the PhD recipients (NSF, 2013). At both the undergraduate and graduate levels, in the biological sciences, minority students are less apt to persist in the major to degree than are other students (Bass, Rutledge, Douglass, & Carter, 2007;Griffith, 2010). The literature on persistence identifies a number of factors contributing to these patterns including educational affordability; admissions policies and practices; educational experience and quality; social and academic integration; and faculty-student mentorship (Proirier, Tanenbaum, Storey, Kirshstein, & Rodriguez, 2009).While we acknowledge the role institutions play in student persistence, in this study, we aim to better understand individuals' experiences and perceptions at a specific decision point within a biomedical career trajectory that has not been researched. Specifically, we use indepth one-on-one interviewing to explore why 52 academically talented college gra...

This study reveals how Postbaccalaureate Research Education Programs (PREP) enable growth and development among participants along domains of readiness for academics, research, and presentation of themselves as legitimate future scientists. All domains contribute to formation or growth of an identity as a future PhD student and scientist.

Young biomedical PhD scientists are needed in a wide variety of careers. Many recent efforts have been focused on revising training approaches to help them choose and prepare for different careers. However, very little is known about how biomedical PhD students decide on and "differentiate" into careers, which limits the development of new training models. This knowledge gap also severely limits efforts to increase the representation of women and some racial/ethnic groups in academic research careers. Previous studies have used cross-sectional surveys of career interests and ratings, and have not been designed to identify career intentions. They also are limited by single-time data and response bias, having typically asked participants to recount decisions made years in the past. This report draws on annual, in-depth interviews with 147 biomedical PhD students from the start of the PhD to graduation. Qualitative content analysis methods were used to fully understand scientific development and career intentions over time. Longitudinal analysis reveals a striking level of fluidity and complexity in career intentions over time. Contrary to previous studies and the dominant narrative, data do not show generalized shifts away from academic careers. In addition to those who are consistent in this intention from the start, nearly as many students shift toward research academic careers as away from them, and only modest differences exist by gender and race/ethnicity. Thus, the dominant narrative misses the high fraction of individuals who acquire or sustain their intention to purse an academic research career during training. Efforts to increase diversity in academia must capitalize on and support those who are still considering and evolve toward an academic career. Efforts to revise research training should incorporate knowledge of the tremendous fluidity in when and how career differentiation occurs.

Purpose Women remain underrepresented as biomedical faculty and are more likely than White and Asian men to lose interest in faculty careers in graduate school. However, some women maintain interest in academic research careers during PhD training and are the most likely candidates for faculty positions. This study explored how these women described and interpreted gender issues at early stages in their training. Method Annual interviews from 2009–14 with 22 female PhD students aspiring to research faculty careers were analyzed using an iterative, content analysis approach rooted in the interview data. Focusing on career intentions and experiences with gender, race, and ethnicity, authors arrived at 11 themes which describe a range of gendered experiences and strategies. Results Of the 22 women, 19 (86%) acknowledged systemic gender inequities in science and/or reported instances of bias while 15 of them also said they had not yet experienced unequal treatment. All 22 described using at least one “gender explicit strategy,” where they based decisions on gender or in response to perceived biases. “Gender agnostic strategies” emerged for 12 (55%) who doubted that gender will affect their career. Conclusions Findings show that women biomedical PhD students continue to face conditions that can lead to unequal treatment; gender biases continue to persist. Students displayed a range of perceptions and strategies in response to these conditions at this early training stage. Following these students over time will determine if these or other strategies are required and sufficient to enable persistence toward academic careers.

No abstract