Faculty perceptions and knowledge of career development of trainees in biomedical science: What do we (think we) know?

Watts, Stephanie W.; Chatterjee, Deepshikha; Rojewski, Julie; Reiss, Carol Shoshkes; Baas, Tracey; Gould, Kathleen L.; Brown, A. C.; Chalkley, Roger; Brandt, Patrick D.; Wefes, Inge; Hyman, Linda E.; Ford, J. Kevin

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0210189

Cited by 27 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Midwest-BEST is a regional alliance of several sites in the Midwest (WSU, University of Chicago, and MSU), UCSF, and UC Davis are collaborating on their internship program, 29 and MSU and Vanderbilt have collaborated with NYU, UR, UNC, and UC Denver on a faculty survey to analyze changes in perception of their approaches. 9 Sites report that new career services offices have formed, and their "BEST" offices obtained financial support from their institutions. Some programs received alumni funds, some have been integrated into existing offices of career development, and others are receiving funds from industry partners.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We present some initial descriptive data on trainees’ confidence, development of infrastructure and sustainability, and association of BEST activities with TTD. The influence of BEST programs on faculty attitudes has been addressed by the awardees . Although it is premature to draw meaningful conclusions about the long‐term outcomes of the BEST programs, the baseline information presented here provides insights into program activities and the attitudes and expectations of trainees and faculty.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The NIH “BEST” programs: Institutional programs, the program evaluation, and early data

Lenzi

Korn

Wallace³

et al. 2020

FASEB j.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomedical research training has undergone considerable change over the past several years. At its core, the goal of graduate and postdoctoral training is to provide individuals with the skills and knowledge to become outstanding scientists and expand knowledge through the scientific method. Historically, graduate school training has focused on preparation for academic positions. Increasingly, however, a shift toward preparation for a wider range of career options has emerged. This is largely because most biomedical PhD graduates do not become Principal Investigators in academic laboratories. Here we describe an National Institutes of Health Common Fund program with the major goal of culture change for biomedical research training and training that prepares individuals for a broader expanse of careers in the biomedical research enterprise. These “Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training” (BEST) awards, issued in 2012 and 2013, provided support to institutions to develop innovative approaches to achieving these goals, as a complement to traditional training. Awardees were tasked with catalyzing change at their institutions and sharing best practices across the training community. Awardees were required to participate in a cross‐site evaluation that assessed the impact of BEST activities on three main areas: (a) trainee confidence and knowledge to make career decisions, (b) influence of this added activity on time in training, and (c) ability of the institutions to sustain activities deemed to be beneficial. Here we present the fundamental approach to the BEST program and early evaluative data.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The NIH “BEST” programs: Institutional programs, the program evaluation, and early data

Lenzi

Korn

Wallace³

et al. 2020

FASEB j.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies published by BEST institutions have further reinforced this change in faculty attitudes (25). These studies showed that faculty's initial hesitation is evolving to an understanding that next-generation scientists will not only need to be excellent researchers, but also need to be equipped with professional skills that are more effectively learned outside the laboratory.…”

Section: Culture Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring effects of trainee professional development on research productivity: A cross-institutional meta-analysis

Brandt¹,

Varvayanis

Baas

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PhD-trained scientists are essential contributors to the workforce in diverse employment sectors that include academia, industry, government, and non-profit organizations. Hence, best practices for training the future biomedical workforce are of national concern. Complementing coursework and laboratory research training, many institutions now offer professional training that enables career exploration and develops a broad set of skills critical to various career paths. The National Institutes of Health funded academic institutions to design innovative programming to enable this professional development through a mechanism known as Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training (BEST). Programming at the BEST awardee institutions included career panels, skill-building workshops, job-searching workshops, site visits, and internships. An initial concern was since doctoral training is lengthy and requires focused attention on dissertation research, having students participate in additional complementary training activities might lengthen time to degree and hamper student research productivity. To address this concern, using time to degree and publication records as measures of efficiency and productivity, metrics were analyzed from ten BEST awardee institutions. Comparing doctoral students who participated to those who did not, results revealed that across these diverse academic institutions, there were no differences in time to degree or manuscript output. Furthermore, a few institutions even demonstrated a positive correlation between participation in career and professional development activities and productivity. Our findings suggest that doctoral students should be encouraged to participate in career and professional development opportunities to ensure their preparedness for a variety of diverse and important careers in the workforce.Significance StatementOur study is unique in that it compiled doctoral degree durations at ten different universities, recorded individual participation in career and professional development activities in terms of dosage, and tracked individual engagement in real-time rather than relying on surveys sent to trainees after graduation. Participation in career and professional development activities, including internships, did not decrease efficiency or productivity. Our findings suggest that doctoral students should be encouraged to participate in career and professional development opportunities to ensure their preparedness for a variety of diverse and important careers in the workforce.

show abstract

“…While the majority of faculty may not have the resources or experience to support their trainee's career interests, they may impact psychosocial support that is important for trainee confidence in pursuing broad careers. Faculty perspectives on this, for example Watts et al (2019), vary and there are faculty who overtly are not supportive of their trainees pursuing broad career outcomes due to a lack of knowledge about non-academic career options (Dowd & Kaplan, 2005) or are pressured to develop protégés that are well placed in academia (Blackburn, Chapman, & Cameron, 1981;Fogarty & Saftner, 1993;Watts et al, 2019). From a trainee perspective, this lack of support can pose challenges to development for broader career outcomes (Chatterjee et al, 2019).…”

Section: The Role Of Facultymentioning

confidence: 99%

Doctoral Trainee Preferences for Career Development Resources: The Influence of Peer and Other Supportive Social Capital

Clair

Melkers

Rojewski

et al. 2019

IJDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim/Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to understand doctoral and postdoctoral trainee preferences for different models of career development resources and how career-relevant social capital affects these preferences. Background: The supply and demand mismatch within the academic job market is augmented by a growing complaint that trainees are not prepared for a range of careers beyond the academic. So, trainees are often put in a position to seek out resources to navigate their career search processes, yet, the career development strategies that they pursue and the preferences that they have for different types of career development resources is not well understood. Drawing from existing higher education and social capital theory literatures, we examine how trainee preferences for career development resources are shaped by the career support received from their Principal Investigator (PI) and peers, as well as their own self-efficacy. Methodology: We focus on doctoral and postdoctoral trainees in the biomedical science and engineering disciplines at two sites (but involving three institutions) funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training (BEST) Program, a program designed to help prepare trainees for a broad variety of bio-medically related careers within and outside of academic research. Using a survey of both BEST and non-BEST trainees (those not formally in a BEST program), we conducted descriptive and logistic regression analyses of survey data to assess the factors affecting trainee preferences for three different types of career development models: (1) an intensive cohort career development experience (BEST “cohort”), (2) ad-hoc resources (“cafeteria”), or (3) choosing not to seek any career development resources at all. Contribution: This study contributes to the doctoral trainee research base by (1) taking a quantitative approach to cohort based interventions for career development, concepts historically largely examined by qualitative methods, (2) distinguishing among the types and sources of support to better tease out the different types of relationships trainees may have, (3) identifying these issues for both the experiences of the doctoral student and the lesser-studied postdoctoral fellow, and (4) moving beyond a single institution study context by examining data from three different university programs, which allows us to control for institutional and demographic characteristics which importantly is recognized as a significant need in cohort model research. Findings: We find that social capital in the form of a supportive environment and peer support was critical for shaping career development preferences. Cohort programs were particularly attractive to trainees interested in careers outside of academic science and who had low career self-efficacy. Trainees who reported high levels of PI support were less likely to pursue other career development resources, while students reporting low levels of PI support were more likely to choose to participate in a career development focused BEST cohort community. Trainees who reported low levels of PI, department, and peer support were less likely to participate in formal career development events or resources offered by academic institutions. Recommendations for Practitioners: These findings can inform university and career development administrators about the social context in which trainees develop and how that matters for how they prefer and value different formats and intensities of career support. Our recommendations point to the importance of developing (if possible) different models for providing career development resources, so trainees can take advantage of the ones most suitable for them. We further recommend programs consider different marketing strategies for the types of career development programs they offer in order for trainees to understand their options and engage in the resources that make the most sense for them. Highlighting the benefits of cohort based programs will help attract those trainees who desire and need that type of support. This clarity in program goals not only helps to set and manage expectations for trainees to know what the outcomes can be, it also helps to inform programs in terms of what resources to use and measure in helping move trainees along in their own career progression. Recommendation for Researchers: We recommend empirically differentiating the different types of support trainees may receive, as our results emphasized that the source of support matters. We also recommend that this study be replicated across different disciplines to assess the extent to which these findings apply universally. Impact on Society: This research is especially important for its impact for the job market and graduate higher education. With the growth in graduate career development training available across U.S. campuses, by designing and targeting the appropriate interventions for career development in academic institutions we can better prepare trainees for their next steps after training as they enter into the job market. Future Research: Future research needs to further examine the black-boxes that are the doctoral student and postdoctoral experiences. This literature is growing, but we need a more concerted effort to understand how factors like support (in its various forms) work with other factors, like career development efficacy. Within this context, future research should look at first generation trainees, as well.

show abstract

Faculty perceptions and knowledge of career development of trainees in biomedical science: What do we (think we) know?

Cited by 27 publications

References 10 publications

The NIH “BEST” programs: Institutional programs, the program evaluation, and early data

The NIH “BEST” programs: Institutional programs, the program evaluation, and early data

Measuring effects of trainee professional development on research productivity: A cross-institutional meta-analysis

Doctoral Trainee Preferences for Career Development Resources: The Influence of Peer and Other Supportive Social Capital

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About