Using stakeholder insights to enhance engagement in PhD professional development

There is increasing awareness of the need for pre- and post-doctoral professional development and career guidance, however many academic institutions are only beginning to build out these functional roles. As a graduate career educator, accessing vast silos and resources at a university and with industry-partners can be daunting, yet collaboration and network development are crucial to the success of any career and professional development office. To better inform and direct these efforts, forty-five stakeholders external and internal to academic institutions were identified and interviewed to gather perspectives on topics critical to career development offices. Using a stakeholder engagement visualization tool developed by the authors, strengths and weaknesses can be assessed. General themes from interviews with internal and external stakeholders are discussed to provide various stakeholder subgroup perspectives to help prepare for successful interactions. Benefits include increased engagement and opportunities to collaborate, and to build or expand graduate career development offices

A cross-institutional analysis of the effects of broadening trainee professional development on research productivity

© The Author(s), 2021. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Brandt, P. D., Sturzenegger Varvayanis, S., Baas, T., Bolgioni, A. F., Alder, J., Petrie, K. A., Dominguez, I., Brown, A. M., Stayart, C. A., Singh, H., Van Wart, A., Chow, C. S., Mathur, A., Schreiber, B. M., Fruman, D. A., Bowden, B., Wiesen, C. A., Golightly, Y. M., Holmquist, C. E., Arneman, D., Hall, J. D., Hyman, L. E., Gould, K. L., Chalkley, R., Brennwald, P. J., Layton, R. L. A cross-institutional analysis of the effects of broadening trainee professional development on research productivity. Plos Biology, 19(7), (2021): e3000956, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000956.PhD-trained scientists are essential contributors to the workforce in diverse employment sectors that include academia, industry, government, and nonprofit 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 (NIH) 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 NIH BEST awardee institutions included career panels, skill-building workshops, job search workshops, site visits, and internships. Because doctoral training is lengthy and requires focused attention on dissertation research, an initial concern was that students participating in additional complementary training activities might exhibit an increased time to degree or diminished research productivity. Metrics were analyzed from 10 NIH BEST awardee institutions to address this concern, using time to degree and publication records as measures of efficiency and productivity. 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. Our findings support the policy that doctoral students should participate in career and professional development opportunities that are intended to prepare them for a variety of diverse and important careers in the workforce.Funding sources included the Common Fund NIH Director’s Biomedical Research Workforce Innovation Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training (BEST) Award. The following institutional NIH BEST awards (alphabetical by institution) included: DP7OD020322 (Boston University; AFB, ID, BMS, LEH); DP7OD020316 (University of Chicago; CAS); DP7OD018425 (Cornell University; SSV); DP7OD018428 (Virginia Polytechnic Institute; AVW, BB); DP7OD020314 (Rutgers University; JA); DP7OD020315 (University of Rochester; TB); DP7OD018423 (Vanderbilt University; KAP, AMB, KLG, RC); DP7OD020321 (University of California, Irvine; HS, DAF); DP7OD020317 (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; PDB, PJB, RLL); DP7 OD018427 (Wayne State University; CSC, AM). National Institutes of Health (NIH) General Medical Sciences - Science of Science Policy Approach to Analyzing and Innovating the Biomedical Research Enterprise (SCISIPBIO) Award (GM-19-011) - 1R01GM140282-01 (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; RLL, PDB, PJB)

Applying Experiential Learning to Career Development Training for Biomedical Graduate Students and Postdocs: Perspectives on Program Development and Design.

Experiential learning is an effective educational tool across many academic disciplines, including career development. Nine different institutions bridged by the National Institutes of Health Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training Consortium compared their experiments in rethinking and expanding training of predoctoral graduate students and postdoctoral scholars in the biomedical sciences to include experiential learning opportunities. In this article, we provide an overview of the four types of experiential learning approaches our institutions offer and compare the learning objectives and evaluation strategies employed for each type. We also discuss key factors for shaping experiential learning activities on an institutional level. The framework we provide can help organizations determine which form of experiential learning for career training might best suit their institutions and goals and aid in the successful design and delivery of such training

Using Stakeholder Insights to Enhance Engagement in PhD Professional Development

There is increasing awareness of the need for pre- and post-doctoral professional development and career guidance, however many academic institutions are only beginning to build out these functional roles. As a graduate career educator, accessing vast silos and resources at a university and with industry-partners can be daunting, yet collaboration and network development are crucial to the success of any career and professional development office. To better inform and direct these efforts, forty-five stakeholders external and internal to academic institutions were identified and interviewed to gather perspectives on topics critical to career development offices. Using a stakeholder engagement visualization tool developed by the authors, strengths and weaknesses can be assessed. General themes from interviews with internal and external stakeholders are discussed to provide various stakeholder subgroup perspectives to help prepare for successful interactions. Benefits include increased engagement and opportunities to collaborate, and to build or expand graduate career development offices

Making Strides in Doctoral-Level Career Outcomes Reporting: Surveying the Landscape of Classification and Visualization Methodologies and Creating a Crosswalk Tool

Manuscript Abstract: The recent movement underscoring the importance of career taxonomies has helped usher in a new era of transparency in PhD career outcomes. The convergence of discipline-specific organizational movements, interdisciplinary collaborations, and federal initiatives have all helped to increase PhD career outcomes tracking and reporting. Transparent and publicly available PhD career outcomes are being used by institutions to attract top applicants, as prospective graduate students are factoring these in when deciding on the program and institution in which to enroll for their PhD studies. Given the increasing trend to track PhD career outcomes, the number of institutional efforts and supporting offices for these studies have increased, as has the variety of methods being used to classify and report/visualize outcomes. This report, therefore, aims to identify and summarize currently available PhD career taxonomy tools, resources, and visualization options to help catalyze and empower institutions to develop and publish their own PhD career outcomes. This work serves as an empirical review of the career outcome tracking systems available and highlights organizations, consortia, and funding agencies that are impacting policy change toward greater transparency in PhD career outcomes reporting. Project Description: We collated STEM and humanities career outcome taxonomies from 30 groups (universities, consortia, research institutions & professional societies) and mapped fields that were similar between these taxonomies. In mapping these fields, a number of challenges occurred. For example, some taxonomies were too comprehensive to fully map (e.g., there were nearly 1500 categories to choose from), and these omissions are noted within the headings. Some categories had a tally higher than the total number of taxonomies examined because they were present in multiple ways within a single taxonomy (e.g., tenure-track faculty may have appeared as a variety of different professor job titles). Additionally, some categories were repeated for the purposes of alignment; an asterisk (*) was used to depict when this "one-to-many" mapping occurred. Another key challenge is that no two taxonomies have categories that are 100% equivalent. This was especially apparent when examining employment categorization between different countries. Nevertheless, efforts were made to ascertain the fundamental meaning of each data field in order to best highlight approximate equivalencies between taxonomies. Furthermore, in order to prevent the loss of granularity when aligning taxonomies that are more complex, multiple rows are depicted back-to-back with the same color to highlight categories that are related. Some text is shown in a color other than black to indicate either multiple categories that align together, or to indicate that a category is out of place with respect to the parent taxonomy stratification. Not all of these occurrences are indicated for ease of illustration; one may refer to the original taxonomies to ascertain their structure

A cross-institutional analysis of the effects of broadening trainee professional development on research productivity

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. Because doctoral training is lengthy and requires focused attention on dissertation research, an initial concern was that students participating in additional complementary training activities might exhibit an increased time to degree or diminished research productivity. Metrics were analyzed from ten BEST awardee institutions to address this concern, using time to degree and publication records as measures of efficiency and productivity. 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 demonstrated a positive correlation between participation in career and professional development activities and productivity. Our findings support the policy that doctoral students should participate in career and professional development opportunities that are intended to prepare them for a variety of diverse and important careers in the workforce. Note: Institutional data has been de-identified and each file corresponds to institutional labels consistent with publication manuscript (e.g., "Institution A" in manuscript corresponds to file "ZA TTD data deidentified"; Brandt et al, 2021). Columns for each institutional data set include: coded trainee ID; trainee participation data and dose-bin assigned; time to degree and/or defense; and number of publications (total, first author, and/or pub metric composite score)

A cross-institutional analysis of the effects of broadening trainee professional development on research productivity

PhD-trained scientists are essential contributors to the workforce in diverse employment sectors that include academia, industry, government, and nonprofit 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 (NIH) 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 NIH BEST awardee institutions included career panels, skill-building workshops, job search workshops, site visits, and internships. Because doctoral training is lengthy and requires focused attention on dissertation research, an initial concern was that students participating in additional complementary training activities might exhibit an increased time to degree or diminished research productivity. Metrics were analyzed from 10 NIH BEST awardee institutions to address this concern, using time to degree and publication records as measures of efficiency and productivity. 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. Our findings support the policy that doctoral students should participate in career and professional development opportunities that are intended to prepare them for a variety of diverse and important careers in the workforce.</p