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)

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

Citizenship status and career self-efficacy: An intersectional study of biomedical trainees in the United States

Abstract: This study examines the intersectional role of citizenship and gender with career self-efficacy amongst 10,803 doctoral and postdoctoral trainees in US universities. These biomedical trainees completed surveys administered by 17 US institutions that participated in the National Institutes of Health Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training (NIH BEST) Programs. Findings indicate that career self-efficacy of non-citizen trainees is significantly lower than that of US citizen trainees. While lower career efficacy was observed in women compared with men, it was even lower for non-citizen female trainees. Results suggest that specific career interests may be related to career self-efficacy. Relative to US citizen trainees, both male and female non-citizen trainees showed higher interest in pursuing a career as an academic research investigator. In comparison with non-citizen female trainees and citizen trainees of all genders, non-citizen male trainees expressed the highest interest in research-intensive (and especially principal investigator) careers. The authors discuss potential causes for these results and offer recommendations for increasing trainee career self-efficacy which can be incorporated into graduate and postdoctoral training

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