Finding a Fit: Biological Science Doctoral Students’ Selection of a Principal Investigator and Research Laboratory

In the laboratory-based disciplines, selection of a principal investigator (PI) and research laboratory (lab) indelibly shapes doctoral students’ experiences and educational outcomes. Framed by the theoretical concept of person–environment fit from within a socialization model, we use an inductive, qualitative approach to explore how a sample of 42 early-stage doctoral students enrolled in biological sciences programs made decisions about fitting with a PI and within a lab. Results illuminated a complex array of factors that students considered in selecting a PI, including PI relationship, mentoring style, and professional stability. Further, with regard to students’ lab selection, peers and research projects played an important role. Students actively conceptualized trade-offs among various dimensions of fit. Our findings also revealed cases in which students did not secure a position in their first (or second) choice labs and had to consider their potential fit with suboptimal placements (in terms of their initial assessments). Thus, these students weighted different factors of fit against the reality of needing to secure financial support to continue in their doctoral programs. We conclude by presenting and framing implications for students, PIs, and doctoral programs, and recommend providing transparency and candor around the PI and lab selection processes

Mentoring Relationships Between Doctoral Students and Postdocs in the Lab Sciences

Purpose This study aims to examine how science, technology, engineering, and mathematics doctoral students interact with postdocs within the research laboratory, identifying the nature and potential impacts of student–postdoc mentoring relationships. Design/methodology/approach Using a sample of 53 doctoral students in the biological sciences, this study uses a sequential mixed-methods design. More specifically, a phenomenological approach enabled the authors to identify how doctoral students make meaning of their interactions with postdocs and other research staff. Descriptive statistics are used to examine how emergent themes might differ as a product of gender and race/ethnicity and the extent to which emergent themes may relate to key doctoral student socialization outcomes. Findings This study reveals six emergent themes, which primarily focus on how doctoral students receive instrumental and psychosocial support from postdocs in their labs. The most frequent emergent theme captures the unique ways in which postdocs provide ongoing, hands-on support and troubleshooting at the lab bench. When examining how this theme plays a role in socialization outcomes, the results suggest that doctoral students who described this type of support from postdocs had more positive mental health outcomes than those who did not describe this type of hands-on support. Originality/value Literature on graduate student mentorship has focused primarily on the impact of advisors, despite recent empirical evidence of a “cascading mentorship” model, in which senior students and staff also play a key mentoring role. This study provides new insights into the unique mentoring role of postdocs, focusing on the nature and potential impacts of student–postdoc interactions

Doctoral Student Experiences in Biological Sciences Laboratory Rotations

Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore the experience of selecting and engaging in biological sciences laboratory rotations from the perspective of doctoral students. Design/methodology/approach Within the socialization framework, this study uses a qualitative approach whereby 42 biological sciences students enrolled at highly selective US universities were interviewed in the first and second year of doctoral training about laboratory rotation experiences. Findings The study revealed how doctoral students used formal and informal information networks, explored research topics, struggled with funding concerns and learned about the social aspect of the laboratories in which they rotated. Originality/value While rotations are considered a signature pedagogy in the laboratory sciences, students’ experiences within them are understudied. This study offers new knowledge about what doctoral students experience while rotating that can be used to inform and improve rotation processes for both students and universities

Exploring Early Exits: Doctoral Attrition in the Biomedical Sciences

High attrition rates have been a defining characteristic of doctoral education for decades, representing a loss of time, talent, and effort for departing students and their faculty. This qualitative study uses a biomedical science doctoral student sample to collect “real time” data on attrition within the first 2 years of doctoral training. Eighteen students, who represented 16 distinct universities, were interviewed as they engaged in the withdrawal process. Using the conceptual frames of socialization and social cognitive career theory, we explored experiences that preceded these students’ doctoral program withdrawals. Furthermore, we examined how expressed roles of students’ self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and professional goals contributed to the withdrawal process. Findings indicate that faculty advising (both positive and negative), laboratory rotation experiences, self-efficacy components, and changing professional goals all play a role in the early doctoral program attrition process

Autonomy and Privilege in Doctoral Education: An Analysis of STEM Students\u27 Academic and Professional Trajectories

Guided by theories of socialization and possible selves, this study examines how STEM doctoral students perceive their academic and professional trajectories. More specifically, we rely on four years of interview data from 66 doctoral students in the biological sciences to explore students\u27 perceived trajectories, focusing on the salient identities and experiences that shape the way students identify and describe their graduate experiences over time. Findings reveal wide variation in terms of how students described their trajectories, with some students describing linear trajectories and/or unchanging career interests, while others described their developmental trajectories as highly turbulent and non-linear. These perceived trajectories were largely shaped by student-advisor interactions, the value students placed on becoming independent scientists, and the privilege students brought with them to their graduate programs