[Itech] Fwd: TP Msg. #1131 Branching Careers Pipeline - Not all paths lead to academic careers

Teresa Franklin franklit at ohio.edu
Mon Oct 31 22:15:05 EDT 2011


Graduates:

You may be interested in this research on careers in PHD areas.

Dr. Franklin

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rick Reis <reis at stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 9:31 PM
Subject: TP Msg. #1131 Branching Careers Pipeline - Not all paths lead to
academic careers
To: tomorrows-professor <tomorrows-professor at lists.stanford.edu>


Most local and national initiatives have focused on assisting young
biomedical investigators as they transition to academic positions. A gaping
hole remains: as a scientific community we have ignored the many doctoral
trainees who will pursue non-traditional career paths.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOMORROW'S PROFESSOR(sm) eMAIL NEWSLETTER
http://cgi.stanford.edu/~dept-ctl/cgi-bin/tomprof/postings.php

Archives of all past postings can be found at:
http://cgi.stanford.edu/~dept-ctl/cgi-bin/tomprof/postings.php

Sponsored by
Stanford Center for Teaching and Learning
http://ctl.stanford.edu

Folks:

The excerpts below are from an important new study showing that interest in
non-academic, non-research careers is increasing among PhD and postdocs in
the biomedical sciences. They are from the original peer-reviewed essay,
“Improving Graduate Education to Support a Branching Career Pipeline:
Recommendations based on a survey of doctoral students in the basic
biomedical sciences,” published in the Fall 2011 issue of CBE-Life Sciences
Education by C. N. Fuhrmann and colleagues. For a complete statistical
analysis of the data and further discussion (including a comparison of
these data to those published for the humanities and social sciences),
please see the complete article: [
http://www.lifescied.org/content/10/3.cover-expansion] Fuhrmann, C.N.*,
Halme, D. G., O’Sullivan, P., Lindstaedt, B. (2011) “Improving graduate
education to support a branching career pipeline: Recommendations based on
a survey of doctoral students in the basic biomedical sciences.” CBE-Life
Sciences Education 10: 239-249.

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis at stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Money, Happiness, and a Fulfilling Retirement

Tomorrow's Academic Careers

------------------- 1,651 words -------------------

Branching Careers Pipeline - Not all paths lead to academic careers

Introduction

Forty years ago, the career trajectory of PhD-level basic biomedical
scientists could be described as a linear pipeline. Trainees moved from
doctoral to postdoctoral training, and ultimately to tenure-track faculty
positions. As the number of trainees has outpaced the availability of
academic positions, an increasing number of PhD-trained scientists have
pursued careers outside of academia. In fact, today’s PhD students and
postdoctoral scholars commonly follow diverse career paths. Not only are
PhD-trained scientists pursuing research careers beyond academe, but
increasing numbers are leaving research altogether.

To better understand the career choices—and timing of these choices—among
doctoral students in the basic biomedical sciences, we surveyed graduate
students at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), a campus whose
graduate programs are among the top-ranked in the nation. We found that
large numbers of students are considering paths beyond academe—and even
beyond research. While early-stage students reported strong interest for
the “traditional” academic path (i.e., becoming a principle investigator
(PI) in an academic setting), interest in this career path dropped during
the first three years of training. Interestingly, there was no significant
change in interest for other research career paths (i.e.,
research-intensive careers in biotechnology/pharmaceuticals, in government,
or non-principal investigator research careers in academia). Instead,
student interest in non-research career paths increased. By the later years
in graduate school, fully one-third of students would choose a non-research
career path (such as the business of science, teaching - or
education-related, science policy, and science writing; see paper for
figures and statistical analyses). The prevalent interest in such diverse
career paths—and the early timing of students’ career decisions—are
important to consider as we ensure that the training offered appropriately
prepares these talented scientists for their future careers.

Are these local effects or a national trend?

While UCSF may be unusual among graduate institutions in certain ways
(discussed in the complete article), it is hardly unique. Many basic
biomedical sciences doctoral programs are similarly housed in
research-intensive academic medical centers. Many of these programs also
attract highly talented students. We predict that a national survey of
similar institutions would reveal that graduate students’ career decisions
follow a similar trend, with a drop in interest for research-intensive
academic positions following a year of full-time experience at the bench.
Preliminary discussions of the data with colleagues at other institutions
support this prediction, but a formal cross-institutional study should be
done.

How should we react to these data?

In combination, our data and data from prior studies (Aanerud, et al.,
2006; Golde and Dore, 2001; Mason, et al., 2009) support three
recommendations for how we as scientists, educators, and policy makers can
strengthen graduate training, improve student wellness and satisfaction,
and produce a more highly-skilled national scientific workforce.

1. Shift academic culture to embrace the “branching” science career
pipeline

We believe that the academic community should be supportive of individual
PhD-level trainees who are interested in pursuing careers beyond the
traditional academic path. Our data show that trainees do not make major
career decisions lightly; respondents shared thoughtful reasons for
changing their career choice away from the traditional research-intensive
PI track. The PI track, and the lifestyle, stressors, and lack of security
currently associated with it, is not a fit for everyone. Moreover, there
are not enough jobs in the academic sector for all PhD-trained life
scientists, and this “supply-demand” gap is growing each year (Cyranoski,
et al., 2011; National Research Council, 2011; Teitelbaum, 2008). With only
14% of PhD’s in the biological sciences entering tenure-track positions
within 5-6 years of earning their PhD (2006 data; Stephan, 2012), how can
we continue to devalue other career paths? Finally, it is important for us
to have PhD-trained scientists in roles that will benefit the scientific
enterprise as a whole. They provide services that are critical to the
advancement of science in today’s world, by developing and running research
facilities, working with researchers to patent discoveries, bringing those
discoveries to market, funding research, setting policies, and teaching
future generations of scientists. As a scientific community and as
individual mentors, we should be applauding PhD graduates who move on to
become leaders in any science-related career path.

2. Integrate career development into the graduate curriculum

Our national investment in graduate-level training will be optimized when
trainees have a positive graduate experience, and then move on equipped to
succeed in their future career paths.

The branching nature of today’s biomedical sciences career pipeline—and
trainees’ low confidence in their career choices within this
pipeline—underscores the need for structured career planning at the
doctoral level, yet few science trainees are provided with career planning
assistance. A lack of career planning is likely one factor that contributes
to the high proportion of students who move on to postdoctoral training
(80% of all biological sciences PhD’s nationally (National Research
Council, 2011)), even though this additional training is unnecessary for
most of the students who prefer to follow a non-research career path.

Currently, career discussions between students and mentors often occur near
the end of training, if at all. Our data emphasizes that this is too late;
students are making career decisions early in their doctoral research
experience. Career education, guidance and mentoring—tailored to the needs
of students in the basic biomedical sciences and provided early in
students’ graduate education—would help students make career decisions from
a well-informed position. Students considering non-research career paths
(or research career paths outside of academia) may greatly benefit from an
opportunity to try out this new role through a short-term internship. This
would help ensure that career decisions are made based on realistic
expectations.

Skills in areas such as interpersonal communication, presentation,
leadership, management, and networking are imperative for success in all
careers. Teaching skills are also needed in many of the career choices.
Yet, with our traditional emphasis on developing scientific knowledge and
research skills in graduate education, few if any resources are dedicated
to the broader professional development of graduate students and
postdoctoral fellows. Graduate education should be supplemented to include
structured training and mentoring in these broader professional skills
areas—to prepare students for success in the broad range of traditional or
non-traditional science-related careers. Students could each create an
Individual Development Plan (IDP) to design and then discuss their own
professional skills training with mentors, to help ensure that it is
pursued in a time efficient and productive manner.

Some will argue that encouraging students to explore career options and
prepare for these careers will take time away from the lab, and detract
from research training. However, recent studies suggest that career
development activities do not negatively impact research training or
productivity (in fact, the opposite may be true—see complete article). Even
so, there is typically pressure on trainees to minimize distractions from
research. Graduate students and postdocs make up as much as 50% of the
basic biomedical research workforce (National Research Council, 2011), and
their tuition and stipends are increasingly funded by PIs’ research grants
(National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 2011). This creates an
inherent conflict of interest for the PI: maintaining a successful lab
while also mentoring trainees within that lab (Benderly, 2010; National
Institute of General Medical Sciences, 2011). One way to alleviate this
conflict of interest is to give thesis committees, rather than individual
PI’s, the responsibility of overseeing student career development. It would
be appropriate for thesis committees to participate in career-related
mentoring, discuss with the student his/her Individual Development Plan,
and help the student and PI negotiate an appropriate level of time spent
toward career-related activities.

3. Transform graduate education policy at the national level

Change in graduate education is often motivated by policies set at the
national level. As such, it is important to consider how actions by
national agencies might impact our view of the branching scientific
pipeline and our ability to assist trainees in their career development.

Although the concept of the branching pipeline is becoming more broadly
accepted at the institutional level and by individual faculty mentors,
national funding agencies continue to use the traditional academic pathway
as the formal definition of success. For example, in a ranking of graduate
schools released in 2010 by the National Research Council, student career
outcome was defined as the percent of PhD’s “with definite plans for an
academic position” (National Research Council, 2010). In addition,
currently most—if not all—biomedical funding sources evaluate U.S. doctoral
training programs based in part on the success of alumni, with many
measures of success pointing to principal investigator-level positions in
academia. Funding agencies and review committees should explicitly
re-define the description of a “successful” PhD graduate as one whose
contributions promote the scientific enterprise, including a variety of
research and non-research career paths, in both academic and non-academic
sectors. This would allow graduate schools to more freely support and
encourage graduate students who are considering such career paths.

In addition to redefining a successful career outcome, funding agencies
could urge institutions to incorporate career development components into
all graduate programs. As discussed above, preparation of our future
scientific leaders should include training beyond scientific knowledge and
research skills. To promote this broader curriculum, funding agencies
should define national expectations for mentoring, professional skills
training, and career development for graduate and postdoctoral trainees,
and provide funding to implement the recommendations described above.

Concluding Remarks

Part of our responsibility as educators is to adequately prepare doctoral
students for success in their upcoming careers. To achieve this, we will
need to realign our goals in graduate education with the realities of
today’s “branching science career pipeline”. Pursued simultaneously, the
cultural, academic, and policy changes recommended in this and other
reports will help us continue to develop talented, confident, and
well-trained scientific professionals who will contribute directly to our
research enterprise as trainees, then move on to diverse careers that will
elevate the pace and quality of scientific discovery, improving the health
of our nation and our world.

References

Aanerud, R., Homer, L., Nerad, M., Cerny, J. (2006). Paths and perceptions:
Assessing doctoral education using career path analysis. In: The Assessment
of Doctoral Education: Emerging Criteria and New Models for Improving
Outcomes. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Benderly, B. L. (2010). The real science gap. Miller-McCune, June 14, 2010.
http://www.miller-mccune.com/science/the-real-science-gap-16191/ (accessed
24 January 2011).

Cyranoski, D., Gilbert, N., Ledford, H., Nayar, A., Yahia, M. (2011). The
PhD Factory: The world is producing more PhDs than ever before. Is it time
to stop? Nature, 472, 276-279.

Golde, C.M. and Dore, T. M. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences
of doctoral students reveal about doctoral education, Philadelphia, PA: The
Pew Charitable Trusts. www.phd-survey.org

Mason, M. A., Goulden, M., and Frasch, K. (2009). Why graduate students
reject the fast track. Academe 95, 11-16.
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2009/JF/Feat/maso.htm

National Institute of General Medical Science (2011). Investing in the
future: The National Institute of General Medical Sciences strategic plan
for biomedical and behavioral research training, Washington, DC: National
Institutes of Health.
http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Training/StrategicPlan.htm(accessed 6 March
2011).

National Research Council (2010). A data-based assessment of
research-doctorate programs in the United States, Washington, DC: National
Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/rdp/

National Research Council (2011). Research training in the biomedical,
behavioral, and clinical research sciences, Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.

Stephan, P. (2012) How economics shapes science. Harvard University Press,
in press.

Teitelbaum, M. (2008). Research funding: Structural disequilibria in
biomedical research. Science, 321, 644-645.


* * * * * * *
NOTE: Anyone can SUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor Mailing List by going
to:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor
You can UNSUBSCRIBE by hitting "return" to this posting with the word
"unsubscribe" in the subject line.



--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==
tomorrows-professor mailing list
tomorrows-professor at lists.stanford.edu
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor






-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dr. Teresa Franklin
Professor, Instructional Technology
Instructional Technology Program Coordinator
Dept. Educational Studies
Gladys W. & David H. Patton College of Education and Human Services
Ohio University
Athens, OH 45701
740-593-4561 (office)
740-593-0477 (fax)
also: franklinteresa at gmail.com

*
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/itech/attachments/20111031/454a000b/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Itech mailing list