Search results

While known by many names, qualifying exams function as gatekeepers to graduate student advancement to PhD candidacy, yet there has been little formal study on best qualifying exam practices particularly in biomedical and related STEM PhD programs. The purpose of this study is to examine the current state of qualifying exams through an examination of the literature and exploration of university-wide policies.

The authors conducted a literature review of studies on qualifying exams and completed an external evaluation of peer institutions’ and internal institutional qualifying exam requirements to inform our discussion of qualifying exams practices in PhD training at a research-intensive US institutions.

This study identified the need for more research on qualifying exams to establish evidence-based best practices. The authors found a wide variety of qualifying exam formats, with little evidence in support for specific formats. The authors also found little evidence that student expectations are made clear. The lack of evidence-based best practices coupled with insufficient clarity for students has a real potential to disadvantage PhD students, particularly first generation, underrepresented minority, international and/or other trainees who are not privileged or socialized to navigate training environments with vague landmarks such as the qualifying exams.

There are very few studies that evaluate qualifying exams in US doctoral education, particularly in STEM fields, and to the authors’ knowledge, there has been no analysis of campus-wide policies on qualifying exams reported. The lack of evidence for best practices and the need for to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of qualifying exams are discussed.

Background: This paper examines the impact of coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak on employees’ mental health, specifically psychological distress and depression. It aims at identifying the main stressors during and post COVID-19, examining the main moderating factors which may mitigate or aggravate the impact of COVID-19 on employees’ mental health and finally to suggest recommendations from a human resource management perspective to mitigate COVID-19’s impact on employees’ mental health.

Methods: This paper is a literature review. The search for articles was made in Google scholar, Web of Science and Semantic scholar. We used a combination of terms related to coronavirus OR COVID-19, workplace and mental health. Due to the paucity of studies on the COVID-19 impact on employees’ mental health, we had to draw on studies on recent epidemics.

Results: The identified literature reports a negative impact of COVID-19 on individual’s mental health. Stressors include perception of safety, threat and risk of contagion, infobesity versus the unknown, quarantine and confinement, stigma and social exclusion as well as financial loss and job insecurity. Furthermore, three dimensions of moderating factors have been identified: organizational, institutional and individual factors. In addition, a list of recommendations has been presented to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on the employee’s mental health, during and after the outbreak, from a human resource management perspective.

Conclusions: Coronavirus is new and is in a rapid progress while writing this paper. Most of current research are biomedical focusing on individuals’ physical health. In this context, mental health issues seem overlooked. This paper helps to broaden the scope of research on workplace mental health, by examining the impact of a complex new pandemic: COVID-19 on employees’ mental health, from social sciences perceptive, mobilizing psychology and human resource management.