Search results

Xavier University of Louisiana has a national reputation for producing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduates who go on to obtain MD and PhD degrees. According to a 2013 National Science Foundation report, Xavier is ranked first in producing African American graduates who go on to receive life sciences PhD degrees, fifth in the nation in producing African American graduates who go on to receive science and engineering PhD degrees, and seventh in producing African American graduates who go on to receive physical sciences PhD degrees. Xavier is currently third among the nation’s colleges and universities in the number of African American graduates enrolled in medical school, according to data compiled by the Association of American Medical Colleges, and ranked first in the number of African American alumni who successfully complete their medical degrees. The success of Xavier’s graduates is due to a combination of university-based student support initiatives and externally funded programs, in particular, the Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD), Maximizing Access to Biomedical Research Careers (MARC) U*STAR, and Research Initiative in Scientific Enhancement (RISE) programs. These three programs, funded by the Training, Workforce Development, and Diversity (TWD) Division at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), offer select trainees undergraduate research opportunities, support mechanisms, and a variety of activities designed to improve their potential for success in graduate school. The BUILD, MARC U*STAR, and RISE programs work closely together and with the University to leverage the resources provided by each in order to provide the best experience possible for their students with a minimum of redundancy of effort. This chapter focuses on the program components and how the programs work together.

The focus of this chapter is to describe the methods and results of ASCEND, an innovative program that empowers undergraduate students to lead research projects. ASCEND, which stands for “A Student-Centered Entrepreneurship Development Training Model to Increase Diversity in the Biomedical Research Workforce,” is funded by the National Institutes of Health and is being implemented at Morgan State University, a historically black university in Baltimore, Maryland. The results are thus far very promising and show that placing undergraduate students in leading research positions and surrounding them with like-minded peers enhances their sense of science identity, leadership, peer support, and research capabilities. It is hoped that students who participate in ASCEND will pursue graduate training and become future successful biomedical researchers.

Postdocs make up a significant portion of the biomedical workforce. However, data about the postdoctoral position are generally scarce, and no systematic study of the landscape of individual postdoc salaries in the USA has previously been carried out. The purpose of this study was to assess actual salaries for postdocs using data gathered from US public institutions; determine how these salaries may vary with postdoc title, institutional funding and geographic region; and reflect on which institutional and federal policy measures may have the greatest impact on salaries nationally.

Freedom of Information Act Requests were submitted to US public universities or university systems containing campuses with at least 300 science, engineering and health postdocs, according to the 2015 National Science Foundation’s Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering. Salaries and job titles of postdocs as of December 1, 2016, were requested.

Salaries and job titles for nearly 14,000 postdocs at 52 US institutions around December 1, 2016, were received. Individual postdoc names were also received for approximately 7,000 postdocs, and departmental affiliations were received for 4,000 postdocs. This exploratory study shows evidence of a postdoc gender pay gap, a significant influence of job title on postdoc salary and a complex relationship between salaries and the level of institutional National Institutes of Health/NSF funding.

These results provide insights into the ability of institutions to collate and report out annualized salary data on their postdocs, highlighting difficulties faced in tracking and reporting data on this population by institutional administration. Ultimately, these types of efforts, aimed at increasing transparency regarding the postdoctoral position, may lead to improved support for postdocs at all US institutions and allow greater agency for postdocs making decisions based on financial concerns.

Morgan State University (Morgan) is a leading undergraduate institution for black science and engineering doctoral degree recipients. Morgan also is a leader in the production of black engineering degree recipients in the United States. This chapter provides a historic overview of the major programs with a tie to the impact on the institutional metrics, a discussion of the process for developing researchers in science and engineering, and alumni perspectives. The undergraduate research development models used in engineering at Morgan are compared and contrasted with the life sciences and physical sciences. The programs focus on developing communities of engineering practice and communities of science, thereby enhancing students’ self-efficacy and resilience, shaping disciplinary identity, and creating learning communities. These approaches are critical for the success of minority students and are supported by the social science literature. Best practices have been adopted at varying levels by the School of Engineering, the School of Computer Mathematics and Natural Science and the Behavioral Science departments that have netted these Ph.D. outcomes including multiyear mentored research, research training courses, and participation in professional meetings. Multiple approaches to student development, when matched with the disciplinary culture, are shown to result in national impact.

While the global education debate remains focused on graduate skills and employability, the absence of a shared language between student, academic and industry stakeholder groups means that defining industry skills requirements is both essential and difficult. The purpose of this paper is to assess graduate skills requirements in a knowledge-intensive industry from a demand perspective as distinct from a curriculum (supply) viewpoint.

Skills items were derived from a breadth of disciplines across academic, policy and industry literature. CEOs and senior managers in the innovation and commercialisation industry were surveyed regarding perceptions of skills in graduates and skills in demand by the firm. Two rounds of exploratory factor analyses were undertaken to examine employers’ perceptions of the skills gap.

First-order analysis resolved ten broad constructs that represent cognitive, interpersonal and intrapersonal skills domains as applied in this industry. Knowledge, leadership and interprofessional collaboration feature as prominent skills. Second-order analysis revealed employers’ perceptions of graduate skills specifically centre on organisational fit and organisational success. An over-arching theme relates to performance of the individual in organisations.

The findings suggest that the discourse on employability and the design of curriculum need to shift from instilling lists of skills towards enabling graduates to perform in a diversity of workplace contexts and expectations centred on organisational purpose.

In contrast to the heterogeneous nature of industry surveys, the authors targeted a homogenous sector that is representative of knowledge-intensive industries. This study contributes to the broader stakeholder dialogue of the value and application of graduate skills in this and other industry sectors.

Structural mentoring barriers are policies, practices and cultural norms that collectively disadvantage marginalized groups and perpetuate disparities in mentoring. This study aims to better understand structural mentoring barriers at the postdoctoral training stage, which has a direct impact on faculty diversity and national efforts to retain underrepresented groups in research careers.

A diverse sample of postdoctoral scholars (“postdocs”) from across the USA were asked to participate in focus groups to discuss their training experiences. The authors conducted five 90-min focus groups with 32 biomedical postdocs, including 20 (63%) women and 15 (47%) individuals from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups (URG).

A social-ecological framework was used to categorize both the upstream and downstream manifestations of structural mentoring barriers, as well as mentoring barriers, overall. Notable structural barriers included: academic politics and scientific hierarchy; inequalities resulting from mentor prestige; the (over) reliance on one mentor; the lack of formal training for academic and non-academic careers; and the lack of institutional diversity and institutional mentor training. To overcome these barriers, postdocs strongly encouraged developing a network or team of mentors and recommended institutional interventions that create more comprehensive professional development, mentorship and belonging.

For postdoctoral scientists, structural mentoring barriers can permeate down to institutional, interpersonal and individual levels, impeding a successful transition to an independent research career. This work provides strong evidence for promoting mentorship networks and cultivating a “mentoring milieu” that fosters a supportive community and a strong culture of mentorship at all levels.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented health, economic and social ramifications. Cumulative stressors for healthcare organizations during the pandemic have an impact on the morale of the workforce. The impact of magnified health disparities with ongoing disproportionate loss of lives of people of color combined with the racial injustices has left many colleagues and communities traumatized and seeking solutions. This is a moment in time for organizations to lean into the strengths of their diversity leadership to strengthen a culture of inclusion and build resilience for their employees.

The authors use an organizational case study to describe the initiatives and experiences related to fostering a culture of inclusion and belonging at an academic health center during the initial epicenter of the pandemic.

The authors weekly community building virtual cafes, leveraging funding for diversity initiatives and visible ways to showcase the work of colleagues have been feasible, sustainable and had positive outcomes. Similar processes may assist other institutions and organizations seeking to enhance efforts for inclusion while distancing.

Strategies described are generalizable but the authors report on one organization's experience.

Intentional strategies that help build a deeper sense of community are essential for institutions during the disruption of pandemic related physical distancing. Inclusive decisions anchored in equity and inclusion as core institutional values will be essential to sustain resilience as the authors seek to build the new “equitable” normal.

Mentoring postdocs is a shared responsibility and dynamic process that requires a mutual commitment between the faculty mentor and postdoc. The purpose of this study is to understand how minoritized science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) postdocs view and engage in mentoring exchanges with their faculty mentors. In the context of this study, minoritized postdocs include women, people of color, and individuals with international status; faculty mentors include postdocs’ Principal Investigators (PIs).

Three researchers and 31 data sources (i.e., interview transcripts) were used to construct the case. Researchers first deductively and independently coded the data sources using Molm’s (2006) social exchange framework to identify examples of direct, generalized, and productive mentoring exchanges. Researchers then used thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) to identify emergent themes among coded examples of direct, generalized, and productive mentoring exchanges.

Data analyses revealed three emergent themes: (1.1) postdocs valued regular meetings and communication with mentors to clarify responsibilities and role expectations, (1.2) postdocs found more value in their interactions with junior faculty PIs who were flexible and open to innovative ideas, and (1.3) postdocs appreciated conversations about short- and long-term career goals and advice with mentors.

Findings offer implications for faculty and postdocs’ approaches to mentoring relationships, and for approaches to cultivating supportive scholarly communities in STEM higher education. Recommendations include flexibility in research assignments, increased awareness of non-academic careers, and opportunities for informal interactions and intra/interdepartmental community building.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how a mentor training intervention affected research scientists’ perceptions of diversity and their subsequent behaviors.

Data were originally collected as part of a randomized controlled trial measuring the effectiveness of a research mentor training intervention that covered six mentoring competencies, including addressing diversity. Here, the results of a secondary qualitative analysis of interviews with trained mentors, 135 faculty from 16 institutions from across the USA and Puerto Rico, are reported.

Analyses provide insights into how the diversity content of a mentoring intervention is interpreted, internalized, and acted upon. Mentors reported increased awareness, an expanded understanding of diversity and the implications of human differences, as well as a greater recognition of personal biases. While some were able to act on that increased awareness and make changes to their mentoring practice, most did not report doing so.

Well-designed mentor training incorporating culturally aware practices could better prepare mentors to work successfully with mentees from diverse backgrounds. Cultivating a more culturally diverse scientific community is of benefit to science as well as society.

Little is known about how faculty perceive diversity or internalize training content on the topic, either within the context of mentoring or more broadly. This exploratory study provides unique insights into these phenomena and invites further research. Implications for mentoring relationships, mentor training initiatives, and efforts to address diversity are discussed.