Search results

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.

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.

This chapter describes the Initiative for Maximizing Student Diversity (IMSD), a National Institutes of Health-funded research training program at North Carolina State University (NCSU). IMSD is designed to increase the number and success of student Scholars from groups underrepresented in the biomedical and behavioral sciences. The NCSU-IMSD program provides financial support for both undergraduate and graduate students and utilizes a holistic approach that engages students in both academic and nonacademic professional development activities. Undergraduate IMSD Scholars are placed in research labs with faculty and graduate mentors during the entire academic year as well as the summer, and seeks to create a sense of community across cohorts. Unlike similar programs at other research-extensive universities, NCSU-IMSD is housed in the graduate school and serves students across multiple departments and colleges. This location provides greater opportunities for interdisciplinary interaction between student Scholars and is a model that enhances institutional commitments to diversity in the research sciences. This chapter describes these key program dimensions and provides guidelines for doctoral institutions seeking to enhance the experiences of underrepresented undergraduate and graduate students in the biomedical and behavioral sciences.

The role of higher education institutions in enhancing capability development of the healthcare professionals workforce has resulted in work-based learning becoming an essential component of awards linked to professional registration. The purpose of this paper is to explore how key stakeholders (academics, workplace tutors and students) on a programme leading to registration as a Biomedical Scientist (BMS) position themselves in their role and the subsequent impact of this upon delivery of pre-registration training and the development of professional capability.

Constructivist grounded theory methodology and a mixed-methods approach were drawn upon for the study.

Findings expose the challenges of a positivist focus and assumptions around workplace learning and professional development presenting a barrier to developing professional capability. In addressing this barrier, two strategies of “doing the portfolio” and “gaining BMS currency” are adopted. The registration portfolio has become an objective reductionist measure of learning, reflecting the positivist typology of practice in this profession.

To ensure that students are supported to develop not only technical skills but also professional capability there is a need for a paradigm shift from a positivist episteme to one that embraces both the positivist and socio-cultural paradigms, viewing them as complimentary and parallel.

The study provides a novel insight into how stakeholders interact with the pressures of internal and external influences and the impact this has upon behaviours and strategies adopted. The theoretical understanding proposed has a range of implications for practice and for the development of practitioner capability through pre-registration training and beyond.

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.

Developing the health workforce is an ongoing concern, especially in New Zealand, where Māori and Pasifika populations are under-represented. Programme Incubator (PI) was developed by a health provider to raise awareness of careers in the health sector. The purpose of this paper is to report on a study undertaken in a tertiary institution which involved tracking and mentoring students who had been engaged in PI, and mentoring them through their tertiary studies.

In total, 40 students (n=40) were recruited into the four year study, which involved a survey and participating in focus groups.

PI was found to be an effective initiative of encouraging secondary students to enter a career in health, but more work is needed to facilitate students’ choice of tertiary provider and academic programme. Within the tertiary sector, mentoring was found to be lacking.

Group mentoring and peer mentoring are introduced to mitigate these concerns and provide students with the mentoring support they require.

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.

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.