scholarly journals 3403 Understanding the career pathways of scholars participating in Scholar Programs and Academy

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (s1) ◽  
pp. 76-76
Author(s):  
Tanha Patel ◽  
Sabina Gesell ◽  
Doug Easterling
Keyword(s):  
Career Development ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Leadership Role ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Research Experience ◽  
Research Career ◽  
Program Administrators ◽  
Career Trajectories ◽  
Research Careers ◽  
The Impact

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The Wake Forest Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) put in place a KL2 program in 2007 and introduced an 18-month Translational Research Academy (TRA) in 2010. The TRA provides education and leadership development training, research support services, mentoring, and networking opportunities to 15-20 early-career clinical and translational researchers, including those receiving KL2 awards. The KL2 and TRA programs make up the Mentored-Career Development Core that is administered by the Wake Forest CTSA Education Program. Over the years, the program administrators have collected feedback from the graduates on what they liked and did not like about the programs. However, a comprehensive evaluation to understand the impact of the trainings on helping scholars advance their research and their research careers was not conducted. The purpose of this evaluation was to assess if and how the KL2 and TRA programs are helping scholars advance their research and career in research. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with 11 selected CTSI scholars from both KL2 and TRA programs. The interviews focused on 4 key areas: expectations coming into the program, role the program played in their career development over time, what else could/should have program done to support them and their research, and which of the other CTSI services were valuable in their career development. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Even though scholars joined the program as an early-career researcher, the amount of experience in research they had varied and so did their areas of interest. The participants in the program also included both clinician and basic researchers. Scholars came into the program with different level of expectations and drive to use this program as a platform to lift their research careers. The conversations during these interviews gave an insight on career trajectories that the scholars have taken before and after joining the academy. For example, among the scholars that had graduated from the programs, 5 of the 6 had received a career development award, all 6 had their own grants to support their research, 3 had received professional promotions, and all 6 have an administrative leadership role they play, in addition to focusing on their research career. The information on where the scholars were at the beginning and the pathway they have taken to get to where they are now allowed us to better understand what aspects of the program was most valuable. The scholars noted that sessions around grant writing and developing specific aims were very helpful. Among the services provided, having a grant editor support was something that everyone noted as the most important service to them, even after leaving the program. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The impact of the interviews and candid feedback provided by the scholars have been immensely valuable to program administrators to really understand the impact the program (and which components specifically) is having for the scholars. Looking at the career trajectories of the scholars, it was noted that scholars coming in to the academy with some experience doing research and ability to continue engaging in research benefited the most from what the program had to offer. Scholars that were still very early in their research career gained knowledge but were not always able to apply it because they were not working towards a grant at the time. Using the data on career trajectories, recommendations for improving the program, and other CTSI services that were most valuable, the program administrators decided to redesign the curriculum. The new version of the program is now tailored for scholars who have research experience and are working towards a career development grant such as a K or R. This will allow them to have a curriculum that is more intense and hands-on with an expectation that the scholars will submit the application towards the end of the program. A separate program is being developed for early-career researchers who are still setting their foot into t field to provide them basic research competencies through ad hoc courses and seminars.

Career Development Factors for Minority Disability and Health Research Leaders: A Key Informant Study

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 208-229
Author(s):  
Edward O. Manyibe ◽  
Corey L. Moore ◽  
Ningning Wang ◽  
Dytisha Davis ◽  
Fariborz Aref ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Career Development ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Role Models ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Success Strategies ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Advisory Panel ◽  
Disability And Health ◽  
Key Informants

Purpose: This study examined and documented minority disability and health research leaders’ experiences and perspectives on career development challenges and success strategies. Methods: A sample of 15 African American, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Latino, and Asian research leaders as key informants participated in the inquiry. Research team members and external project advisory panel members collaboratively developed the interview protocol consisting of 8 questions designed to elicit information about career development factors. Trained interviewers conducted semistructured telephone interviews to collect data. Verbatim transcripts of the audiotapes and participant demographics were the primary data that were analyzed using NVivo (Version 10.0). Results: Individual sociocultural challenges (e.g., cultural barriers, language/communication issues, family life issues, and limited collaboration opportunities), institutional research environmental concerns (e.g., bureaucracy, alienation, insufficient research support funds, and discrimination), and federal research agency policy and systems context–induced issues (e.g., limited mentorship opportunities, inadequate supply of minority research leaders and role models, unhealthy competition, and lack of equal opportunity) emerged among key informants’ perspectives as important barriers. Identified success strategies included the need for early career investigators to build, expand, and use support networks, establish multidisciplinary collaborations, develop strong work ethic, enhance research skills (e.g., methodological and grant writing), and obtain capable mentorship. Conclusions: The aforementioned factors should be considered in the creation of new career development models and paradigms aimed at diversifying the scientific workforce.

scholarly journals 2502 The need for an evidence-based CTS specific IDP for early career training and for a long-term and sustainable career in clinical translational sciences

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (S1) ◽  
pp. 61-62
Author(s):  
Camille A. Martina ◽  
Janice L. Gabrilove ◽  
Naomi Luban ◽  
Cecilia M. P. Sutton
Keyword(s):  
Career Development ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Career Planning ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Research Career ◽  
E Learning

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To establish a conceptual framework to develop a CTS-IDP with data analytics, and an e-Learning Faculty Development Guide on best practices and use of the IDP over the CTS academic life-course. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: To accomplish our goal, we propose the following methods: (1) an online survey, using a convenience sample of the 24 KL2 CTSA IDP Collaborative members (conducted in 2017), to assess perceived needs for a universal CTS-IDP, current IDP practices, barriers to IDP use, and to discern and align each CTSA Hub’s interests, expertise and commitment to specific areas of the study; (2) A scoping narrative literature review, utilizing the Arksey and O’Malley framework covering the time period corresponding to the initiation of funding (1999) of the original K30 Clinical Research Curriculum Awards through to the present CTSA funding period, incorporating Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) keywords (career development; career development plan; employee plan; mentoring plans; compacts; research contracts; career planning; mentor guide), initially delineated by USC reference librarian and to be expanded by reference librarian services from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and University of Rochester, and performed on NIH searchable databases including NCBI PubMed, Central and Medline & Worldwide Science; Web of Science, ProQuest, ProQuest Abi/Inform, Google Scholar, Cochrane, Ovid MEDLINE databases, as well as Google for published papers in English and Spanish. For this portion of the work, we will describe and characterize (1) research career development or progression constructs, domains, and milestones; (2) establish the presence or absence of defined and/or pre-specified timed milestone objectives and inclusion of SWOT analytics (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) and/or Gantt chart approaches; (3) delineate IDPs structure, toolkits and their key features (competencies, skills acquisition and processes utilized); (4) and identify specific gaps to best address the need for personalized career development education. Based on this review, we will synthesize CTS milestones, develop a time frame for meeting RCD expectations, and establish RCD benchmarks for achieving these milestones, all in consensus with the IDP Collaborative Workgroup. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Seventy-seven percent of the IDP CTSA’s responded to the online survey, led by University of Rochester, and the results can be summarized as follows: (1) 100% agreed that the IDP process is important and should be considerably improved to optimize effectiveness; (2) a range of diverse IDP formats are utilized, making comparisons across programs difficult; (3) 50% of CTSA hubs report only fair to good compliance with the IDP process; (4) a major barrier to the IDP process is lack of instruction regarding how best to utilize; (5) poor alignment of currently available IDPs designed for basic science PhDs with CTS investigators; (6) an absence of a CTS specific IDP to best foster RCD for this specific career trajectory. When asked: What are the barriers to writing a detailed and thoughtful IDP, responses in order of agreement from greatest to least were: No verification of acquired competencies, beyond self-report (56%), Static platform (38%), Not constructed for clinical and translational researcher (31%), No analytical or documentation on use (31%), No instruction given to scholars on how to use it effectively and efficiently (31%), The IDP we are using is more constructed for PhD students and postdoctoral fellows (25%), No instruction given to the scholars on why it is important as adult learners (19%), and Not constructed for early career physicians/scientist (13%). Additional progress has been made on our Scoping review: An initial ABI/Inform and PubMed USC research librarian conducted search using Author names yielded 72 articles, of which only 2 were relevant to the topic at hand. A ProQuest™ search yielded 19 potentially relevant articles, 11 of which were of relevance to the topic of IDPs; and a Google Scholar search yielded 18 and 25 on career development and self-management, respectively. This has enabled us to put forth an initial model of factors that impact the purpose and design of IDPs that includes? DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Discussion: Our initial data suggests that many CTSA institutions see the need to further enhance the mentoring process with a more informed and personalized IDP template and process. Furthermore, our initial scoping review suggests a framework upon which to build specific components of a more ideal and useful IDP to best guide mentored research career development of CTS trainees. Significance: Developing and evaluating collaborative evidence-based CTS IDP and corresponding e-Learning Guide could potentially prevent or reduce important delays in RCD, a common roadblock for the translation of clinical interventions. Ultimately, the CTS-IDP serves not only to support and frame a scholar’s RCD “habits of mind” during training and early career development but to also to achieve a sustainable long-term career at a CTS researcher equipped to meet the ever challenging and dynamic research landscape.

scholarly journals Analysis of MRC-supported early career researcher success in obtaining follow-on research funding

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Viney ◽  
Buddhini Samarasinghe ◽  
Kevin Dolby
Keyword(s):  
Research Funding ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Research Career ◽  
Research Grants ◽  
Subsequent Research ◽  
Research Careers ◽  
Early Career Researcher ◽  
Funding Scheme ◽  
Research Grant

AbstractThis study examined the progress of MRC-funded researchers, with a focus on their success in securing subsequent research income. We report here results from compiling details of the research income of researchers that completed an MRC early career award between 2011 and 2015. Depending on the funding scheme 50-59 per cent of researchers spent on average more than 100,000 GBP per year from new grants secured within three years of finishing their MRC award. In each scheme around 30 per cent of researchers secured less than 50,000 GBP per year research funding in the three years following their MRC award. We apply the same approach to an analysis of progression for the MRC cadre of intramurally-supported Programme Leader Track researchers, and a sample of MRC research grant holders. We also supplement our results with a small number of interviews with researchers that held MRC New Investigator Research Grants. We suggest that these data confirm reasonably good progression rates, with MRC early career schemes demonstrably effective in supporting research careers. They confirm there is a bottleneck with some researchers taking several years to establish their research career, and that expansion of the research base will need balanced new investment across schemes and stages and cannot be driven through growth in early career schemes alone.

scholarly journals Task specialization across research careers

eLife ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Robinson-Garcia ◽  
Rodrigo Costas ◽  
Cassidy R Sugimoto ◽  
Vincent Larivière ◽  
Gabriela F Nane
Keyword(s):  
Early Career ◽  
Task Specialization ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Archetypal Analysis ◽  
Career Trajectories ◽  
Team Working ◽  
Research Careers ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Published Research ◽  
And Training

Research careers are typically envisioned as a single path in which a scientist starts as a member of a team working under the guidance of one or more experienced scientists and, if they are successful, ends with the individual leading their own research group and training future generations of scientists. Here we study the author contribution statements of published research papers in order to explore possible biases and disparities in career trajectories in science. We used Bayesian networks to train a prediction model based on a dataset of 70,694 publications from PLoS journals, which included 347,136 distinct authors and their associated contribution statements. This model was used to predict the contributions of 222,925 authors in 6,236,239 publications, and to apply a robust archetypal analysis to profile scientists across four career stages: junior, early-career, mid-career and late-career. All three of the archetypes we found - leader, specialized, and supporting - were encountered for early-career and mid-career researchers. Junior researchers displayed only two archetypes (specialized, and supporting), as did late-career researchers (leader and supporting). Scientists assigned to the leader and specialized archetypes tended to have longer careers than those assigned to the supporting archetype. We also observed consistent gender bias at all stages: the majority of male scientists belonged to the leader archetype, while the larger proportion of women belonged to the specialized archetype, especially for early-career and mid-career researchers.

Career Development Models and Human Resource Development Practice

2016 ◽  
pp. 66-84
Author(s):  
Catherine N. Kyeyune
Keyword(s):  
Career Development ◽  
Human Resource Development ◽  
Human Resource ◽  
Resource Development ◽  
Development Models ◽  
Career Trajectories ◽  
Employee Relationship ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Development Practice

Various career development models and concepts have been developed over the years to explain career trajectories of employees in the workplace. The new employer-employee relationship in the workplace has resulted in more dynamic careers; boundaryless, protean, kaleidoscope, hybrid and multiple level careers. However, the impact of these relatively new career theories on human resource development (HRD) is still unclear. In this chapter, the author discusses the role of career development in human resource development and different models of career development. In addition, various organizational activities that can support career development are presented. The author then proposes a framework that links career models to specific organizational career development activities. This provides direction to organizational efforts geared towards employee development.

scholarly journals The Impact of Grantsmanship Self-Efficacy on Early Stage Investigators of The National Research Mentoring Network Steps Toward Academic Research (NRMN STAR )

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-82
Author(s):  
Roland J. Thorpe, Jr ◽  
Jamboor K. Vishwanatha ◽  
Eileen M. Harwood ◽  
Edward L. Krug ◽  
Thad Unold ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Change Score ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Research Experience ◽  
Postdoctoral Training ◽  
The Impact

The NRMN STAR program was created to address the persistent underrepresenta­tion in grant submissions and receipt of National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards by racial/ethnic minority groups. In our current study, we assessed program impact on trainees’ self-efficacy related to grant writing. The program was conducted with two cohorts: one in June 2014 and one in June 2015. We used a 19-item grant writing self-efficacy scale drawn from the 88-item Clinical Research Assessment Inventory of three domains (conceptualizing, designing, and funding a study) to predict whether self-efficacy influences researchers’ grant submissions. Trainees were assessed prior to and following program completion with subsequent assessments at 6 and 12 months beyond participation. The majority of trainees were Black (62%), female (62%), and had obtained a PhD (90%). More than half (52%) were assistant professors and 57% had none or <1 year of research experience beyond postdoctoral training. However, 24% of trainees reported no postdoctoral research training. NRMN STAR trainees’ self-efficacy significantly improved on all three domains exhibiting a 2.0-point mean change score on two domains (conceptualizing and design) and 3.7 point mean change score on the domain, funding a study. Findings suggest that NRMN’s STAR provides impactful, confidence-building training for diverse, early stage investigators with little-to-no skills, experiences, or low self-efficacy in writing research grants. Ethn Dis. 2020;30(1):75-82; doi:10.18865/ed.30.1.75 

scholarly journals Fine-Tuning Summer Research Programs to Promote Underrepresented Students’ Persistence in the STEM Pathway

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. ar28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Medeva Ghee ◽  
Micere Keels ◽  
Deborah Collins ◽  
Cynthia Neal-Spence ◽  
Earnestine Baker
Keyword(s):  
Undergraduate Research ◽  
Underrepresented Students ◽  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Research Experience ◽  
Graduate Study ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
Research Engagement ◽  
Research Programs ◽  
Research Careers ◽  
The Impact

Although the importance of undergraduate research experiences in preparing students for graduate study and research careers is well documented, specific examination of program components is needed to assess the impact of these programs on underrepresented (UR) students. The Leadership Alliance, a consortium of leading PhD-granting and minority-serving institutions (MSIs), has leveraged its diverse partnership to place UR students from MSI and non-MSI institutions in competitive research environments through its national Summer Research Early Identification Program. Using longitudinal pre/post data collected from student surveys, we applied social cognitive career theory as a conceptual framework to examine how research engagement, skill development, and mentorship aspects of a summer research program affect students’ commitment to pursue research careers. Self-reported knowledge of research skills, time engaged in research activity, and students’ understanding of and attitudes toward pursuing graduate study were measured in relation to the classification of students’ home undergraduate institution, level of students’ pre-existing research experience, and demographic factors. Our results provide evidence of specific programmatic components that are beneficial for UR students from varying academic and cultural backgrounds. This study describes important aspects of summer research programs that will contribute to students’ ability to persist in science careers.

Tips for Writing Successful Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Awards

Hematology ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 2010 (1) ◽  
pp. 185-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie J. Lee
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Career Development ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Therapeutic Interventions ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Human Origin ◽  
Research Career ◽  
Career Development Award ◽  
Oriented Research

Abstract Preparing a career development award can be an immensely satisfying experience and a great boost to a research career if successful, or it can seem like a miserable waste of time if unsuccessful. This paper highlights tips for the preparation of patient-oriented career development awards and provides references for grant-writing guidance. Patient-oriented research is defined as “research conducted with human subjects (or on material of human origin such as tissues, specimens and cognitive phenomena) for which an investigator directly interacts with human subjects. This area of research includes: 1) mechanisms of human disease; 2) therapeutic interventions; 3) clinical trials, and; 4) the development of new technologies.”1

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document