Search

Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore the experience of selecting and engaging in biological sciences laboratory rotations from the perspective of doctoral students. Design/methodology/approach Within the socialization framework, this study uses a qualitative approach whereby 42 biological sciences students enrolled at highly selective US universities were interviewed in the first and second year of doctoral training about laboratory rotation experiences. Findings The study revealed how doctoral students used formal and informal information networks, explored research topics, struggled with funding concerns and learned about the social aspect of the laboratories in which they rotated. Originality/value While rotations are considered a signature pedagogy in the laboratory sciences, students’ experiences within them are understudied. This study offers new knowledge about what doctoral students experience while rotating that can be used to inform and improve rotation processes for both students and universities.

A panel comprising expert members of the chemistry academy, chemical industry, and the government produced a report in 2012 with 32 recommendations to advance graduate education in the chemical sciences. Until now, the target recipients of the study, students, faculty, and administrators, have not been asked if they agree with the recommendations. A survey of the beneficiaries of the 2012 ACS study reveals areas of consensus but also sharp differences in opinion regarding some of the recommendations. Many of these differences in opinion may be attributed to the natural needs and values of the different stakeholder groups. Some of the divisive issues could represent impediments to improving graduate education. The results of the survey are detailed and interpretation is provided. A path forward to advancing graduate education in the chemical sciences is also outlined.

Although first-generation students represent a substantial proportion of doctoral students, few studies have examined their experiences and outcomes. We contribute to this nascent area of inquiry b...

High attrition rates have been a defining characteristic of doctoral education for decades, representing a loss of time, talent, and effort for departing students and their faculty. This qualitative study uses a biomedical science doctoral student sample to collect “real time” data on attrition within the first 2 years of doctoral training. Eighteen students, who represented 16 distinct universities, were interviewed as they engaged in the withdrawal process. Using the conceptual frames of socialization and social cognitive career theory, we explored experiences that preceded these students’ doctoral program withdrawals. Furthermore, we examined how expressed roles of students’ self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and professional goals contributed to the withdrawal process. Findings indicate that faculty advising (both positive and negative), laboratory rotation experiences, self-efficacy components, and changing professional goals all play a role in the early doctoral program attrition process.

Aim/Purpose: This study explores PhD students’ transition into graduate school, which can be a challenging experience for many. Background: Using photographs and in-depth interviews, this study provides nuanced insight into influences on first-year PhD students’ lived experiences, with a specific focus on these students’ perceptions of doctoral student well-being. Methodology: Twenty-nine first-year biomedical science PhD students from 15 research institutions were asked to take photographs (Participant Produced Images) to illuminate significant influences on their research skill acquisition. The participant-produced photographs were discussed within in-depth phone interviews allowing for a deeper understanding of their lived experiences. Contribution: While students were asked to identify factors influencing their research skill acquisition, unexpectedly, what emerged from these data was students’ clear focus on their concern for their physical and mental well-being. The researchers posit that students’ ability to create a “work-life balance” is the foundation of doctoral student success, especially in the early years of doctoral training. Findings: Findings suggest that it is essential to create a PhD culture in which students feel valued, supported, and nourished, both physically and mentally, for them to develop into successful researchers, teachers, and mentors. Recommendations for Practitioners: Findings suggest that doctoral programs must support a more collaborative work environment for students and help novice students create a work life balance, perhaps by encouraging them to pursue stimulating or fun activities outside their school environment. It is imperative for doctoral students to be confident during their doctoral studies, as a lack of confidence tends to breathe life into poor work habits that stymie well-being and happiness. Recommendation for Researchers: If doctoral programs support a culture that facilitates student well-being, those programs will likely produce happier researchers and teachers who see scholarship and learning as fun. This positive mindset is likely to cascade down within their learning environments and foster positive and productive scholarship and instruction. This mindset and paradigm shift will set a significant precedence for future doctoral learners. Impact on Society: This study encourages and advances timely and “actionable” dialogue around how to better support doctoral students’ sense of well-being, especially in science disciplines. Future Research: Given study results, exploring mental health and well-being issues with faculty can help elevate mental health awareness in academia.

Doctoral attrition consistently hovers around 50% with relevant literature identifying several mediating factors, including departmental culture, student demographics, and funding. To advance this literature, we interviewed 38 graduate faculty advisors in science, engineering, or mathematics disciplines at a research-extensive university to capture their perceptions of factors supporting graduate student success. Using a constant-comparison method, we found that faculty perceptions aligned within three major categories, termed: motivated student behaviors, formative student learning experiences, and essential student knowledge and skills. Student motivation was most prominently represented in findings. This aligns with prior studies showing that faculty tend to identify the cause of graduate student failure as lying within the students themselves and rarely discuss their role or the department’s contribution to attrition. Thus findings offer an opportunity to reflect and improve upon practice. The study also highlights actions graduate students can take to increase success, such as developing collegial relationships and early involvement in research and scholarly writing. We encourage graduate faculty advisors and others to identify ways to help graduate students overcome common obstacles to enduring and succeeding within graduate programs. Faculty perceptions are also examined by discipline and faculty rank, and directions for future research are offered.

Purpose Using the threshold concepts framework, this paper aims to explore how differences in the ability to meaningfully apply relevant literature to one’s research are reflected in descriptions of graduate training undertaken in an academic year. Design/methodology/approach This paper used a sequential-explanatory mixed method design. Phase I analysis used quantitative performance data to differentiate research skill threshold crossers from non-crossers. Phase II analysis used qualitative interview data to identify common and differentiating themes across and between the two groups. Findings Participants identified coursework, research activities and teaching assignments as primary research skill development sites. However, only the patterns of mentorship and engagement with literature within the context of supervised research activities consistently differentiated threshold crossers from non-crossers. All non-crossers reported having full autonomy in their research endeavors, whereas all crossers articulated reliance on supervising mentor guidance. Similarly, most non-crossers did not frame research as incremental contributions to existing literature, while most crossers did. Research limitations/implications The study sample size is small (n = 14), and the study is exploratory in nature. Practical implications The importance of exploring the factors that actually indicate and lead to research skill development is highlighted. Originality/value Few studies address graduate student research skill development, although this skill development is a core goal of many graduate programs. This study does so, using performance rather than self-report data.

PurposeThis study aims to examine the contribution of faculty–student coauthorship to the development of graduate students’ research skills in the sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) by quantitatively assessing rubric-measured research skill gains over the course of an academic year compared to students who did not report participating in coauthorship with faculty mentors.Design/methodology/approachA quasi-experimental mixed methods approach was used to test the hypothesis that the influence of STEM graduate students’ mentored writing mentorship experiences would be associated with differential improvement in the development of their research skills over the course of an academic year.FindingsThe results indicate that students who co-authored with faculty mentors were likely to develop significantly higher levels of research skills than students who did not. In addition, less than half of the participants reported having such experiences, suggesting that increased emphasis on this practice amongst faculty could enhance graduate student learning outcomes.Originality/valueQualitative studies of graduate student writing experiences have alluded to outcomes that transcend writing qualityper seand speak directly to the research skills acquired by the students as part of their graduate training. However, no study to date has captured the discrete effects of writing experiences on these skills in a quantifiable way.

The regular drumbeat (a mantra) of similar recommendations to advance graduate education by a constant stream of national studies over the past two decades has failed to prompt action. We propose several reasons why the studies have not gained traction, including the fact that the target recipients of the studies—students, faculty, and administrators—have not been asked whether they agree with the studies’ recommendations. A survey we recently conducted of the beneficiaries of the recent national study of graduate education by the American Chemical Society reveals sharp differences in opinion regarding the study’s three dozen recommendations that can be attributed to the pains and values of the various demographic groups that are impacted by the proposed changes. To develop a consensus path forward to reform graduate education, the survey results clearly speak to the need for further conversations that include the entire community of stakeholders, not just those who write the reports.

Studies of skill development often describe a process of cumulative advantage, in which small differences in initial skill compound over time, leading to increasing skill gaps between those with an initial advantage and those without. We offer evidence of a similar phenomenon accounting for differential patterns of research skill development in graduate students over an academic year and explore differences in socialization that accompany diverging developmental trajectories. As predicted, quantitative analysis indicated large effect sizes for skill gains after controlling for initial performance levels. Qualitative analyses indicated that students with initial advantages were more likely to report greater demands of independence by their advisors and see more extensive value in research tasks comparable to those assigned their less skilled peers.

In the laboratory-based disciplines, selection of a principal investigator (PI) and research laboratory (lab) indelibly shapes doctoral students’ experiences and educational outcomes. Framed by the theoretical concept of person–environment fit from within a socialization model, we use an inductive, qualitative approach to explore how a sample of 42 early-stage doctoral students enrolled in biological sciences programs made decisions about fitting with a PI and within a lab. Results illuminated a complex array of factors that students considered in selecting a PI, including PI relationship, mentoring style, and professional stability. Further, with regard to students’ lab selection, peers and research projects played an important role. Students actively conceptualized trade-offs among various dimensions of fit. Our findings also revealed cases in which students did not secure a position in their first (or second) choice labs and had to consider their potential fit with suboptimal placements (in terms of their initial assessments). Thus, these students weighted different factors of fit against the reality of needing to secure financial support to continue in their doctoral programs. We conclude by presenting and framing implications for students, PIs, and doctoral programs, and recommend providing transparency and candor around the PI and lab selection processes.

Studies of inequality in higher education on both undergraduate and graduate levels have rarely examined experiences of Asians and Pacific Islanders (APIs). In this study, we focus on the experiences and outcomes of API students in doctoral education. More specifically, we examine socialization experiences and research productivity of three groups of students: domestic API, international API, and domestic white students. The results, based on a national cohort of PhD students in biology, reveal notable differences in experiences and outcomes of domestic and international API students. Although variation in socialization experiences explains differences in research productivity in the first year, that is not the case in the second year of doctoral study. In the second year, international API students have publication productivity comparable to their white peers, despite less favorable socialization experiences. Domestic API students, however, have lower research productivity than their white peers, even though they have comparable socialization experiences. Given the presumption of APIs’ success, especially in the STEM fields, findings for domestic API students are surprising and not aligned with the model minority stereotype. Contributions to research on API students, doctoral education, and socialization theory are discussed.

Faculty mentorship is thought to be a linchpin of graduate education in STEM disciplines. This mixed-method study investigates agreement between student mentees’ and their faculty mentors’ perceptions of the students’ developing research knowledge and skills in STEM. We also compare both assessments against independent ratings of the students’ written research proposals. In most cases, students and their mentors identified divergent strengths and weaknesses. However, when mentor-mentee pairs did identify the same characteristics, mentors and mentees disagreed about the mentee’s abilities in 44% of cases in the Fall semester and 75% of cases in the Spring semester. When compared against performance-based assessments of mentees’ work, neither faculty mentors’ nor their mentees’ perceptions aligned with rubric scores at rates greater than chance in most categories.

Undergraduate research experiences have been adopted across higher education institutions. However, most studies examining benefits derived from undergraduate research rely on self-report of skill development. This study used an empirical assessment of research skills to investigate associations between undergraduate research experiences and research skill performance in graduate school. Research experience characteristics including duration, autonomy, collaboration, and motivation were also examined. Undergraduate research experience was linked to heightened graduate school performance in all research skills assessed. While autonomy and collaboration were highlighted in student interviews, duration was most strongly correlated to significant increases in research skill performance. Based on these findings, we advocate for the inclusion of research experiences into the undergraduate science curriculum coupled with the creation of centralized offices of undergraduate research and faculty incentives for involving undergraduates in their research.

A national sample of female PhD students logged significantly more hours conducting research than their male counterparts. However, males were 15% more likely to be listed as authors on journal articles per 100 hours of research time, reflecting inequality on an essential metric of scholarly productivity that directly impacts competitiveness for academic positions., Equitable gender representation is an important aspect of scientific workforce development to secure a sufficient number of individuals and a diversity of perspectives. Biology is the most gender equitable of all scientific fields by the marker of degree attainment, with 52.5% of PhDs awarded to women. However, equitable rates of degree completion do not translate into equitable attainment of faculty or postdoctoral positions, suggesting continued existence of gender inequalities. In a national cohort of 336 first-year PhD students in the biological sciences (i.e., microbiology, cellular biology, molecular biology, developmental biology, and genetics) from 53 research institutions, female participants logged significantly more research hours than males and were significantly more likely than males to attribute their work hours to the demands of their assigned projects over the course of the academic year. Despite this, males were 15% more likely to be listed as authors on published journal articles, indicating inequality in the ratio of time to credit. Given the cumulative advantage that accrues for students who publish early in their graduate careers and the central role that scholarly productivity plays in academic hiring decisions, these findings collectively point to a major potential source of persisting underrepresentation of women on university faculties in these fields.