A cross-institutional analysis of the effects of broadening trainee professional development on research productivity.

Patrick D Brandt,Joshua D Hall,Tracey Baas,Linda E Hyman,Harinder Singh,Ambika Mathur,Kathleen L Gould,Audra Van Wart,C Abigail Stayart,Amanda F Bolgioni,Daniel Arneman,Barbara M Schreiber,Chris E Holmquist,David A Fruman,Christine S Chow,Yvonne M Golightly,Rebekah L Layton,Roger Chalkley,Janet Alder,Brent Bowden,Kimberly A Petrie,A C Brown ,Isabel Domı́nguez ,Christopher Wiesen ,Susi Varvayanis ,Patrick Brennwald

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000956

Abstract

PhD-trained scientists are essential contributors to the workforce in diverse employment sectors that include academia, industry, government, and nonprofit organizations. Hence, best practices for training the future biomedical workforce are of national concern. Complementing coursework and laboratory research training, many institutions now offer professional training that enables career exploration and develops a broad set of skills critical to various career paths. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded academic institutions to design innovative programming to enable this professional development through a mechanism known as Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training (BEST). Programming at the NIH BEST awardee institutions included career panels, skill-building workshops, job search workshops, site visits, and internships. Because doctoral training is lengthy and requires focused attention on dissertation research, an initial concern was that students participating in additional complementary training activities might exhibit an increased time to degree or diminished research productivity. Metrics were analyzed from 10 NIH BEST awardee institutions to address this concern, using time to degree and publication records as measures of efficiency and productivity. Comparing doctoral students who participated to those who did not, results revealed that across these diverse academic institutions, there were no differences in time to degree or manuscript output. Our findings support the policy that doctoral students should participate in career and professional development opportunities that are intended to prepare them for a variety of diverse and important careers in the workforce.

Highlights

Y (University of Chicago; CAS); DP7OD018425 (Cornell University; SSV); DP7OD018428 (Virginia Polytechnic Institute; AVW, BB); DP7OD020314 (Rutgers University; JA); DP7OD020315 (University of Rochester; TB); DP7OD018423 (Vanderbilt University; KAP, AMB, KLG, RC); DP7OD020321 (University of California, Irvine; HS, DAF); DP7OD020317 (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; PDB, PJB, RLL); DP7 OD018427 (Wayne State University; CSC, AM)
As National Institutes of Health (NIH) Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training (BEST) programs were implemented at each institution, some in the biomedical training community questioned whether participation in professional development programming would increase time to degree
Using 3 different methods of quantifying publication output, we found no overall difference in publication output between participants and controls at these NIH BEST institutions

Summary

Introduction

Y (University of Chicago; CAS); DP7OD018425 (Cornell University; SSV); DP7OD018428 (Virginia Polytechnic Institute; AVW, BB); DP7OD020314 (Rutgers University; JA); DP7OD020315 (University of Rochester; TB); DP7OD018423 (Vanderbilt University; KAP, AMB, KLG, RC); DP7OD020321 (University of California, Irvine; HS, DAF); DP7OD020317 (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; PDB, PJB, RLL); DP7 OD018427 (Wayne State University; CSC, AM). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion