Download
1 / 49
490 likes | 636 Vues
Committing to and Succeeding in a Biomedical PhD: New Insights on Career Choices and Diversity through Social Science Theories. Rick McGee, PhD, Professor of Medical Education Associate Dean for Faculty Recruitment and Professional Development Simon Williams, PhD, Cambridge University
E N D
Committing to and Succeeding in a Biomedical PhD: New Insights on Career Choices and Diversitythrough Social Science Theories Rick McGee, PhD, Professor of Medical Education Associate Dean for Faculty Recruitment and Professional Development Simon Williams, PhD, Cambridge University Scientific Careers Research & Development Group May 15, 2013
Setting the stage to look at diversity efforts differently Strong push for access to and support for underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities in biomedical sciences since civil rights era in U.S. Initially through Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), expanded to tribal colleges and Hispanic Serving Institutions Currently, > $300 million annually from NIH alone – also NSF Woefully limited impact – modest gains for starting and completing the PhD – drops off rapidly after that esp. at faculty level In mid 1990s, began to require program evaluation and in early 2000s began to explore “Research on Interventions” – goal was to stimulate collaborations between natural and social scientists Emphasis on empirical studies based on established theories to create new generalizable knowledge Our first study on predicting future scientists part of “proof-of-concept”
Most programmatic efforts focus at college level Vast array of programs attempt to Make URM students aware of research as a career option Improve access to and mastery of science courses – big gaps in access to quality pre-college science preparation – much along class/SES lines but linked to race/ethnicity too Provide access to high quality, well-mentored undergrad research Provide guidance on applying to PhD programs Great majority of research focused on preparation for entry into the PhD – virtually nothing on what happens after that other than head-counts to document outcomes Foundations for future success and persistence obviously set during PhD training so have to know more about what goes on there that leads to fall-off in professional achievements beyond This is our mission and niche, but what we are learning we believe will have strong relevance to earlier years too
Theories Underpinning Our Research & Design How do students develop an identity as an academic scientist? How does a scientist identity interact with racial , ethnic, and gender identities? How do young scientists deal with stereotypes and discrimination? How do group processes such as shared norms, inclusion and exclusion affect the integration of young scientists into laboratories and other groups? • Communities of Practice • Social learning • Inclusion based on perceived competence • Risk of marginalization • Identity Development • Multiple senses of “self” based on interactions with the social world • Contingencies including discrimination and stereotypes • Always evolving What skills, knowledge, attitudes and values do young scientists need to “fit” with the culture of science? How are students differently evaluated based on gender, race, and ethnicity? How do experiences translate into science self-efficacy and a goal as an academic scientist? How are students moved toward, or away from, academic science careers? • Cultural Capital • Social reproduction by dominant groups • Focus on promotion and fit based on perceptions of knowledge and skills • Often invisible judgments/assumptions • Social Cognitive Career Theory • Individuals move toward particular careers based on experiences, interests, self-efficacy and goals
Social science theories and models bring scientific development into a whole new light They give definition to the complex interplay between talents, how they are developed, and non-uniform opportunity – we emphasize “developing talent” vs. “the leaking pipeline” They ‘name’ what we see playing out all of the time By naming them it provides the opportunity to think and talk about them They particularly shed light on the complexities and often idiosyncratic outcomes with mentoring as a primary mode for development and evaluation of talents As we begin to talk about these with natural scientists we are finding NO resistance – rather, “sure, that’s what I see all the time – I didn’t know there was a name for it” Using ‘social science theory decoders’ for this purpose
Armed with social science theories we set off to see how they play out in real life How do young scientists (stating out the PhD) make critical career decisions during training that impact potential as future faculty? Are they driven by conscious choice, inadvertent or unequal opportunities, and/or predictable patterns? What is REALLY going on during research training? What is happening in the ‘black box’ we call mentoring? In what ways do members of different groups experience scientific development differently? Are their common patterns or is it all idiosyncratic? How strongly do gender, race, ethnicity, SES, ‘being different’ influence progression? How well is progression explained by theories?
Longitudinal Study = student life stories Identified potential biomedical scientists in college to study decisions to pursue the PhD (or not) and students beginning PhD – Broadly distributed throughout US + Puerto Rico Sample (started with ~500) sufficiently diverse by gender, race and ethnicity to allow comparisons – now following ~270 PhD students – also focusing on SES differences and impacts In-depth interviews at start of PhD and then yearly First 2 in-person then by phone - typically 45-90 minutes Interviews transcribed and studied using qualitative analysis – UNBLEIEVABLY revealing but VERY complex analysis Will require years to really understand what is going on but it is the only way…
Demographics of 270 Current PhD Students in Longitudinal Studies (with 2 NIH grants)
One unique early subset: Postbaccalaureate Research Education Program (PREP) Scholars • A nationally funded program to help achieve racial and ethnic diversity among life scientists – 26 sites, ~125-150 individuals/year • Recent graduates with BS degrees – did not apply or get accepted to PhD or MD/PhD programs during senior year • Receive salary of $21,000/year – going up to $27,000 • Almost all Black, Hispanic or Native American • Not a remedial program – must have good to very good academic background and usually prior research experience – very likely to be acceptable for PhD programs in future – often a choice, not a fall-back • Non-degree program – not registered as students but can take up to one graduate level class per term • Most time spent doing research in a lab with mentor – like doing the second year of a U.S. PhD first
Not remedial but all PREP Scholars looking for something Can view this choice as one in which students need more to be prepared for graduate school applications: • Appropriate skills, knowledge, and research experiences • Grades, letters of recommendation, test scores • But some students have this preparation and still choose PREP. We argue that some choose PREP expecting to get more than just the “stuff” of preparation. All students want to feel ready for graduate school, i.e., • Able to use the “stuff” they have or will accumulate • Able to see how graduate school aligns with who they are and what they want to do in science and become as scientists
Characteristics of PREP Study Sample52 participants from 7 PREP Programs • Gender: 38% Male, 62% Female • Race and Ethnicity • Latino/Hispanic: 42% • Non-Hispanic Black/African-American: 46% • American Indian/Alaska Native: 4% • More than one race: 4% • Asian/Asian-American: 2% • Non-Hispanic White: 2% • Parent Education • Neither parent has bachelors – i.e. First Generation: 50% • Highest level for at least one parent is bachelors: 17% • Highest level for at least one parent at masters or above: 33%
Characteristics, cont. • Amount of Prior Research • No research in biomedical field: 17% • One experience (usually a summer): 17% • Two or more experiences: 66% • Graduate School Preparation • 42% took GRE before starting PREP • 25% applied to graduate school • 4% were accepted to graduate school • 25% participated in undergraduate NIH-funded programs
Beyond Filling Gaps in Preparation: Readiness Involves Identity Work • Identity is a fluid and dynamic process • One doesn’t arrive at a stable, unchanging identity • Identity takes place on multiple dimensions, e.g., student, career, race, gender • Two types of recognition influence identity development • Internal recognition of oneself • External recognition from others • Components of Science Identity • Doing science (practices or hands-on bench work) • Being a scientist (sense of self as a scientist) • Becoming a scientist (alignment with a role in science) • Programs, like PREP, offer one environment for identity development • People have expectations which shape their participation • People engage with contexts and available resources
Why PREP? Research Preparation is Only Part of the Answer Interest Testers Discipline Changers Path Builders Credential Seekers PI Aspirants Likes science Develops as a researcher Clarifies goals PREP Applies to PhD Begins PhD One Caution: Don’t see the identifiers as ‘labels’ – only meant to be descriptive short-hand to help visualize what students are doing and looking for at the time of PREP
Interest Testers: Seen Through Multiple Theories Identity Work: -competence for research to be determined as they get exposure to research -identity as a graduate student may evolve with more experience in research at a research intensive setting -lack context and experiences to develop identity for research or a career in research Cultural Capital: -need experiences to build knowledge of practices, norms & expectations of “real research” -bring a disposition of hard work and determination • Research • none for most, maybe a brief experience in another discipline • Goals • undecided, recent movement away from another goal, e.g., pre-med • Other • learned about PREP late, has few research skills and little formal/informal knowledge about research culture • Why not directly to the PhD? • not ready with experience or goals • Expectations for PREP: • to get their first exposure to biomedical lab research; a “second chance” to get “as much research training as I can do”
Discipline Changers: Seen Through Multiple Theories Identity Work: -strong academic identity from success as a student -career identity is less defined though they admire professors and can see themselves thriving in an academic setting Cultural Capital: -have disposition for learning across disciplines for the love of knowledge -need to employ their knowledge and skills to the bio research field • Research • mastery experience with research in a non-science field, e.g., anthro, econ; some volunteered in science research • Goals • short-term: pursue PhD in science; • long-term: they would enjoy working in an academic setting • Other • confident based on mastery experience in another field; strong grades; GRE potentially strong; taken science classes after getting bachelor’s • Why not directly to the PhD? • aware of deficit in science research and taking steps to prepare • Expectations for PREP: • to apply their knowledge and skills to research in a biomedical field
Path Builders: Seen Through Multiple Theories Identity Work: -trying on the identity of a graduate student -becoming internally ready to commit to the PhD even when PIs and mentors felt they were prepared Cultural Capital: -assessing their fit in a research culture at a research intensive school -to learn more about grad school processes and expectations • Research • adequate amount but disconnected in topic and level of involvement • Goals • short term: wants a consistent year of research; long-term: open to options • Other • undergrad school likely to be less research intensive; showed evidence of broader scientific thinking • Why not directly to the PhD? • not internally ready to commit to grad • school; fears about expectations & fit • Expectations for PREP: • internal readiness for the PhD; feel more secure in ability and fit with research
Credential Seekers: Seen Through Multiple Theories Identity Work: -strong identity as doers of science -less identity with thinking like a scientist -doing of science isn’t linked to longer term vision of what they want to become in science Cultural Capital: -seeking institutionalculturalcapital, i.e., an application that will be recognized by grad school admissions Research adequate amount of research; express a passion for bench work (hands-on science) Goals Short term: get into the PhD or MD/PhD Long term: keep doing research (bench) Other several had applied and been rejected from grad school; Why not directly to the PhD? They believe they have a weakness in a particular credential, e.g., GRE scores; grades; research experience Expectations for PREP: want to acquire skills to show in graduate school applications
PI Aspirants: Seen Through Multiple Theories Identity Work: -moving beyond research identity to scientist identity but tempered by stereotype threat -embrace thinking like scientists, e.g., reading primary literature experimental design, leading a research agenda -can see themselves as PIs in the future -high cognitive load as seniors to keep performance high -awareness of being evaluated based on racial background and therefore striving to be “better than the best” (need to prove themselves) Cultural Capital: -strategic planning to gain valued credentials -ready to develop resources beyond the lab • Research • adequate experiences with good mentoring, positive feedback, mastery and autonomy • Goals • PhD at prestigious university for an academic career • Other • high GPA, honors, highly competitive undergrad (rigorous), GREs not taken • Why not directly to the PhD? • pressure senior year to complete work at high level and "work twice as hard because racism still exists“ • Expectations for PREP: • strategic decision to use PREP to reach goals
What did PREP Scholars do after PREP? • 48 of 52 stayed in study, did second interview • Of the 48, 40 have started PhD or MD/PhD programs – others still with potential to get there • PI Aspirants – 4/4 in PhD programs • Path Builders – 12/14 – including 1 MD/PhD • Discipline Changers – 4/5 in PhD • Interest Testers – 3/3 in PhD • Credential Seekers – 17 of 22 – including 2 MD/PhD
Components of Development During PREP? • External and Internal Identity Work: All experienced external feedback about themselves as researchers and potential graduate students; some developed a stronger internal sense about becoming graduate students. • Practice as a Graduate Student: Living “in the skin of a graduate student” fostered a sense of fit; excitement for graduate school; and confidence they are equally or more prepared than peers. • Pivotal Graduate School Interviews: With insider information for applying and interview practice, most found it comfortable and ‘fun’ to talk about science with faculty and peers during campus visits. • Preparation and Readiness: Most leave PREP prepared with applicable credentials and ready with high confidence and commitment for the PhD, which they didn’t have when they graduated college.
Along comes the “NIH Director’s Pathfinder Award to Promote Diversity in the Scientific Workforce” • Truly unique grant writing and review process – Acknowledged that current approaches to diversity in science were not working – don’t bother proposing to do more of it – required evidence of past creativity and novel approaches to problems • “Translating Theory to Practice” – Theories that we and others are showing really do explain the workings of the research community • If we could do something different, what would it be? – Drawing on 40+ years as ‘insider’ and now ‘outsider’ experimenting on it • As early as early 1980s learned the incredible power of group processes for teaching and learning… • Once in a lifetime chance to think and ACT outside the box – seemed too good to be true • 7 awards of ~$2 million each over 3 years – one-time, not renewable
Translating Theory to Practice to Diversify the Biomedical Research Community“The Academy for Future Science Faculty”
Our Big Picture • Long Term Goal: Faculty Diversity • Interim Objectives: 1) Higher level of achievement and frequency of success of students of color and other PhD students; 2) Sustained informed interest in academic careers; 3) Heightened sense of achievability of academic careers • What’s the Problem?: 1) Risk and frequency of marginalization during PhD and postdoc years much higher for students of color from theoretical and practical perspectives; 2) Low SES and educational disadvantages amplify; 3) Willingness of students (especially those of color) to pursue academic careers is low and declining • Historical Solutions: 1) Improve preparation for the PhD; 2) Improve mentoring; 3) Workshops and career guidance – Inadequate • Change the Paradigm: 1) Reveal the social processes that can lead to marginalization; 2) Shift to a teaching approach (we call it Coaching) to overcome inherent limitations in mentoring; 3) Create whole new ‘communities’ of future faculty to sustain interest and expertise
Linking back to the theories… • Acknowledge and bring into open discussion the extra identity complexities and contingencies that students of color, women, and anyone who is ‘different’ face – Validating and talking about identities is the first step in developing successful strategies to managing them • By understadning how research groups and the larger research community behave like Communities of Practice, students and faculty can work within them better – New insights and strategies for excelling with in these social settings can be developed and taught • There is a whole lot of invisible ‘stuff’ involved with being seen as a highly competent scienctist (cultural capital) that can be taught not just left up to chance experiences – Once the ways of acting, being, being scene can be made visible, they can go from something passed on and assumed to equate to legitimacy as a scientist into easily teachable elements
The Academy Approach • Design from theory up – address theoretical and reality-based experiences that cause many students of color to face higher risk of marginalization throughout training • Recruit expert mentors and develop them into a community of highly skilled coaches who guide small groups of PhD students • Sustain the community of students and coaches to augment and cover gaps throughout PhD programs and mentors • Create a ‘safe space’ for difficult conversations among students and coaches of ALL backgrounds • Conduct it as a randomized controlled trial with rigorous collection and analysis of qualitative and outcome data – integrating social and natural scientists • Compare impacts of new approach on beginning PhD students vs. those getting close to graduation
Academy I - July 2011-Today • 3-day Academy meeting with 99 students and 10 coaches - July, 2011 • Coaching groups (10 students with 1 coach) met virtually via electronic media throughout the academic year • Meetings ranged from almost monthly to twice over the year • Also many student/coach and student/student contacts • Variation among students in sense of need and interest but almost all found value • Major goal is to bring students with lower cultural capital up to higher CC • Several webinars held in second half of the year • e.g. “Choosing a Dissertation Mentor/Research Group” • Modest participation but highly regarded by those who attended – repository available for access when issue comes up in future • Conscious decision not to add a lot of content to enable/encourage students to focus on local PhD program activities and needs • Very important that the Academy and Coaches do not inhibit connections at home institutions • Activities focus on both next step readiness and long-term vision/feasibility
Academy II – July 2012-Today • 60 students – generally 6-12 months from completing the PhD – 6 new Coaches • Again stratified and randomized by gender, race and ethnicity • Coaches training – continued emphasis on social science theories and coaching vs. mentoring • More diversity in Coaches for Academy II – 3 men & 3 women; 2 African American, 1 Latina, 1 Asian, 2 white – seemed to have significant impact • Similar structural design as Academy I but focus on completing the PhD and transition to postdoctoral training
Difficult conversations about gender, race, ethnicity, SES, class – making the elephant in the room visible From interviews and conversations, became clear that Academy II underrepresented minority and some women students experiencing and feeling the weight of always standing out, being different Energy drain at best, also impacting desire to keep pushing back and persisting into academic careers – especially as PI Occurring in some students in longitudinal study as well Decided must find a way to bring it out into the open – first step in really dealing with it – but had to be among ALL, not just those feeling it • “We know it. But why don’t we talk about it? Diversity and Discrimination in Biomedical Research” – Dr. Dave Stovall, University of Illinois, Chicago – highly interactive session continued into coaching groups
Reactions to/impact of Stovall session How, if at all, has your participation in the Academy changed your views on race/ethnicity as it relates to science and/or academic careers? “The academy has reminded of the natural barriers to minority groups in entering academic careers, and encouraged me to reduce those barriers as I can.” (White male) “You may be an "only", however you may have allies in your circle who may not look like you” (African American female) Please provide any additional feedback about Dr. Stovall’s presentation. “It was a great presentation. I learned a lot about building my small community of people in my program who I can turn to for support and discussion regarding diversity and discrimination in the science” (Asian male). “He was excellent! The best diversity speaker I have ever had. I plan to implement some of the things he talked about. I feel really energized to do more for my community” (African American female).
Reactions to/impact of Stovall session I think Dr. Stovall’s presentation and the subsequent discussion in my coaching group will help me in the following ways: “Making an effort to invite variety of others into my social circles and understanding better some of the issues faced by my peers” (White male) “Being more confident when talking about these issues and knowing that even though it is important to talk about even if it is uncomfortable” (African American female)
What have we learned so far - students • Highly engaged coached groups of students can be formed – a ‘safe space’ for dialogue uncommon elsewhere • Not competing with each other like in PhD program, permission/ push to engage with important but ‘risky’ conversations • Coaches safer because no evaluative role • Many very personal issues come out in Academy and interviews – not uncommon to be first times able to talk about them • Variations among groups, coaching styles quite different – allowed to be ‘experiment’ with coaches • In-person time essential – not replicable with electronic tools alone unless clear long-term trusted relationship!!! • Coaches able to play roles and fill gaps beyond research mentors • Race/ethnicity/gender mix creates very different and very valuable new community – challenges thinking and common practices of minority-focused activities and programs
What have we learned so far - students • Implicit/invisible can be made explicit and visible – social science theories and attention to topics most germane for immediate and long-term goals • Able to teach/provide access to Cultural Capital • Able to bring out into open and discuss important realities of race/color and gender • Big differences in lived experiences between beginning and ending PhD students • Not easy but possible to give permission and engage dialogue – positive impact EXCEEDED our goals and expectations – challenges general sense of science as a meritocracy – gives voice and credibility to impact of ‘being the only one’ – mixed group appears critical
What have we learned so far - coaches • Remarkable Coaches community being developed • Highly engaged and committed – strong community to learn from • 2-day meetings demanding and exhausting – especially Academy II • Time for coaching varies – important variable just as it is with mentoring • Training/development of skills important even for successful mentors – small group facilitation skills important too • Cross-disciplinary design (not matching coach and student scientific disciplines) works – we plan to compare within-discipline model • Race/ethnicity/gender mix among coaches also has impact – value in coaches with different lived experiences including dealing with race, ethnicity, color, gender – role models and identity do matter • Coaches willing/eager to engage difficult conversations of race/ethnicity and privilege but not something all are comfortable with – requires some form of structure like used in 2012 Academy meetings
Have we convinced you? Explanations for slow diversification, beyond educational equity and access, actually quite explainable through social sciences Typical approaches so far seldom dig deeply enough Possible solutions also reside in theories and models We MUST start approaching this as scientists – a true interdisciplinary approach among social and natural scientists
Email: Rick McGee – r-mcgee@northwestern.edu Supported by: R01 GM085385, R01 GM085385-02S1 (ARRA), R01 NR011987, DP4 GM096807 (ARRA), R25 GM079300, R25 GM079300-03-S1 (ARRA) • Scientific Careers Research and Development Group Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine Chicago, IL 60611 http://www.careersresearch.northwestern.edu/
