Evolution of a Functional Taxonomy of Career Pathways for Biomedical Trainees

From goal to outcome: Analyzing the progression of biomedical sciences PhD careers in a longitudinal study using an expanded taxonomy

Biomedical sciences PhDs pursue a wide range of careers inside and outside academia. However, there is little data regarding how career interests of PhD students relate to the decision to pursue postdoctoral training or to their eventual career outcomes. Here, we present the career goals and career outcomes of 1452 biomedical sciences PhDs who graduated from Vanderbilt University between 1997 and 2021. We categorized careers using an expanded three-tiered taxonomy and flags that delineate key career milestones. We also analyzed career goal changes between matriculation and doctoral defense, and the reasons why students became more- or less-interested in research-intensive faculty careers. We linked students' career goal at doctoral defense to whether they did a postdoc, the duration of time between doctoral defense and the first non-training position, the career area of the first non-training position, and the career area of the job at 10 years after graduation. Finally, we followed individual careers for 10 years after graduation to characterize movement between different career areas over time. We found that most students changed their career goal during graduate school, declining numbers of alumni pursued postdoctoral training, many alumni entered first non-training positions in a different career area than their goal at doctoral defense, and the career area of the first non-training position was a good indicator of the job that alumni held 10 years after graduation. Our findings emphasize that students need a wide range of career development opportunities and career mentoring during graduate school to prepare them for futures in research and research-related professions.

Research productivity and training support for doctoral students in the biological and biomedical sciences

Training of doctoral students as part of the next generation of the biomedical workforce is essential for sustaining the scientific enterprise in the United States. Training primarily occurs at institutions of higher education, and these trainees comprise an important part of the workforce at these institutions. Federal investment in the support of doctoral students in the biological and biomedical sciences is distributed differently than the distribution of students across different types of institutions, for example, public vs private. Institutions in states that historically receive less federal support for research also receive less support for doctoral student training. Doctorates at different types of institution exhibit little difference in research productivity, with the exception of citations, and subsequent receipt of additional NIH awards. Thus, training outcomes, which are related to the quality of the student and training environment, are similar across different institutions. Research productivity of doctoral students does not correlate with the number of F31s awarded to an institution. Factors that correlate with F31 funding include R01 funding levels and program size. The findings suggest strategies for institutions to increase success at securing F31s and modification of policy to promote more equitable distribution of F31s across institutions.

An institutional analysis of graduate outcomes reveals a contemporary workforce footprint for biomedical master's degrees

There is continued growth in the number of master's degrees awarded in the life sciences to address the evolving needs of the biomedical workforce. Academic medical centers leverage the expertise of their faculty and industry partners to develop one to two year intensive and multidisciplinary master's programs that equip students with advanced scientific skills and practical training experiences. However, there is little data published on the outcomes of these graduates to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs and to inform the return on investment of students. Here, the authors show the first five-year career outlook for master of science graduates from programs housed at an academic medical center. Georgetown University Biomedical Graduate Education researchers analyzed the placement outcomes of 1,204 graduates from 2014-2018, and the two-year outcomes of 412 graduates from 2016 and 2017. From the 15 M.S. programs analyzed, they found that 69% of graduates entered the workforce, while 28% entered an advanced degree program such as a Ph.D., allopathic or osteopathic medicine (M.D. or D.O.), or health professions degree. International students who pursue advanced degrees largely pursued Ph.D. degrees, while domestic students represent the majority of students entering into medical programs. Researchers found that a majority of the alumni that entered the workforce pursue research-based work, with 59% of graduates conducting research-based job functions across industries. Forty-nine percent of employed graduates analyzed from 2016 and 2017 changed employment positions, while 15% entered advanced degree programs. Alumni that changed positions changed companies in the same job function, changed to a position of increasing responsibility in the same or different organization, or changed to a different job function in the same or different company. Overall, standalone master's programs equip graduates with research skills, analytical prowess, and content expertise, strengthening the talent pipeline of the biomedical workforce.

The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences' Intramural Training Program and Fellow Career Outcomes

The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) defines translational science as "the field of investigation focused on understanding the scientific and operational principles underlying each step of the translational process." A major goal of translational science is to determine commonalities across projects to identify principles for addressing persistent bottlenecks in this process. To meet this goal, translational scientists must be conversant in multiple disciplines, work in teams, and understand the larger translational science ecosystem. The development of these skills through translational science training opportunities, such as the translational science training offered by the NCATS intramural research program, prepares fellows for a variety of career options. The unique structure of the NCATS intramural program and the career outcomes of its alumni are described herein to demonstrate the distinct features of this training environment, the productivity of fellows during their time in training, and how this prepares fellows to be competitive for a variety of science careers. To date, the NCATS intramural research program has trained 213 people, ranging from high school to postdoctoral levels. These alumni have transitioned into a wide array of career functions, types, and sectors.

Applying Experiential Learning to Career Development Training for Biomedical Graduate Students and Postdocs: Perspectives on Program Development and Design

Experiential learning is an effective educational tool across many academic disciplines, including career development. Nine different institutions bridged by the National Institutes of Health Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training Consortium compared their experiments in rethinking and expanding training of predoctoral graduate students and postdoctoral scholars in the biomedical sciences to include experiential learning opportunities. In this article, we provide an overview of the four types of experiential learning approaches our institutions offer and compare the learning objectives and evaluation strategies employed for each type. We also discuss key factors for shaping experiential learning activities on an institutional level. The framework we provide can help organizations determine which form of experiential learning for career training might best suit their institutions and goals and aid in the successful design and delivery of such training.

The NIH "BEST" programs: Institutional programs, the program evaluation, and early data

Biomedical research training has undergone considerable change over the past several years. At its core, the goal of graduate and postdoctoral training is to provide individuals with the skills and knowledge to become outstanding scientists and expand knowledge through the scientific method. Historically, graduate school training has focused on preparation for academic positions. Increasingly, however, a shift toward preparation for a wider range of career options has emerged. This is largely because most biomedical PhD graduates do not become Principal Investigators in academic laboratories. Here we describe an National Institutes of Health Common Fund program with the major goal of culture change for biomedical research training and training that prepares individuals for a broader expanse of careers in the biomedical research enterprise. These "Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training" (BEST) awards, issued in 2012 and 2013, provided support to institutions to develop innovative approaches to achieving these goals, as a complement to traditional training. Awardees were tasked with catalyzing change at their institutions and sharing best practices across the training community. Awardees were required to participate in a cross-site evaluation that assessed the impact of BEST activities on three main areas: (a) trainee confidence and knowledge to make career decisions, (b) influence of this added activity on time in training, and (c) ability of the institutions to sustain activities deemed to be beneficial. Here we present the fundamental approach to the BEST program and early evaluative data.

Applying inter-rater reliability to improve consistency in classifying PhD career outcomes

Background: There has been a groundswell of national support for transparent tracking and dissemination of PhD career outcomes. In 2017, individuals from multiple institutions and professional organizations met to create the Unified Career Outcomes Taxonomy (UCOT 2017), a three-tiered taxonomy to help institutions uniformly classify career outcomes of PhD graduates. Early adopters of UCOT 2017, noted ambiguity in some categories of the career taxonomy, raising questions about its consistent application within and across institutions. Methods: To test and evaluate the consistency of UCOT 2017, we calculated inter-rater reliability across two rounds of iterative refinement of the career taxonomy, classifying over 800 PhD alumni records via nine coders. Results: We identified areas of discordance in the taxonomy, and progressively refined UCOT 2017 and an accompanying Guidance Document to improve inter-rater reliability across all three tiers of the career taxonomy. However, differing interpretations of the classifications, especially for faculty classifications in the third tier, resulted in continued discordance among the coders. We addressed this discordance with clarifying language in the Guidance Document, and proposed the addition of a flag system for identification of the title, rank, and prefix of faculty members. This labeling system provides the additional benefit of highlighting the granularity and the intersectionality of faculty job functions, while maintaining the ability to sort by - and report data on - faculty and postdoctoral trainee roles, as is required by some national and federal reporting guidelines. We provide specific crosswalk guidance for how a user may choose to incorporate our suggestions while maintaining the ability to report in accordance with UCOT 2017. Conclusions: Our findings underscore the importance of detailed guidance documents, coder training, and periodic collaborative review of career outcomes taxonomies as PhD careers evolve in the global workforce. Implications for coder-training and use of novice coders are also discussed.

Applying inter-rater reliability to improve consistency in classifying PhD career outcomes

Background: There has been a groundswell of national support for transparent tracking and dissemination of PhD career outcomes. In 2017, individuals from multiple institutions and professional organizations met to create the Unified Career Outcomes Taxonomy (UCOT 2017), a three-tiered taxonomy to help institutions uniformly classify career outcomes of PhD graduates. Early adopters of UCOT 2017, noted ambiguity in some categories of the career taxonomy, raising questions about its consistent application within and across institutions. Methods: To test and evaluate the consistency of UCOT 2017, we calculated inter-rater reliability across two rounds of iterative refinement of the career taxonomy, classifying over 800 PhD alumni records via nine coders. Results: We identified areas of discordance in the taxonomy, and progressively refined UCOT 2017 and an accompanying Guidance Document to improve inter-rater reliability across all three tiers of the career taxonomy. However, differing interpretations of the classifications, especially for faculty classifications in the third tier, resulted in continued discordance among the coders. We addressed this discordance with clarifying language in the Guidance Document, and proposed the addition of a flag system for identification of the title, rank, and prefix of faculty members. This labeling system provides the additional benefit of highlighting the granularity and the intersectionality of faculty job functions, while maintaining the ability to sort by - and report data on - faculty and postdoctoral trainee roles, as is required by some national and federal reporting guidelines. We provide specific crosswalk guidance for how a user may choose to incorporate our suggestions while maintaining the ability to report in accordance with UCOT 2017. Conclusions: Our findings underscore the importance of detailed guidance documents, coder training, and periodic collaborative review of career outcomes taxonomies as PhD careers evolve in the global workforce. Implications for coder-training and use of novice coders are also discussed.