Applied Theatre Facilitates Dialogue about Career Challenges for Scientists.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Segarra VA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5440171 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Applied Theatre Facilitates Dialogue about Career Challenges for Scientists.
Segarra Verónica A VA Zavala MariaElena M Hammonds-Odie Latanya L
Journal of microbiology & biology education 20170401 2
The design of programs in support of a strong, diverse, and inclusive scientific workforce and academe requires numerous difficult conversations about sensitive topics such as the challenges scientists can face in their professional development. Theatre can be an interactive and effective way to foster discussion around such subjects. This article examines the implementation and benefits of such interactive strategies in different contexts, including the benefits of getting early career academic ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceDespite increasing evidence and recognition of persistent gender disparities in academic medicine, qualitative data detailing the association of gender-based experiences with career progression remain sparse, particularly at the mid- to senior-career stage.ObjectiveTo investigate the role gender has played in everyday professional experiences of mid- to senior-career women clinician-scientists and their perceptions of gender-related barriers experienced across their careers.Design, setting, and participantsIn this qualitative study, a total of 60 of 159 invited clinician-scientists who received National Institutes of Health K08 or K23 awards between 2006 and 2009 and responded to a survey in 2021 agreed to participate. Invitees were selected using random, purposive sampling to support sample heterogeneity. Semistructured in-depth interviews were conducted January to May 2022. For this study, interviews from 31 women were analyzed using the framework approach to thematic analysis. Data analyses were performed between August and October 2023.Main outcomes and measuresDescriptive themes of participant experiences of gender and gender-based barriers in academic medicine.ResultsA total of 31 women clinician-scientists (8 identifying as Asian [25.8%], 14 identifying as White [45.2%], and 9 identifying as members of a minority group underrepresented in medicine [29.0%]; 14 aged 40-49 years [45.2%] and 14 aged 50-59 years [45.2%]) were included. Among them, 17 participants (54.8%) had children who required adult supervision or care, 7 participants (22.6%) had children who did not require supervision or care, and 6 participants (19.4%) did not have children. There were 4 dominant themes identified within participant experiences in academic medicine: the mental burden of gendered expectations at work and home, inequitable treatment of women in bureaucratic processes, subtle and less subtle professional exclusion of women, and value of communities built on shared identities, experiences, and solidarity.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that women perceived the institution of academic medicine as a male-centric system misaligned with the needs of women, with associated feelings of exclusion, disillusionment, and loss of trust in their institutions. Findings suggest that the confluence of domestic obligations and unaccommodating institutional environments may make it difficult for women clinician-scientists to achieve established timelines of career progression and productivity; these findings may have long-term implications for the well-being and retention of women in academic medicine.
| S-EPMC11253288 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding the influences on healthcare professionals' career choices and progression can inform interventions to improve workforce retention. Retention of health professionals is a high priority worldwide, in order to maintain expertise and meet the needs of national populations. In the UK, investment in clinical scientists' pre-registration education is high and the need to retain motivated scientists recognised.MethodsWe conducted a mixed methods study to investigate the career choices and progression of early career clinical scientists. First job sector and salary of trainees who completed the UK pre-registration Scientist Training Programme (STP) between 2014 and 2019 were analysed using descriptive statistics and Chi-Squared tests. Semi-structured interviews conducted with volunteer practising clinical scientists who completed the programme in 2015 or 2016 were analysed thematically and reviewed for alignment with theories for understanding career choice and workforce retention.ResultsMost scientists who completed the STP between 2014 and 2019 obtained a post in the UK National Health Service (NHS) and achieved the expected starting salary. Life scientists were more likely to work in non-NHS healthcare settings than other scientific divisions; and physiological scientists less likely to achieve the expected starting salary. Experiences during training influenced career choice and progression 0-3 years post qualification, as did level of integration of training places with workforce planning. Specialty norms, staff turnover, organisational uncertainty and geographical preferences influenced choices in both the short (0-3 years) and longer term (5 + years). Interviewees reported a strong commitment to public service; and some could foresee that these priorities would influence future decisions about applying for management positions. These factors aligned with the components of job embeddedness theory, particularly that of 'fit'.ConclusionsTraining experiences, personal values, specialty norms and organisational factors all influence UK clinical scientists' early career choices and progression. Job embeddedness theory provides a useful lens through which to explore career choice and progression; and suggests types of intervention that can enhance the careers of this essential group. Interventions need to take account of variations between different scientific specialties.
| S-EPMC8494160 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Communication is fundamental in science. Among scientists, communication skills are required to write a comprehensible scientific manuscript or to prepare an attractive oral presentation. In addition, the ability to communicate successfully with the nonscientific community has been increasingly appreciated, as it represents the most effective way to promote popular scientific literacy. Nevertheless, students majoring in sciencerelated courses are not trained specifically for these purposes, and improving communication skills usually depends on tips and advice given by peers. To this end, we have launched DivulgaMicro, an initiative that aims to enhance science communication among early-career scientists in Brazil. DivulgaMicro relies on two major cornerstones: providing online resources via a dedicated website (www.divulgamicro.com.br/index.html) and promoting onsite workshops in universities located in different macro regions of the country. On the website, people can access a collection of fun activities designed to teach scientific concepts to a general audience, along with tips and news regarding public outreach events in Brazil. In the month following its launch, our website had 1,026 visitors from 10 different countries besides Brazil. Regarding the workshops, six were offered during 2018, with nearly 600 attendees. In the course, scientists are presented best practices for scientific writing and oral presentations, as well as techniques to improve communication with lay audiences, such as the use of storytelling structure and analogies. There is a high demand for science communication resources in Brazil, attesting to the importance of initiatives such as DivulgaMicro in our country.
| S-EPMC6508905 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Early research on the impact of COVID-19 on academic scientists suggests that disruptions to research, teaching, and daily work life are not experienced equally. However, this work has overwhelmingly focused on experiences of women and parents, with limited attention to the disproportionate impact on academic work by race, disability status, sexual identity, first-generation status, and academic career stage. Using a stratified random survey sample of early-career academics in four science disciplines (N = 3,277), we investigated socio-demographic and career stage differences in the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic along seven work outcomes: changes in four work areas (research progress, workload, concern about career advancement, support from mentors) and work disruptions due to three COVID-19 related life challenges (physical health, mental health, and caretaking). Our analyses examined patterns across career stages as well as separately for doctoral students and for postdocs/assistant professors. Overall, our results indicate that scientists from marginalized (i.e., devalued) and minoritized (i.e., underrepresented) groups across early career stages reported more negative work outcomes as a result of COVID-19. However, there were notable patterns of differences depending on the socio-demographic identities examined. Those with a physical or mental disability were negatively impacted on all seven work outcomes. Women, primary caregivers, underrepresented racial minorities, sexual minorities, and first-generation scholars reported more negative experiences across several outcomes such as increased disruptions due to physical health symptoms and additional caretaking compared to more privileged counterparts. Doctoral students reported more work disruptions from life challenges than other early-career scholars, especially those related to health problems, while assistant professors reported more negative changes in areas such as decreased research progress and increased workload. These findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately harmed work outcomes for minoritized and marginalized early-career scholars. Institutional interventions are required to address these inequalities in an effort to retain diverse cohorts in academic science.
| S-EPMC9469975 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The training of PhD students and early-career scientists is largely an apprenticeship in which the trainee associates with an expert to become an independent scientist. But when is a PhD student ready to graduate, a postdoctoral scholar ready for an independent position, or an early-career scientist ready for advanced responsibilities? Research training by apprenticeship does not uniformly include a framework to assess if the trainee is equipped with the complex knowledge, skills and attitudes required to be a successful scientist in the 21st century. To address this problem, we propose competency-based assessment throughout the continuum of training to evaluate more objectively the development of PhD students and early-career scientists.
| S-EPMC6002247 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe Open Dialogue (OD) approach has been implemented in different countries worldwide. OD not only depends on therapeutic principles but also requires a distinct set of structural changes that may impede its full implementation. In Germany, OD is currently practiced in different mental health care settings across the country. Yet, full implementation of OD principles is limited due to the extreme structural and financial fragmentation of the German mental health care system. With this as a background, the aim of this study was to investigate the efforts, challenges and obstacles of OD implementation in Germany.MethodsThis article presents the German results from the international HOPEnDIALOGUE survey, supplemented with expert interview data. Thirty eight teams currently providing OD took part in the survey. Sixteen expert interviews were carried out with stakeholders from various care settings. Survey data were analyzed descriptively and the qualitative data were evaluated using a thematic analysis approach.ResultsWhile having to adapt to the fragmented German health care system, OD has been mainly implemented from outpatient service providers and stand-alone services. About half of the teams implemented OD under the conditions of cross-sectoral model contracts and, thus, are considerably limited when it comes to OD implementation. Altogether, OD is not implemented to its full extent in each of the institutions surveyed. Similarly, the expert interviews revealed various challenges that mainly relate to the realization of OD's structural principles, whereas the implementation of its therapeutic benefits remains less affected. However, these challenges have managed to lead to great commitment by single teams and a certain level of implementation of OD-related concepts.ConclusionOD in Germany can currently only be fully implemented under the cross-sectoral care model contract system that is often temporary, thus significantly hindering its continuous development. Any evaluation of OD's effectiveness in Germany thus needs to take into account the fragmented nature of the country's health care system and control for the multiple barriers that impede implementation. Reforms of the German health care system are also urgently needed to create more favorable conditions for the implementation of OD.
| S-EPMC9948650 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To explore scientists' perspectives on the challenges and pressures of translating research findings into clinical practice and public health policy.We conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 20 leading scientists engaged in genetic research on addiction. We asked participants for their views on how their own research translates, how genetic research addresses addiction as a public health problem and how it may affect the public's view of addiction.Most scientists described a direct translational route for their research, positing that their research will have significant societal benefits, leading to advances in treatment and novel prevention strategies. However, scientists also pointed to the inherent pressures they feel to quickly translate their research findings into actual clinical or public health use. They stressed the importance of allowing the scientific process to play out, voicing ambivalence about the recent push to speed translation.High expectations have been raised that biomedical science will lead to new prevention and treatment modalities, exerting pressure on scientists. Our data suggest that scientists feel caught in the push for immediate applications. This overemphasis on rapid translation can lead to technologies and applications being rushed into use without critical evaluation of ethical, policy, and social implications, and without balancing their value compared to public health policies and interventions currently in place.
| S-EPMC3976268 | biostudies-other
Project description:Using responses from a large respondent-initiated online survey, we find that the career interests of many current and aspiring computer scientists in the United States diverge from a popular and official depiction of computer scientists' interests used for career and workforce development worldwide. Distinct profiles of career interests emerged from the data. These profiles suggest that many women in the field value social and artistic expression in a way not currently recognized by established depictions of computer scientists' interests. Better capturing the diversity of interests in computer science might help to boost women's, and men's, engagement in this STEM field.
| S-EPMC8994771 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: To reverse the dramatic decline in the U.S. physician-scientist workforce, interventions are necessary to retain physicians in research careers.Objective: To evaluate the impact of an annual 3-day symposium, the Respiratory Disease Young Investigators' Forum (RDYIF), designed to guide fellows and junior faculty into successful physician-scientist careers.Methods: In this retrospective, observational study, a questionnaire was e-mailed to 308 physicians who participated in the RDYIF between 2005 and 2018. The questionnaire was administered by National Jewish Health study personnel in the spring of 2019. Responses were primarily analyzed using descriptive and qualitative approaches.Results: The response rate was 39.3% (n = 121), with 107 of responders (88.4%) completing the full survey. The majority of survey completers currently worked as physician-scientists (76.6%; n = 82), held faculty positions (88.8%; n = 95) in an academic center (90.6%; n = 97), and were currently involved in research (93.4%; n = 100). The majority had been an author on ≥10 peer-reviewed publications (61.3%, n = 65) and had been awarded research grants (71.7%; n = 76). Thirty completers (28.3%) had served as a principal investigator on one or more clinical trials. Completers indicated that participation in the RDYIF had a "strong impact" or "very strong impact" on their career development as physician-scientists.Conclusion: Participation in the RDYIF strengthened participants' interest in physician-scientist careers and appeared to track with successful career development. Young Investigator Forums such as the RDYIF may be an effective intervention to support the declining supply of physician-scientists in North America.
| S-EPMC8043310 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study was to characterize clinician-scientists in ophthalmology and identify factors associated with successful research funding, income, and career satisfaction.DesignCross-sectional study.MethodsA survey was conducted of clinician-scientists in ophthalmology at US academic institutions between April 17, 2019, and May 19, 2019. Collected information including 1) demographic data; 2) amount, type, and source of startup funding; first extramural grant; and first R01-equivalent independent grant; 3) starting and current salaries; and 4) Likert-scale measurements of career satisfaction were analyzed using multivariate regression.ResultsNinety-eight clinician-scientists in ophthalmology were surveyed across different ages (mean: 48 ± 11 years), research categories, institutional types, geographic regions, and academic ranks. Median startup funding ranged from $50-99k, and median starting salaries ranged from $150-199k. A majority of investigators (67%) received their first extramural award from the National Eye Institute, mainly through K-award mechanisms (82%). The median time to receiving their first independent grant was 8 years, mainly through an R01 award (70%). Greater institutional startup support (P = .027) and earlier extramural grant success (P = .022) were associated with earlier independent funding. Male investigators (P = .001) and MD degreed participants (P = .008) were associated with higher current salaries but not starting salaries. Overall career satisfaction increased with career duration (P = .011) but not with earlier independent funding (P = .746) or higher income (P = .300).ConclusionsSuccess in research funding by clinician-scientists in ophthalmology may be linked to institutional support and earlier acquisition of extramural grants but does not impact academic salaries. Nevertheless, career satisfaction among clinician-scientists improves with time, which is not necessarily influenced by research or financial success.
| S-EPMC8184629 | biostudies-literature