Dataset Information

Postdocs' advice on pursuing a research career in academia: A qualitative analysis of free-text survey responses.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The decision of whether to pursue a tenure-track faculty position has become increasingly difficult for undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral trainees considering a career in research. Trainees express concerns over job availability, financial insecurity, and other perceived challenges associated with pursuing an academic position.

Methods

To help further elucidate the benefits, challenges, and strategies for pursuing an academic career, a diverse sample of postdoctoral scholars ("postdocs") from across the United States were asked to provide advice on pursuing a research career in academia in response to an open-ended survey question. 994 responses were qualitatively analyzed using both content and thematic analyses. 177 unique codes, 20 categories, and 10 subthemes emerged from the data and were generalized into two thematic areas: Life in Academia and Strategies for Success.

Results

On life in academia, postdoc respondents overwhelmingly agree that academia is most rewarding when you are truly passionate about scientific research and discovery. 'Passion' emerged as the most frequently cited code, referenced 189 times. Financial insecurity, work-life balance, securing grant funding, academic politics, and a competitive job market emerged as challenges of academic research. The survey respondents note that while passion and hard work are necessary, they are not always sufficient to overcome these challenges. The postdocs encourage trainees to be realistic about career expectations and to prepare broadly for career paths that align with their interests, skills, and values. Strategies recommended for perseverance include periodic self-reflection, mental health support, and carefully selecting mentors.

Conclusions

For early-career scientists along the training continuum, this advice deserves critical reflection before committing to an academic research career. For advisors and institutions, this work provides a unique perspective from postdoctoral scholars on elements of the academic training path that can be improved to increase retention, career satisfaction, and preparation for the scientific workforce.

SUBMITTER: Afonja S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8101926 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To analyse free-text responses from the first Scottish Cancer Patient Experience Survey (SCPES) to understand patients' experiences of care, identify valued aspects and areas for improvement. DESIGN:Inductive thematic analysis of seven free-text comment boxes covering all stages of the cancer experience, from a national cohort survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Adult cancer patients diagnosed across all Health Boards in Scotland between July 2013 and March 2014, and who had an inpatient stay or hospital visit between January and September 2014. 2663 respondents (of n=4835?survey respondents) provided 6961 free-text comments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Positive and negative themes of patients' experiences. Differences in the proportion of positive to negative comments by demographics. METHODS:Data were analysed as follows: (1) comments were initially categorised at a high level (eg, positive, negative, miscellaneous, etc); (2) inductive codes were derived and applied to all relevant comments; (3) codes sharing similar meaning were amalgamated into subthemes, and code frequencies were measured; (4) subthemes were mapped into overarching themes; (5) difference in the proportion of positive to negative comments by demographics were analysed using ?2 tests. RESULTS:Participants made more positive than negative comments (1:0.78). Analysis highlighted the importance to patients of Feeling that Individual Needs Are Met and Feeling Confident Within the System. Comments also provided insight into how Processes and Structures within the system of care can negatively impact on patients' experience. Particular issues were identified with care experiences in the lead-up to diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS:This analysis provides a detailed understanding of patients' cancer care experiences, therefore indicating what aspects matter in those experiences. Although the majority of comments were positive, there were a significant number of negative comments, especially about the lead-up to diagnosis. Comments suggest patients would value greater integration of care from services involved in their treatment for cancer.

Project description:ObjectivePatient-centered clinical trial design and execution is becoming increasingly important. No best practice guidelines exist despite a key stakeholder declaration to create more effective engagement models. This study aims to gain a better understanding of attitudes and practices for engaging patient groups so that actionable recommendations may be developed.MethodsIndividuals from industry, academic institutions, and patient groups were identified through Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative and Drug Information Association rosters and mailing lists. Objectives, practices, and perceived barriers related to engaging patient groups in the planning, conduct, and interpretation of clinical trials were reported in an online survey. Descriptive and inferential statistical analysis of survey data followed a literature review to inform survey questions.ResultsSurvey respondents (n = 179) valued the importance of involving patient groups in research; however, patient group respondents valued their contributions to research protocol development, funding acquisition, and interpretation of study results more highly than those contributions were valued by industry and academic respondents (all p < .001). Patient group respondents placed higher value in open communications, clear expectations, and detailed contract execution than did non-patient group respondents (all p < .05). Industry and academic respondents more often cited internal bureaucratic processes and reluctance to share information as engagement barriers than did patient group respondents (all p < .01). Patient groups reported that a lack of transparency and understanding of the benefits of collaboration on the part of industry and academia were greater barriers than did non-patient group respondents (all p< .01).ConclusionsDespite reported similarities among approaches to engagement by the three stakeholder groups, key differences exist in perceived barriers and benefits to partnering with patient groups among the sectors studied. This recognition could inform the development of best practices for patient-centered clinical trial design and execution. Additional research is needed to define and optimize key success factors.