Dataset Information

Benefits and detriments of interdisciplinarity on early career scientists' performance. An author-level approach for U.S. physicists and psychologists.

ABSTRACT: Is the pursuit of interdisciplinary or innovative research beneficial or detrimental for the impact of early career researchers? We focus on young scholars as they represent an understudied population who have yet to secure a place within academia. Which effects promise higher scientific recognition (i.e., citations) is therefore crucial for the high-stakes decisions young researchers face. To capture these effects, we introduce measurements for interdisciplinarity and novelty that can be applied to a researcher's career. In contrast to previous studies investigating research impact on the paper level, hence, our paper focuses on a career perspective (i.e., the level of authors). To consider different disciplinary cultures, we utilize a comprehensive dataset on U.S. physicists (n = 4003) and psychologists (n = 4097), who graduated between 2008 and 2012, and traced their publication records. Our results indicate that conducting interdisciplinary research as an early career researcher in physics is beneficial, while it is negatively associated with research impact in psychology. In both fields, physics and psychology, early career researchers focusing on novel combinations of existing knowledge are associated with higher future impact. Taking some risks by deviating to a certain degree from mainstream paradigms seems therefore like a rewarding strategy for young scholars.

SUBMITTER: Unger S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9246137 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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.

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.

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.

Dataset Information

Benefits and detriments of interdisciplinarity on early career scientists' performance. An author-level approach for U.S. physicists and psychologists.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets