Seismic shifts within academia over the last several decades have seen the growth of biomedical PhD recipients alongside the relative stagnation of tenure-track research-intensive faculty careers (RIFCs). This hypercompetitive academic job market has prompted interest in the paths of those who attain RIFCs. Understanding what drives recent biomedical PhDs to make their career decisions and persist toward them requires a clear picture of how career perceptions, motivations, and intentions develop and crystallize over time. Using annual in-depth interviews across nearly two decades, this report explores the evolution of career thinking and differentiation among 40 who attained a RIFC from diverse starting points to their attainment of a RIFC. Participants' strategies for navigating early scientific experiences were patterned by their varied educational and socioeconomic backgrounds. Nearly half of participants did not start with or maintain stable interest in RIFCs, exhibiting changes in both PhD and postdoctoral phases. Participants highlighted six 'drivers' toward RIFCs including desire for independence/autonomy and contributing to knowledge/health. Our results are instructive for trainees and mentors guiding career exploration and differentiation.

Most science faculty are ill-equipped to navigate how racial inequalities impact interactions with students and peers in their research training contexts and their mentoring relationships. We show that faculty mentors in graduate biomedical training programs can change their behaviors toward more culturally responsive mentorship testing a unique Culturally Aware Mentorship (CAM) intervention. Using a longitudinal three-arm cluster randomized comparative trial with validated instruments coupled with qualitative interviews, we demonstrate substantial and enduring changes in mentoring behaviors and outcomes among 787 faculty mentors at 33 research-intensive U.S. universities. Although all three treatment conditions had positive gains in their longitudinal trajectories from baseline to 12 months on study measures, the longer, facilitated CAM interventions yielded greater change scores compared to the self-directed intervention alone. Further, our results reveal the underlying mechanism for behavioral change is self-reflection and introspection, most greatly activated within a peer community and with guided expert facilitation. Reflection and introspection subsequently prompted significant behavioral shifts in faculty mentors intentionally addressing mentees’ needs and experiences and applying new skills to more effectively engage across racial and ethnic identities. CAM interventions equipped faculty mentors to respond more effectively in their mentoring relationships, building their confidence and skills to address student concerns.

Understanding what is requisite for attaining a biomedical faculty career is crucial for guiding trainees preparing for these roles. For nearly two decades, we have collected accounts of biomedical training and career transitions from a large cohort through annual in-depth interviews and tracking of competencies and achievements. This paper elucidates the common and varied credentials of 40 who entered research-intensive faculty careers (RIFCs). Participants completed PhDs and postdocs in a range of research-intensive institutional settings. Developing research independence and a niche were essential to RIFC attainment, and mentors played a crucial role in this development. Counter to common assumptions, high-prestige publications and grants were not in and of themselves necessary for RIFC attainment. Our findings can aid RIFC aspirants and mentors who guide them.

Abstract Introduction The acquisition of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants is an increasingly competitive undertaking. Many early-career biomedical investigators lack sufficient grant writing skills. This pragmatic, 2x2 factorial, group-randomized trial tested the effects of coaching duration and mode of engagement of participants’ scientific mentors in a grant writing coaching group intervention on grant application outcomes. Methods A national US sample of 367 faculty and postdoctoral fellows, organized into 76 coaching groups across 6 cohorts (2020-2022), was randomized to 1 of 4 arms that differed by coaching duration (5 months vs 5 months plus 18 months of access to 1:1 coaching) and mode of scientific mentor engagement (structured vs unstructured). Primary outcomes were national-level grant application submissions and awards, and success rate among submitters, assessed via surveys and verified through award databases 30 months after study initiation. Results Among 271 faculty and 96 postdoctoral fellows, 69% submitted at least 1 national application and 32% were awarded at least 1 grant. Submission rates did not differ by experimental arm. Among faculty, the structured engagement of a mentor in coaching was associated with significantly higher odds of any award (adjusted OR = 1.87) and any NIH mentored career development (K) award (adjusted OR = 3.32), and with higher success rates for these proposal types. Extended coaching duration showed a positive but not statistically significant association with faculty awards after adjustment. Neither factor significantly affected outcomes for postdoctoral fellows. Faculty success rates exceeded national NIH-reported success rates for research project grants equivalent to the R01 mechanism (43% vs 17.6%) and K awards (51% vs 36.5%). Conclusion Participation in a national, cross-institutional, group coaching model yielded high grant submission outcomes, and award rates were higher relative to NIH benchmarks. Structured integration of scientific mentors with the coaching intervention had a greater effect than extended coaching duration on faculty outcomes.

Biomedical doctoral trainees experience high rates of mental health distress compared to the general population. Minoritized students are particularly vulnerable to psychological stress during training due to systemic factors including discrimination, bullying, financial constraints, high workloads and constant critical feedback. As such, the mental health of minoritized biomedical trainees is both a social justice and health equity issue. We examined longitudinal narratives of 33 Asian, Black and Latiné women in biomedical doctoral programs to understand how they constructed support systems to manage psychological distress induced by training environments and how institutional agents can effectively support student psychological wellness. By examining the experiences of graduate students over time, we found that students expend time and energy to create support systems using a variety of resources. Using Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Model, the findings show that constructing support can present challenges, particularly when norms and structures of biomedical training conflict with practices to foster good health. We present three themes: 1) students find authentic support through family, friends, and pre-PhD mentors; 2) students seek support from health professionals, though not all services were readily available or perceived as a good fit; and 3) fewer than half of participants experienced support for their mental health from PhD mentors (PIs of their lab).

A longstanding and significant disparity in representation across gender, economic status, ethnicity, race, and sexual identity exists within STEM doctoral training. Most of the research on the retention and attrition of minoritized PhD STEM students focuses on individual factors, rather than system level issues. To address these gaps, we qualitatively examined longitudinal experiences of 33 Asian American, Black, and Latiné female biomedical PhD students, using a structural violence framework. The researchers developed three themes: (1) institutional hostility toward core aspects of identity; (2) the importance of intersectionality and within-group variation in experiences with structural violence; and (3) students' growing awareness of structural violence in training. Findings have significant implications for the structure of doctoral training and interventions to create equitable training environments.

INTRODUCTION:Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in academic career advancement persist in biomedical disciplines. One approach to addressing this problem is systematizing access to mentorship in critical skills such as grant writing. This report summarizes the baseline characteristics of early-career investigators who enrolled in a randomized trial of a group coaching intervention focused on National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant application development. METHODS:Surveys assessed participants' demographic characteristics, research focus, prior publications and grant submissions, self-efficacy for grantsmanship and career advancement, and access to mentorship. Two-sided t-test and Fisher's exact test were performed to compare baseline variables by gender identity (male/female) and by background from a racial or ethnic population that is an underrepresented minority group in biomedical research (non-URM/URM). RESULTS:The study sample includes 271 faculty and 96 postdoctoral fellows. Sixty-two percent of faculty and 76.0% of postdoctoral fellows identified as female. Nearly half (45.4% of faculty, 49.0% of postdocs) were from URM populations in biomedical research. At baseline, most were conducting clinical and translational research at institutions with high levels of research activity. Past submission of NIH R-series applications was limited; 29.9% of faculty had submitted K applications. On average, participants had moderate levels of self-efficacy (in grantsmanship and career advancement) and research-related mentoring support. Male and non-URM participants had a higher mean number of previous publications. For the remaining variables, there were no or minimal differences by gender identity and URM status. CONCLUSIONS:Early-career investigators from diverse backgrounds are motivated to engage in external grant writing coaching programs regardless of existing mentorship and other supports at their home institutions, suggesting that grant coaching can provide complementary value.

A longstanding and significant disparity in representation across gender, economic status, ethnicity, race, and sexual identity exists within STEM doctoral training. Most of the research on the retention and attrition of minoritized PhD STEM students focuses on individual factors, rather than system level issues. To address these gaps, we qualitatively examined longitudinal experiences of 33 Asian American, Black, and Latin & eacute; female biomedical PhD students, using a structural violence framework. The researchers developed three themes: (1) institutional hostility toward core aspects of identity; (2) the importance of intersectionality and within-group variation in experiences with structural violence; and (3) students' growing awareness of structural violence in training. Findings have significant implications for the structure of doctoral training and interventions to create equitable training environments.

Research mentoring relationships are critical for developing the next generation of scientists. However, research mentors have seldom recognized how cultural differences can influence mentoring relationships, particularly for individuals from backgrounds historically underrepresented in the sciences. To address this need, a mentorship education intervention, the Culturally Aware Mentoring (CAM) workshop, was developed. Preliminary studies showed CAM was effective in promoting culturally aware mentoring principles and behaviors. This paper describes the study protocol for a deeper examination of the impacts of three variations of CAM. We use a mixed method, three arm cluster randomized comparative trial design with 33 sites, paired with in-depth case studies at two institutions. The Theory of Planned Behavior and Organizational Learning provide complementary theoretical frameworks to gauge how mentors and their training environments are impacted by CAM. The primary research questions are: 1) What are the short and longer-term impacts of CAM interventions on research mentors’ attitudes and behaviors? 2) What are the broader institutional impacts of CAM on graduate training environments? 3) Why, or why not, do mentors and training environments change? Study sites are biomedical PhD programs at high research universities across the United States. The study targets 600 faculty actively mentoring PhD students and the interventions are delivered virtually and led by trained facilitators. Survey data are collected across the trial and the case studies at four time points: pre-intervention, immediately post-intervention, 6 and 12 months post intervention. Post intervention interviews are conducted with a subsample of participants to examine how and why their mentoring practices changed. The case studies assess organizational changes in those environments following CAM intervention. This study’s results will reveal extensive insights into the research questions, laying the foundation for broader deployment of CAM to the biomedical and larger research training community.

This paper demonstrates how Longitudinal Qualitative Research (LQR) is an innovative method to understand the lived experiences of members of minoritized groups when temporality is a structuring element of their experiences. Most qualitative research in psychology is cross-sectional, which limits our understanding of individuals whose experiences are context-dependent and linked to the temporal norms of specific social environments. LQR is unique for allowing researchers to compare change and stability over time and reveal how social challenges and barriers impact perspective shifts and long-term decision-making. To demonstrate the usefulness of LQR as an inclusive methodology, we discuss an ongoing study of career decision-making among a diverse cohort of biomedical scientists. We have used annual interviews to follow biomedical science trainees from the beginning of their PhD into the initial stages of their careers. We present case studies of minoritized scientists to illustrate the methods for long-term engagement used to elicit sensitive and critical information during their training. We show how LQR is a viable methodology for a variety of research questions and can be accomplished using large or small sample sizes and limited resources. Our primary goal is to show how LQR is useful to understand the experiences of minoritized individuals in contexts that have historically excluded them.

The Culturally Aware Mentoring (CAM) workshop was developed to help biomedical faculty gain awareness and skills to work more effectively with racially and ethnically minoritized mentees. The purpose of this paper is to present evaluation findings from a national cluster randomized comparative study in which CAM was delivered in an online format. We evaluated data from the primary arm of this study, which included 231 biomedical faculty from 12 universities. Overall, participants evaluated both the presentation and content of the online interactive intervention favorably, reporting it helped them become a more culturally aware mentor. They further suggested how the workshop may be improved. We discuss implications for mentorship practitioners and future research directions.

Black women in graduate school can experience stress due to blatant and subtle acts of gendered racism. However, we do not know how such stressors are navigated over time among those who successfully complete their PhDs. The current study used a Black feminist thought framework and narrative analysis to conduct a longitudinal exploration of how three successful Black women biomedical graduate students make sense of and respond to gendered racism they experienced and the coping strategies they employ as they persist. When interacting with others, the women experienced low expectations and doubts about being legitimate scientists. These experiences contributed to feelings of isolation, impacted their networking opportunities, and dampened their view of the desirability of an academic career postgraduation. Over time, their coping strategies for dealing with negative racial and gendered racial stereotypes and biases shifted from opting to "prove others wrong" or working harder, to leaning on their social networks for camaraderie and advice as well as choosing to not exert energy to form a response. Implications for mentoring and mentoring programs at the graduate level and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programming are discussed.

The Postdoc Academy: Succeeding as a Postdoc was designed to build postdocs' skills in career transition, career planning, collaborative research, resilience, and self-reflection. This study examined self-reported changes in five skills as learners progressed through the course. Data were collected from participants who responded to both pre- and post-surveys and engaged with the course learning activities. Results from repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance revealed that all of the self-reported perceptions of skills improved significantly upon completion of the course. Hierarchical regressions revealed that underrepresented minority learners had greater gains in their development of skills in career planning, resilience, and self-reflection. Qualitative analysis of learners' responses to learning activities found that postdocs perceived networking and mentor support as contributing factors to their skill advancement while tensions among multiple obligations and concerns of uncertainties were significant challenges to applying those skills.

Diversifying the academic workforce requires equitable and inclusive training environments. Essential to achieving this goal is understanding the relevance of racial and cultural identities in our interactions and a willingness and ability to engage in frank discussions about race and racism. Grounded in reflective practice, somatic abolitionism, and social justice education theory, this practice brief articulates six guiding principles for culturally responsive facilitation within diversity, equity, and inclusion workshops for adult learners. We use our collective experience implementing a mentorship education intervention, Culturally Aware Mentoring, with faculty in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine to illustrate these principles.

Scientific societies serve as communities of practice in which scientists develop many of the skills and connections required for the progression of their careers. For example, scientific societies offer their members opportunities to attend career development programs, gain experience in communicating science, and receive recognition for achievements within their discipline. Programming for undergraduate student members has recently been increasing, both in prevalence and in its range of offerings. The Alliance to Catalyze Change for Equity in STEM Success, ACCESS, a meta-organization seeking equity and inclusivity in life sciences fields, has examined programs and opportunities focused on undergraduates across its member scientific societies to identify common themes, promising practices and challenges. In this article, we share and discuss our findings.

Abstract Background Funded grant proposals provide biomedical researchers with the resources needed to build their research programs, support trainees, and advance public health. Studies using National Institutes of Health (NIH) data have found that investigators from underrepresented groups in the biomedical workforce are awarded NIH research grants at disproportionately lower rates. Grant writing training initiatives are available, but there is a dearth of rigorous research to determine the effectiveness of such interventions and to discern their essential features. Methods This 2 × 2, unblinded, group-randomized study compares the effectiveness of variations of an NIH-focused, grant writing, group coaching intervention for biomedical postdoctoral fellows and early-career faculty. The key study outcomes are proposal submission rates and funding rates. Participants, drawn from across the United States, are enrolled as dyads with a self-selected scientific advisor in their content area, then placed into coaching groups led by senior NIH-funded investigators who are trained in the intervention’s coaching practices. Target enrollment is 72 coaching groups of 4–5 dyads each. Groups are randomized to one of four intervention arms that differ on two factors: [1] duration of coaching support (regular dose = 5 months of group coaching, versus extended dose = regular dose plus an additional 18 months of one-on-one coaching); and [2] mode of engaging scientific advisors with the regular dose group coaching process (unstructured versus structured engagement). Intervention variations were informed by programs previously offered by the NIH National Research Mentoring Network. Participant data are collected via written surveys (baseline and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after start of the regular dose) and semi-structured interviews (end of regular dose and 24 months). Quantitative analyses will be intention-to-treat, using a 2-sided test of equality of the effects of each factor. An inductive, constant comparison analysis of interview transcripts will be used to identify contextual factors -- associated with individual participants, their engagement with the coaching intervention, and their institutional setting – that influence intervention effectiveness. Discussion Results of this study will provide an empirical basis for a readily translatable coaching approach to supporting the essential grant writing activities of faculty, fellows, and other research trainees, including those from underrepresented groups.

Many professional societies utilize travel awards programs to foster inclusion and facilitate the professional development of underrepresented minority (URM) scientists. All member societies that participate in the Alliance to Catalyze Change for Equity in STEM Success (ACCESS) do so to some degree. Members of this meta-organization recently came together to share their different approaches to URM travel award program assessment. The practices of the Biophysical Society (BPS), one of the ACCESS member societies, is used as a case study to discuss the highlights of our findings. We share and discuss a framework for URM travel award program assessment.

Over the past decades, two persisting priorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) training have been: 1) increasing the knowledge of and access to careers beyond academic scientist; and 2) increasing the diversity of the STEM workforce. Previous studies show that a uniquely constructed career coaching group provides strong support and progress for both priorities. This report extends this design into a more sustainable model that is positioned within the professional context of rising young scientists. This new model is based in the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (ASPET)-the ASPET Mentoring Network. Groups of PhD students and postdocs were assigned to an ASPET professional (academic or other career) member (the coach) with an initial meeting held the day before the society's annual meeting. The coaching groups interacted during the meeting and then virtually for a year. Extensive survey and interview evaluation data gathered from the first three cohorts (12 coaching groups) in 2016-2018 provided strong evidence of the perceived and real benefits of the network. This new version of career coaching groups is both feasible and linked to career success due to its close association with a scientific society, peers, and coaches who share scientific identities and aspirations.

Scientific societies aiming to foster inclusion of scientists from underrepresented (UR) backgrounds among their membership often delegate primary responsibility for this goal to a diversity-focused committee. The National Science Foundation has funded the creation of the Alliance to Catalyze Change for Equity in STEM Success (ACCESS), a meta-organization bringing together representatives from several such STEM society committees to serve as a hub for a growing community of practice. Our goal is to coordinate efforts to advance inclusive practices by sharing experiences and making synergistic discoveries about what works. ACCESS has analyzed the approaches by which member societies have sought to ensure inclusivity through selection of annual meeting speakers. Here we discuss how inclusive speaker selection fosters better scientific environments for all and identify challenges and promising practices for societies striving to maximize inclusivity of speakers in their scientific programming.

Young biomedical PhD scientists are needed in a wide variety of careers. Many recent efforts have been focused on revising training approaches to help them choose and prepare for different careers. However, very little is known about how biomedical PhD students decide on and "differentiate" into careers, which limits the development of new training models. This knowledge gap also severely limits efforts to increase the representation of women and some racial/ethnic groups in academic research careers. Previous studies have used cross-sectional surveys of career interests and ratings, and have not been designed to identify career intentions. They also are limited by single-time data and response bias, having typically asked participants to recount decisions made years in the past. This report draws on annual, in-depth interviews with 147 biomedical PhD students from the start of the PhD to graduation. Qualitative content analysis methods were used to fully understand scientific development and career intentions over time. Longitudinal analysis reveals a striking level of fluidity and complexity in career intentions over time. Contrary to previous studies and the dominant narrative, data do not show generalized shifts away from academic careers. In addition to those who are consistent in this intention from the start, nearly as many students shift toward research academic careers as away from them, and only modest differences exist by gender and race/ethnicity. Thus, the dominant narrative misses the high fraction of individuals who acquire or sustain their intention to purse an academic research career during training. Efforts to increase diversity in academia must capitalize on and support those who are still considering and evolve toward an academic career. Efforts to revise research training should incorporate knowledge of the tremendous fluidity in when and how career differentiation occurs.