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.

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.

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.

This report builds upon our previous study, which described five patterns of why college graduates join National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded diversity-focused Postbaccalaureate Research Education Programs (PREP). A 2015 report from the NIH showed that a high fraction of PREP participants matriculate into PhD and MD/PhD programs. This current study reveals how participants change during PREP, the program elements that facilitate change, and how identity as a graduate student and future scientist develops. Data come from in-depth interviews done at the beginning and end of PREP with 48 individuals from seven PREP programs. Results reveal three domains of development: academics, research, and presentation of oneself; each domain contains a developmental continuum. Key attributes of PREP enabling development include opportunities to attend graduate-level classes and seminars; time to practice reading literature; extended lab time with one’s own project; high and explicit expectations from mentors; and multiple opportunities to talk about science and improve communication skills. PREP enabled participants to develop their identities as graduate students and to anticipate being seen by others as highly prepared for PhD training. After PREP, 85% (n = 41) started the PhD or MD/PhD, making PREP an intervention approach with great potential to broaden participation in biomedical PhD programs.

PURPOSE:Women remain underrepresented as biomedical faculty and are more likely than white and Asian men to lose interest in faculty careers in graduate school. However, some women maintain interest in academic research careers during PhD training and are the most likely candidates for faculty positions. This study explored how these women described and interpreted gender issues at early stages in their training.METHOD:Annual interviews from 2009 to 2014 with 22 female PhD students aspiring to research faculty careers were analyzed using an iterative, content analysis approach rooted in the interview data. Focusing on career intentions and experiences with gender, race, and ethnicity, authors arrived at 11 themes which describe a range of gendered experiences and strategies.RESULTS:Of the 22 women, 19 (86%) acknowl edged systemic gender inequities in science and/or reported instances of bias, while 15 of them also said they had not yet experienced unequal treatment. All 22 described using at least one "gender-explicit strategy," where they based decisions on gender or in response to perceived biases. "Gender-agnostic strategies" emerged for 12 (55%) who doubted that gender will affect their career.CONCLUSIONS:Findings show that women biomedical PhD students continue to face conditions that can lead to unequal treatment; gender biases continue to persist. Students displayed a range of perceptions and strategies in response to these conditions at this early training stage. Following these students over time will determine whether these or other strategies are required and sufficient to enable persistence toward academic careers.

In this study, we conducted in-depth interviews with 52 college graduates as they entered a Postbaccalaureate Research Education Program (PREP). Our goal was to investigate what it means for these aspiring scientists, most of whom are from groups underrepresented in the sciences, to feel ready to apply to a doctoral program in the biomedical sciences. For our analysis, we developed and used a theoretical framework which integrates concepts from identity-in-practice literature with Bourdieu's formulation of cultural capital and also examined the impact of racial, ethnic, and gender identities on education and career trajectories. Five patterns of identity work for expected engagement with PREP grew out of our analysis: Credential Seekers, PI Aspirants, Path Builders, Discipline Changers, and Interest Testers. These patterns illuminate differences in perceptions of doing, being, and becoming within science; external and internal foci of identity work; and expectations for institutional and embodied cultural capital. Our findings show that preparing for graduate education is more complex than acquiring a set of credentials as it is infused with identity work which facilitates readiness beyond preparation. This deeper understanding of individual agency and perceptions allows us to shift the focus away from a deficit model where institutions and programs attempt to "fix" students, and to offer implications for programs designed to support college graduates aspiring to become scientists. (C) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.