skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Postdocs’ lab engagement predicts trajectories of PhD students’ skill development
The doctoral advisor—typically the principal investigator (PI)—is often characterized as a singular or primary mentor who guides students using a cognitive apprenticeship model. Alternatively, the “cascading mentorship” model describes the members of laboratories or research groups receiving mentorship from more senior laboratory members and providing it to more junior members (i.e., PIs mentor postdocs, postdocs mentor senior graduate students, senior students mentor junior students, etc.). Here we show that PIs’ laboratory and mentoring activities do not significantly predict students’ skill development trajectories, but the engagement of postdocs and senior graduate students in laboratory interactions do. We found that the cascading mentorship model accounts best for doctoral student skill development in a longitudinal study of 336 PhD students in the United States. Specifically, when postdocs and senior doctoral students actively participate in laboratory discussions, junior PhD students are over 4 times as likely to have positive skill development trajectories. Thus, postdocs disproportionately enhance the doctoral training enterprise, despite typically having no formal mentorship role. These findings also illustrate both the importance and the feasibility of identifying evidence-based practices in graduate education.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1760894
PAR ID:
10147628
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Volume:
116
Issue:
42
ISSN:
0027-8424
Page Range / eLocation ID:
20910 to 20916
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; (, Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education)
    null (Ed.)
    Purpose This study aims to examine how science, technology, engineering, and mathematics doctoral students interact with postdocs within the research laboratory, identifying the nature and potential impacts of student–postdoc mentoring relationships. Design/methodology/approach Using a sample of 53 doctoral students in the biological sciences, this study uses a sequential mixed-methods design. More specifically, a phenomenological approach enabled the authors to identify how doctoral students make meaning of their interactions with postdocs and other research staff. Descriptive statistics are used to examine how emergent themes might differ as a product of gender and race/ethnicity and the extent to which emergent themes may relate to key doctoral student socialization outcomes. Findings This study reveals six emergent themes, which primarily focus on how doctoral students receive instrumental and psychosocial support from postdocs in their labs. The most frequent emergent theme captures the unique ways in which postdocs provide ongoing, hands-on support and troubleshooting at the lab bench. When examining how this theme plays a role in socialization outcomes, the results suggest that doctoral students who described this type of support from postdocs had more positive mental health outcomes than those who did not describe this type of hands-on support. Originality/value Literature on graduate student mentorship has focused primarily on the impact of advisors, despite recent empirical evidence of a “cascading mentorship” model, in which senior students and staff also play a key mentoring role. This study provides new insights into the unique mentoring role of postdocs, focusing on the nature and potential impacts of student–postdoc interactions. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; (, ASEE Conferences)
    Traditional PhD training in STEM fields places a strong emphasis on developing doctoral students' academic skills, encompassing research, academic writing, as well as sharing of knowledge through publications and conference presentations, etc. However, with the ever evolving expectations of graduate training, particularly in applied fields, the demand for PhD has transcended the confines of academia. For instance, nearly 90% of engineering PhDs will not enter academia, which underscores the discrepancy between the current PhD training programs and the preparation of students for future careers. To better support doctoral students especially for those who intend to pursue positions in industry including corporate R&D labs, national labs, defense organizations, healthcare institutes, etc., Lehigh University launched an innovative program called Pasteur Partners PhD (P3) specifically for the training of such doctoral students. It is a student-centered doctoral training program based on use-inspired research in partnership with industry. A preliminary evaluation of the P3 program, which was developed with support from NSF’s IGE program, revealed that students benefited significantly from gaining practical skills through industry involvement such as co-advising, resulting in a clearer understanding of how the industry operates, which, in turn, enhanced their employability in the industry [1]. The University administration also provided significant support for the program. However, a broader implementation of P3 encountered challenges and hesitancy from faculty members. Mostly the senior faculty who already had preexisting connections with industry and junior faculty from certain departments were more receptive to joining the P3 program than others. Could this be a result of the prevailing emphasis of the graduate education system on research output (publications) rather than the training of students for their subsequent careers? What other reasons could there be for the faculty’s lack of enthusiasm for the training of their PhD students following P3 track? To answer above questions and examine the challenges and obstacles that the faculty members feel for student centered doctoral training from an institutional and system perspective, we are conducting a survey specifically targeting faculty members in STEM fields. It seeks to comprehensively understand faculty members’ perspective on the primary objectives of doctoral training within different STEM fields. By exploring these objectives, the survey aims to uncover how they vary across disciplines and what faculty members perceive as the most significant goals in their areas of expertise. Moreover, the survey is designed to shed light on the challenges and hurdles faced by faculty members in their pursuit of these training objectives. Faculty participants are encouraged to identify and articulate the specific obstacles they encounter, whether they pertain to institutional constraints, resource limitations, demands of perceived professional success or other factors that impede the realization of these goals. In addition, the survey takes a close look at the resources that faculty members believe would be beneficial in addressing these challenges and improving the effectiveness of doctoral training. This insight is essential for designing support systems that can empower faculty to contribute to the training of doctoral workforce for the benefit of society at large. The survey seeks to gain valuable perspectives on the qualities and skills considered essential for the success of PhD students. These insights will inform curriculum development and help prepare students better for a wider range of career paths. The results of the survey, currently underway, are presented. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; (, ASEE annual conference exposition)
    In this research paper, we describe faculty development as mentors to postdoctoral fellows (postdocs). Postdoctoral fellowships have become a significant step in academic and industry positions, while little research investigates the purpose of a postdoc position, the experiences of postdocs, and how faculty develop as postdoc advisors. As part of a larger project investigating postdoc mentorship, nineteen semi-structured qualitative interviews with faculty advisors uncovered themes about how postdoc advisors learn to mentor and advise postdocs. Faculty from U.S. and Canadian universities completed 60-minute online interviews. Participants had varying experience and expertise in advising postdocs. Observational learning theory provides a framework for identifying the process of learning from observation and the replication of mentors’ past experiences. Open and axial coding was used to identify faculty experiences that informed how they mentored their postdoctoral fellows. Faculty who had completed a postdoc as part of their training reflected on their experiences, often identifying positive and negative experiences they used to guide, mentor, and plan the development of the postdocs they advise. Faculty who did not complete a postdoc used doctoral and industry experiences to inform their decisions. This work provides a unique window into postdoctoral training and 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; (, ASEE annual conference exposition proceedings)
    Multiple studies report the benefits of authentic research experiences in STEM education. While most of them focus either on course-based research projects or on undergraduate students’ experiences, few document authentic learning experiences unfolding in real time among and between graduate students in research laboratories. Therefore, we situate our study in the context of authentic research experiences in research laboratories and focus on documenting learning processes as they unfold during daily practices in the laboratories. Specifically, the goal of our study is to observe and document how graduate students, and other lab members, learn from one another within the cultural space of the laboratory, and what aspects of laboratory culture facilitate and what impede learning. To that end, we use cognitive ethnography, an ethnographic approach combined with cognitive science to study cognitive processes through participant-observation of two engineering research laboratories. We identified the following themes pertaining to learning experiences: scaffolding (structured activities or apprenticeship), peer-to-peer learning, self-directed and self-regulated learning, and independence in research activities. While in many respects the two laboratories are similar, the presence and role of a leader-mentor in daily activities is what set them apart. In this report, we analyze the impact of leadership-mentorship on learning and professional formation. We argue that the degree to which a leader-mentor is consistently active in the laboratory’s life presents advantages and disadvantages with respect to different aspects of learning and professional formation. On one hand, professional development of students may be hindered by the absence of direct oversight from an in-laboratory professional mentor, resulting in delayed graduation for example. On another, absence of direct oversight can compel students to independently seek out mentors who have important expertise to help complete projects in a timely manner, an important professional skill. In the first case, students benefit from the expertise of mentors, so having mentors consistently present in the laboratory helps students efficiently conduct their projects. In the second case, students learn that they cannot always rely on only one person to provide direction and will need to seek help from other quarters. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; (, Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education)
    Purpose: While ample literature describes students’ experiences during graduate school, fewer studies examine how doctoral students transition into full-time employment post degree completion. The purpose of this study is to examine how faculty advisors, as well as other individuals, shape students’ experiences during a critical period in their graduate education – the job search. Design/methodology/approach: This study is based on interviews with 47 PhD students in biological sciences in the US. This is a descriptive qualitative study, based on in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Findings: Results reveal distinct roles that faculty advisors play in the job search process, including supportive, unsupportive and sponsorship. Supportive advisors offer opportunities for skill development and specific guidance during the job search process. Sponsorship advisors go beyond providing general support to leverage their personal networks to assist in the transition into full-time employment. Unsupportive advisors are on the other end of the spectrum and do not provide any assistance. In addition, the majority of doctoral students rely on individuals beyond their advisors during the job search, and they do so regardless of what type of support they receive from their advisors. Originality/value: Presented findings highlight the complex constellation of social connections that graduate students draw on for entry into the career and make a compelling case for extending socialization research to dedicate more attention to students’ transition into full-time employment after degree completion. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email