An official website of the United States government
Doctoral students experience high rates of mental health distress and dropout; however, the mental health and wellness of engineering doctoral students is understudied. Studies of student persistence, wellness, and success often aggregate fields together, such as by studying all engineering students. Thus, little work has considered the experiences of biomedical engineering (BME) doctoral students, despite differences between doctoral BME research, course content, and career expectations compared with other engineering disciplines. In this qualitative interview case study, we explore stressors present in the BME graduate experience that are unique from engineering students in other disciplines. Methods We analyzed a longitudinal interview study of doctoral engineering students across four timepoints within a single academic year, consisting of a subsample (n=6) of doctoral students in a BME discipline, among a larger sample of engineering doctoral students (N=55). BME students in the sample experienced some themes generated from a larger thematic analysis differently compared with other engineering disciplines. These differences are presented and discussed, grounded in a model of workplace stress. Results BME participants working in labs with biological samples expressed a lack of control over the timing and availability of materials for their research projects. BME participants also had more industry-focused career plans and described more commonly coming to BME graduate studies from other fields (e.g., another engineering major) and struggling with the scope and content of their introductory coursework. A common throughline for the stressors was the impact of the interdisciplinary nature of BME programs, to a greater extent compared with other engineering student experiences in our sample. Conclusions We motivate changes for researchers, instructors, and policymakers which specifically target BME students and emphasize the importance of considering studies at various unit levels (university department level vs college level vs full institution) when considering interventions targeting student stress and wellness.
more »
« less
Surviving or flourishing: how relationships with principal investigators influence science graduate students’ wellness
Purpose This study aims to focus on the experiences of biomedical science students nearing the end of their doctoral programs and the factors that influence their well-being. In addition to identifying general challenges, the study aims to expand understanding of how interactions with principal investigators (PIs) can influence students’ well-being and engagement in wellness practices. Design/methodology/approach This qualitative study presents an analysis of interview data collected from 90 trainees five years after beginning their graduate programs. All were participants in a larger mixed-methods, longitudinal study. Emergent themes and a codebook were established after reviewing interview transcripts and completing memos. Codes were applied to data, and reports were generated to confirm and challenge early interpretations. Findings Participants described four key factors that influenced their well-being: perceived work/life balance; managing progress on research; program completion and job search; and overall faculty relationships. While relationships with PIs could be a source of stress, participants more often described how both interactions with, and observations of their PIs could amplify or mitigate their ability to manage other stressors and overall sense of well-being. Originality/value While researchers in the USA have increasingly considered the factors impacting graduate student mental health, there has been less of an emphasis on wellness and well-being. Furthermore, there has been less attention to how PIs contribute, in positive and negative ways, to these outcomes. This study offers insight into well-being at a specific timepoint, considering dynamics unique to wellness and well-being in the later stages of doctoral training.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1760894
- PAR ID:
- 10415739
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education
- Volume:
- 14
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 2398-4686
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 47 to 62
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
This research full paper explores interview data with N=36 engineering graduate students to understand the factors and characteristics of graduate socialization, with the effort of better preparing students to succeed in doctoral programs. This research is motivated by the alarming fact that nearly one-third of engineering doctoral students will not finish their PhD programs; however, little research has been conducted on the various factors that can lead to attrition or enhance persistence in graduate engineering programs. This paper presents the results from the interview phase of a larger study investigating doctoral engineering socialization, attrition, persistence, and career trajectories. The participants for this study come from large research-intensive universities across the United States, and were sampled for maximum variation in a number of different categories, including stage in their doctoral program, gender, and race. Upon collecting and analyzing interview data from our participants through constant comparative and content analysis methods, several themes arose including concerns for mental health in engineering graduate students and uncertainties with joining the culture of academia in their future careers. Further, although the participants for this study are currently graduate students who anticipate completing their PhDs, nearly half of the participants discussed strongly considered leaving at some point. This study adds to the body of literature surrounding engineering attrition and the underlying issues driving engineering PhDs away from academic engineering careers.more » « less
-
Abstract BackgroundGraduate‐level education is gaining attention in engineering education scholarship. While “socialization” is a key term in doctoral literature, little is known about how socialization occurs over time. One common assumption asserts that socialization increases over time, encompassing factors such as belongingness, research ability, and advisor relationship as students acclimate to the norms and values of their advisors, departments, universities, and disciplines. We investigate engineering doctoral student socialization trends: students likely to complete their degrees and those who have questioned whether to persist in their programs. Understanding these trends is essential, as many students consider leaving their programs. Purpose/HypothesisThis paper aims to understand how socialization processes occur over several years in engineering students who questioned leaving their PhD programs. Design/MethodWe present longitudinal survey data collected from two cohorts (NA = 113 andNB = 355) of engineering doctoral students at R1 universities in the United States. Data were collected over 2 years through SMS surveys with participants receiving text messages three times per week. We analyzed data using descriptive and time series analysis methods. ResultsBoth cohorts showed lower levels of belongingness over time, reported declining advisor relationships, and experienced higher levels of stress. Students later in their programs also reported deteriorating overall social relationships. These findings contradict canonical socialization theory, which expects socialization to naturally improve over time. ConclusionWhile many assume socialization occurs passively and students acculturate into their department and research team over time, our results show students who question whether to persist are de‐socializing from graduate school.more » « less
-
Abstract BackgroundWhile studies examining graduate engineering student attrition have grown more prevalent, there is an incomplete understanding of the plight faced by persisting students. As mental health and well‐being crises emerge in graduate student populations, it is important to understand how students conceptualize their well‐being in relation to their decisions to persist or depart from their program. Purpose/HypothesisThe purpose of this article is to characterize the well‐being of students who endured overwhelming difficulties in their doctoral engineering programs. The PERMA‐V framework of well‐being theory proposes that well‐being is a multifaceted construct comprised ofpositive emotion,engagement,relationships,meaning,accomplishment, andvitality. Design/MethodData were collected in a mixed‐methods research design through two rounds of qualitative semistructured interviews and a survey‐based PERMA‐V profiling instrument. Interview data were analyzed thematically using the PERMA‐V framework as an a priori coding schema and narrative configuration and analysis. ResultsThe narratives demonstrated the interconnectedness between the different facets of well‐being and how they were influenced by various experiences the participants encountered. The participants in this study faced prolonged and extreme adversity. By understanding how the multiple dimensions of well‐being theory manifested in their narratives, we better understood and interpreted how these participants chose to persist.more » « less
-
Abstract BackgroundGiven high attrition rates and lack of interest in faculty careers, it is crucial to understand how doctoral engineering students conceptualize academia and academic careers. Purpose/HypothesisThis study aims to characterize the development of academic disenchantment among engineering students who have considered departure from their doctoral programs. Schema theory was used to explore how students develop and evolve in their conceptualizations of academia through their lived experiences. Design/MethodData were collected from 42 graduate students from research‐intensive universities across the United States who participated in qualitative, semi‐structured interviews investigating expectations for graduate school, experiences, attrition and persistence considerations, and career trajectories. The transcripts were thematically analyzed through open and axial coding to understand how students constructed their schemas of the academy. FindingsExperiences and quotations of four participants are presented to describe the results of the transcripts. Participants' misaligned expectations of their graduate program's values and practices, coupled with a lack of agency and support, led them to see their graduate programs as antagonistic to their short‐ and long‐term career success. Even for students who may likely persist through to PhD degree completion, the development of disenchantment dissuades students—even those who once desired a faculty career—from interest in the academy. ConclusionsBy understanding how disenchantment arose in our participants' experiences, we better understand how to equip students with resources that will help them navigate graduate programs. This research advances the literature by identifying underutilized opportunities to prepare students to cope with the challenges of engineering doctoral education.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-12-2021-0085
