An official website of the United States government
This qualitative study investigates the goals and outcomes of the individual programmatic elements within US chemistry doctoral programs, based on faculty perspectives. Forty-six faculty participants were interviewed using an interview protocol that was refined through iterative input and consensus building. Faculty perspectives in this study identifies several programmatic elements—such as research, coursework, lab rotations, candidacy process, and teaching assistantship—and explores the goals and outcomes of each. While the program's structure aims to incorporate essential workforce skills as explicit goals and outcomes, findings indicate that this integration often remains questionable. Further analysis of the goals and outcomes yielded three main insights: there is a misalignment between stated goals and enacted practices, necessitating a holistic reform approach to align goals of programmatic elements with students’ career goals and program goals; the structure of some programmatic elements often causes stress and frustration, highlighting the importance of improved integration and support; significant issues with certainty of the goals and outcomes of programmatic elements were identified, suggesting systemic problems that could lead to ineffective education. Addressing these issues through enhanced clarity, alignment, and practical training is vital for improving the experience of doctoral education in chemistry and better preparing students for their careers. While this study focused on US chemistry doctoral programs, the findings offer a framework for improving doctoral programs by addressing misalignments, unclear goals and outcomes, and the integration of real-world skills, providing insights that are applicable across diverse global educational contexts.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on May 21, 2026
Identifying the underlying challenges that face doctoral education in chemistry
Doctoral education in chemistry (DEC) in the United States is charged with producing scientists who are capable of addressing the world’s Grand Challenges, enhancing quality of life and innovation both domestically and globally through advanced science. However, many believe these doctoral programs are failing to adequately and equitably prepare students for those responsibilities. While numerous challenges have been identified, many are based in perspective and opinion rather than inferred from theory-driven education research. This is problematic as it does not give evidence-based insight into the challenges facing DEC. This qualitative research study aims to address this issue by answering the research question: What are the issues and challenges within doctoral education in chemistry from the faculty perspective? This will be accomplished by interviewing faculty members of chemistry PhD programs and analyzing these interviews to characterize the challenges undermining DEC in the United States. Our findings indicate that there are four main themes characterizing these challenges: 1) universities and faculty struggle to findbalancebetween multiple responsibilities; 2) there are no standard or robustassessmentsto assess student outcomes; 3) theimplementationof many programmatic elements is ineffectual; and 4) inadequacies and inconsistencies withmentorshipare deeply problematic. Research implications for these findings are significant as they give insight into the underlying, systemic challenges that face DEC, rather than simply identifying symptomatic, surface-level issues. This lays the foundation for future research addressing challenges facing DEC. Our results are presented to equip those looking to reform doctoral education with essential insights needed to understand and begin addressing the aforementioned areas of concern.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2142873
- PAR ID:
- 10593029
- Editor(s):
- Moges, Bekalu Tadesse
- Publisher / Repository:
- PLOS One
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- PLOS One
- Volume:
- 20
- Issue:
- 5
- ISSN:
- 1932-6203
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- e0322446
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
The purpose of this research full paper is to investigate issues facing very early-stage master’s students as they transition into a degree program at a large research-intensive university. While there is an increasing focus on graduate and doctoral engineering education, few studies have sought to focus specifically on master’s students, treating them from a research perspective as miniature doctoral students, though it is documented that MS students in engineering have different goals and motivations for pursuing graduate study than PhD students, as well as different anticipated career trajectories. To further compound these gaps in the literature, most studies assume that doctoral students in engineering come from historically privileged socioeconomic backgrounds. National conversations are clear that to broaden participation in engineering, the educational community must attend to the specific needs of students from low-income backgrounds. These students may also not have access to the social and cultural capital required to navigate graduate school, since many are first-generation graduate students and because systems of education are traditionally designed for students from upper class backgrounds. To this end, this study explores the experiences of first-semester graduate students supported in part by funding aimed to support master’s students and have demonstrated unmet financial need. Interviews were conducted with six first- and second year master’s students and analyzed using thematic analysis methods employing Posselt’s Framework for Doctoral Student Support—here, extended to master’s students—to elicit information about surprises, expectations, and unanticipated issues facing this special population of students. Findings indicate that there are several easily implemented structural modifications programs and faculty can take that can facilitate the transition to graduate school for graduate students, low-income and otherwise.more » « less
-
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
-
CONTEXT Engineering education is an interdisciplinary research field where scholars are commonly embedded within the context they study. Engineering Education Scholars (EES), individuals who define themselves by having expertise associated with both engineering education research and practice, inhabit an array of academic positions, depending on their priorities, interests, and desired impact. These positions include, but are not limited to, traditional tenure-track faculty positions, professional teaching or research positions, and positions within teaching and learning centers or other centers. EES also work in diverse institutional contexts, including engineering disciplinary departments, first-year programs, and engineering education departments, which further vary their roles. PURPOSE OR GOAL The purpose of this preliminary research study is to better understand the roles and responsibilities of early-career EES. This knowledge will enable PhD programs to better prepare engineering education graduates to more intentionally seek positions, which is especially important given the growing number of engineering education PhD programs. We address our purpose by exploring the following research question: How can we describe the diversity of academic or faculty roles early-career EES undertake? APPROACH OR METHODOLOGY/METHODS We implemented an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study starting with a survey (n=59) to better understand the strategic actions of United States-based early-career EES. We used a clustering technique to identify clusters of participants based on these actions (e.g., teaching focused priorities, research goals). We subsequently recruited 14 survey participants, representing each of the main clusters, to participate in semi-structured interviews. Through the interviews, we sought to gain a more nuanced understanding of each participant’s actions in the contexts of their roles and responsibilities. We analyzed each interview transcript to develop memos providing an overview of each early-career EES role description and then used a cross case analysis where the unit of analysis was a cluster. ACTUAL OUTCOMES Five main clusters were identified through our analysis, with three representing primarily research-focused day-to-day responsibilities and two representing primarily teaching-focused day-to-day responsibilities. The difference between the clusters was influenced by the institutional context and the areas in which EES selected to focus their roles and responsibilities. These results add to our understanding of how early-career EES enact their roles within different institutional contexts and positions. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS/SUMMARY This work can be used by graduate programs around the world to better prepare their engineering education graduates for obtaining positions that align with their goals and interests. Further, we expect this work to provide insight to institutions so that they can provide the support and resources to enable EES to reach their desired impact within their positions.more » « less
-
CONTEXT Engineering education is an interdisciplinary research field where scholars are commonly embedded within the context they study. Engineering Education Scholars (EES), individuals who define themselves by having expertise associated with both engineering education research and practice, inhabit an array of academic positions, depending on their priorities, interests, and desired impact. These positions include, but are not limited to, traditional tenure-track faculty positions, professional teaching or research positions, and positions within teaching and learning centers or other centers. EES also work in diverse institutional contexts, including engineering disciplinary departments, first-year programs, and engineering education departments, which further vary their roles. PURPOSE OR GOAL The purpose of this preliminary research study is to better understand the roles and responsibilities of early-career EES. This knowledge will enable PhD programs to better prepare engineering education graduates to more intentionally seek positions, which is especially important given the growing number of engineering education PhD programs. We address our purpose by exploring the following research question: How can we describe the diversity of academic or faculty roles early-career EES undertake? APPROACH OR METHODOLOGY/METHODS We implemented an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study starting with a survey (n=59) to better understand the strategic actions of United States-based early-career EES. We used a clustering technique to identify clusters of participants based on these actions (e.g., teaching focused priorities, research goals). We subsequently recruited 14 survey participants, representing each of the main clusters, to participate in semi-structured interviews. Through the interviews, we sought to gain a more nuanced understanding of each participant’s actions in the contexts of their roles and responsibilities. We analyzed each interview transcript to develop memos providing an overview of each early-career EES role description and then used a cross case analysis where the unit of analysis was a cluster. ACTUAL OUTCOMES Five main clusters were identified through our analysis, with three representing primarily research-focused day-to-day responsibilities and two representing primarily teaching-focused day-to-day responsibilities. The difference between the clusters was influenced by the institutional context and the areas in which EES selected to focus their roles and responsibilities. These results add to our understanding of how early-career EES enact their roles within different institutional contexts and positions. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS/SUMMARY This work can be used by graduate programs around the world to better prepare their engineering education graduates for obtaining positions that align with their goals and interests. Further, we expect this work to provide insight to institutions so that they can provide the support and resources to enable EES to reach their desired impact within their positions.more » « less
