Search for: All records

Faculty at research institutions play a central role in advancing knowledge and careers, as well as promoting the well-being of students and colleagues in research environments. Mentorship from experienced peers has been touted as critical for enabling these myriad roles to allow faculty development, career progression, and satisfaction. However, there is little information available on who supports faculty and best ways to structure a faculty mentorship programme for early- and mid-career academics. In the interest of advocating for increased and enhanced faculty mentoring and mentoring programmes, we surveyed faculty around the world to gather data on whether and how they receive mentoring. We received responses from 457 early- and mid-career faculty and found that a substantial portion of respondents either reported having no mentor or a lack of a formal mentoring scheme. Qualitative responses on the quality of mentorship revealed that the most common complaints regarding mentorship included lack of mentor availability, unsatisfactory commitment to mentorship, and non-specific or non-actionable advice. On these suggestions, we identify a need for training for faculty mentors as well as strategies for individual mentors, departments, and institutions for funding and design of more intentional and supportive mentorship programmes for early- and mid-career faculty. 

Background:Programmes that provide scientists and engineers with support to engage in public policy have proliferated in the United States, with many opportunities available for training, networking and placements within government and government-facing organisations. This trend suggests that an evolution may be occurring at the science–policy interface. However, there is little extant data on the structure, aims and impacts of these programmes. Aims and objectives:This study maps the current landscape of US programmes seeking to train researchers at all career stages to engage in policy. We focus on Virginia, a state with a substantial number and diversity of programmes, to assess: (1) how they conceptualise their audiences, activities and impacts; and (2) which roles in policy and types of evidence use they address. Methods:We developed a database of US policy programmes (n=174) and conducted a case study of those in Virginia through surveys and interviews with their leaders (n=12). Findings:The majority (57%) of science policy programmes are state-based. These programmes include student organisations, government placements and fellowships, and academic certificates, degrees, and other trainings. While these reflect diverse models for how to engage researchers in policy, Virginia programme leaders across these categories similarly conceived long-term impacts, audiences and activities, researcher roles in policy, and types of decision-maker evidence use. And they perceived limited ability to implement evidence-based approaches within their programmes. Discussion and conclusion:Building additional programmatic capacity – through shared learning and partnerships – could lend support to this emerging trend in science policy with implications for US research and governance.