为什么博士后不参与以职业为重点的专业发展?

Mollie Etheridge, Jessica Hampton, Becky Ioppolo, Lara Abel, Noam Tal-Perry, Katherine Dawson, Marie Collier, Zoe Matthews, Kate Murray, Sylvia Osborn, Liz Simmonds, Steven Wooding
{"title":"为什么博士后不参与以职业为重点的专业发展?","authors":"Mollie Etheridge, Jessica Hampton, Becky Ioppolo, Lara Abel, Noam Tal-Perry, Katherine Dawson, Marie Collier, Zoe Matthews, Kate Murray, Sylvia Osborn, Liz Simmonds, Steven Wooding","doi":"10.12688/f1000research.151211.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background The relationship dynamics between postdoctoral researchers and their managers – typically Principal Investigators (PIs) - can directly and indirectly impact the professional development activities that postdocs participate in. Although career and development (C&D) conversations can be a platform through which both parties communicate about the postdoc’s development needs and career aspirations, it is unclear how frequently postdocs are having these types of conversations. Evidence from across the UK indicates that this group receive little feedback on their performance. Methods To explore interventions that could empower postdocs to initiate C&D conversations, we conducted a pilot study at the University of Cambridge where current postdocs were offered workshops utilizing two widely available professional development tools. Both workshops included 360-degree feedback interventions, and we hypothesized that the feedback gathered through these tools could give postdocs both a launching pad for facilitating a conversation with their PI and address the aforementioned feedback shortfall. Results Although most of the participant sample reported already having C&D conversations, those who did not report as such demonstrated mixed feelings about whether facilitating these types of discussions is even part of the PI role. Insights from participants’ engagement with the 360-degree feedback tools also show that participants were mindful of time constraints when seeking feedback, indicating that the usefulness of such interventions may be inhibited by wider cultural issues in the sector. Conclusions Through the development of what we call ‘the researcher development framework, this study highlights the shortcomings of using professional development interventions to address cultural issues.","PeriodicalId":504605,"journal":{"name":"F1000Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘What seems to be missing is actual reality’ Why don’t postdocs engage with career-focused professional development?\",\"authors\":\"Mollie Etheridge, Jessica Hampton, Becky Ioppolo, Lara Abel, Noam Tal-Perry, Katherine Dawson, Marie Collier, Zoe Matthews, Kate Murray, Sylvia Osborn, Liz Simmonds, Steven Wooding\",\"doi\":\"10.12688/f1000research.151211.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background The relationship dynamics between postdoctoral researchers and their managers – typically Principal Investigators (PIs) - can directly and indirectly impact the professional development activities that postdocs participate in. Although career and development (C&D) conversations can be a platform through which both parties communicate about the postdoc’s development needs and career aspirations, it is unclear how frequently postdocs are having these types of conversations. Evidence from across the UK indicates that this group receive little feedback on their performance. Methods To explore interventions that could empower postdocs to initiate C&D conversations, we conducted a pilot study at the University of Cambridge where current postdocs were offered workshops utilizing two widely available professional development tools. Both workshops included 360-degree feedback interventions, and we hypothesized that the feedback gathered through these tools could give postdocs both a launching pad for facilitating a conversation with their PI and address the aforementioned feedback shortfall. Results Although most of the participant sample reported already having C&D conversations, those who did not report as such demonstrated mixed feelings about whether facilitating these types of discussions is even part of the PI role. Insights from participants’ engagement with the 360-degree feedback tools also show that participants were mindful of time constraints when seeking feedback, indicating that the usefulness of such interventions may be inhibited by wider cultural issues in the sector. Conclusions Through the development of what we call ‘the researcher development framework, this study highlights the shortcomings of using professional development interventions to address cultural issues.\",\"PeriodicalId\":504605,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"F1000Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"F1000Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.151211.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"F1000Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.151211.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 博士后研究人员与其管理人员(通常是首席研究员)之间的关系动态会直接或间接地影响博士后参与的职业发展活动。虽然职业与发展(C&D)对话可以成为双方就博士后的发展需求和职业抱负进行沟通的平台,但目前尚不清楚博士后进行此类对话的频率。英国各地的证据表明,这一群体很少收到有关其表现的反馈。方法 为了探索能够增强博士后启动 C&D 对话能力的干预措施,我们在剑桥大学开展了一项试点研究,利用两种广泛使用的职业发展工具,为在读博士后举办研讨会。这两个研讨会都包括 360 度反馈干预,我们假设通过这些工具收集到的反馈既能为博士后提供与他们的首席研究员开展对话的启动平台,又能解决上述反馈不足的问题。结果 虽然大多数参与者都表示已经进行过 C&D 对话,但那些没有这样表示的人对促进这类讨论是否属于首席研究员职责的一部分表现出了不同的看法。参与者对 360 度反馈工具的使用情况也表明,参与者在寻求反馈时会考虑到时间限制,这表明此类干预措施的效用可能会受到行业内更广泛的文化问题的抑制。结论 本研究通过制定我们所称的 "研究人员发展框架",强调了利用专业发展干预措施解决文化问题的不足之处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
‘What seems to be missing is actual reality’ Why don’t postdocs engage with career-focused professional development?
Background The relationship dynamics between postdoctoral researchers and their managers – typically Principal Investigators (PIs) - can directly and indirectly impact the professional development activities that postdocs participate in. Although career and development (C&D) conversations can be a platform through which both parties communicate about the postdoc’s development needs and career aspirations, it is unclear how frequently postdocs are having these types of conversations. Evidence from across the UK indicates that this group receive little feedback on their performance. Methods To explore interventions that could empower postdocs to initiate C&D conversations, we conducted a pilot study at the University of Cambridge where current postdocs were offered workshops utilizing two widely available professional development tools. Both workshops included 360-degree feedback interventions, and we hypothesized that the feedback gathered through these tools could give postdocs both a launching pad for facilitating a conversation with their PI and address the aforementioned feedback shortfall. Results Although most of the participant sample reported already having C&D conversations, those who did not report as such demonstrated mixed feelings about whether facilitating these types of discussions is even part of the PI role. Insights from participants’ engagement with the 360-degree feedback tools also show that participants were mindful of time constraints when seeking feedback, indicating that the usefulness of such interventions may be inhibited by wider cultural issues in the sector. Conclusions Through the development of what we call ‘the researcher development framework, this study highlights the shortcomings of using professional development interventions to address cultural issues.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Publisher preferences for a journal transparency tool: A modified three-round Delphi study The Nexus of Climate Change, Food Insecurity, and Conflict in Somalia: A Comprehensive Analysis of Multifaceted Challenges and Resilience Strategies StackbarExtended: a user-friendly stacked bar-plot representation incorporating phylogenetic information and microbiota differential abundance analysis Trends of machine learning for dental caries research in Southeast Asia: insights from a bibliometric analysis Case Report: Localized retinal ischemia revealing an antiphospholipids syndrome: A case report and review of the literature
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1