Mentoring for early career researchers Renée Schroeder University of Vienna, Austria Prague,...
-
Upload
cyrus-dilly -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
3
Transcript of Mentoring for early career researchers Renée Schroeder University of Vienna, Austria Prague,...
Mentoring for early career researchers
Renée Schroeder University of Vienna, AustriaPrague, December 8th 2014
VIPS
AIMs & GOALsPoint of view of government• To educate excellent scientists for the Cech
Republic • To recruit the best scientists and not loose
great mindsPoint of view of scientists• To make a career in science• Find a job in research and be successful
Problems
• Reputation of scientists and careers in science• Nepotism• Women scientists leave science after PhD or
postdoc• Scientific independence in early career stages• Reconcilability of a career in science and a
family life
Education of Society
• Science education needs to start in early childhood
• Enthusiasm for a scientific question• Educate group leaders to promote their PhDs
and postdocs• Career development programs during PhD,
postdoc and junior group leader
VisionMax Perutz had a simple recipe for running a successful lab. He recruited ambitious people, made sure they had what they need to work and fostered communication at all levels throughout the organization. The VIPS program is just one of the ways we try to emulate his success in managing the careers of younger scientists.
VIPSVienna Internations Postdoctoral Programm in Life Sciences
VIPS
We offer: • 3-5 years Post-Doctoral training • Independent research budget • Travel money , • Career development • Mentoring and Coaching• Grant writing support • Child care
Vienna International Post-Graduate Program for Molecular Life Sciences
www.mfpl.ac.at/vips
Because, most young researchers fail at the transition from post-doc to independent group leader. Training of principle inverstigators to help their post docs develop own scientific projects and become scientifically independent.
VIPS is committed to :
Scientific ExcellenceEstablish a post-graduate career plan Improve the quality of post-graduate education Increase the number of PhDs in Molecular Life Sciences Contribute to Austrian path to a knowledge- based society Promote young scientists with a special consideration of female careers
VIPS
• Started in March 2010• Recruited 18 postdocs payed by VIPS and 10 funded by other grants• More than 1.400 applications from 81
countries
Gender situationBefore VIPS (2009) 2013
56%
44%
Gender Distribution
male female
# Males # Females Total
46 36 8156% 44%
# Males # Females Total
39 40 79
49% 51%
49%51%
Gender Distribution
# Männer
# Frauen
AgeBefore VIPS (2009) 2013
< 30 years [30-35] [36-40] > 40 Total6 44 21 10 81
< 30 [30;35] [36;40] > 4005
101520253035404550
Age Distribution
7%
54%
26%
12%
Age Distribution
< 30[30;35][36;40]> 40
AgeAverage Max. Min.35 years 52 years 27 years
AgeAverage Max. Min.36 years 55 years 28 years
< 30 years [30-35] [36-40] > 40 Total7 31 18 12 68
< 30 [30;35] [36;40] > 4005
101520253035
Age Distribution
10%
46%26%
18%
Age Distribution
< 30[30;35][36;40]> 40
Length of stay at MFPL as PostdocBefore VIPS (2009) 2013
Length of stay MFPL as Post-Doc
<2 years [2-3] [3-4] [4-5] >5 Total40 12 14 2 13 81
<2 [2;3] [3;4] [4;5] >505
1015202530354045
Length of stay MFPL as Post-Doc
<2 years [2-3] [3-4] [4-5] >5 Total
32 6 7 6 9 60
<2 [2;3] [3;4] [4;5] >50
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Total length of stay at MFPLBefore VIPS (2009) 2013
Total length of stay at MFPL<2 [2-3] [3-4] [4-5] >5 Total30 10 12 2 27 81
<2 [2;3] [3;4] [4;5] >50
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Total length of stay at MFPL
Average length of stay
at MFPL as PostDoc
Average length of stay
at MFPL as PhD/PostDoc
Average time asPostDoc since PhD defense
2,8 years 3,9 years 4,8 years
Average length of stay
at MFPL as PostDoc
Average length of stay
at MFPL as PhD/PostDoc
Average time asPostDoc since PhD
defense
3 years 5 years 3 years
Total length of stay at MFPL<2 [2-3] [3-4] [4-5] >5 Total19 7 3 8 23 60
<2 [2-3] [3-4] [4-5] >50
5
10
15
20
25
Total length of stay at MFPL
Funding
Funding
Incoming own Incoming group leader
Stay on group leader Total
11 47 23 81
13,60% 58% 28,40%
Before VIPS (2009) 2013
14%
58%
28%
Funding Category
Incoming ownIncoming group leaderStay on group leader
Funding
Incoming own
Incoming group leader
Stay on group leader Total
5 40 15 608% 67% 25%
8%
67%
25%
Funding category
Incoming own
Incoming group leader
Stay on group leader
Current fellowship holders
Marie Curie IIF Postdoc Grant: ETH/SNFWF Grant:Robert Prevedel Nela NikolicBianca Mladek• EMBO Fellowship: FWF Grant:Ezequiel Petrillo Nicolas CoudevylleMaria José Mendiburo
Lise Meitner Fellowship: IRFP (Int. Research Fellowship Program):
Flávia Leite Angela Hancock -- LaufbahnstelleSven Schenk
Herta Firnberg Fellowship:Lucia AronicaSelma Osmanagic-Myers
Publications in scientific journalsBefore VIPS (2009) 2013
Impact Factors
Total IF IF per capita Median IF
3.256,25 40,2 32,4
Publications (in scientific journals)
as Post-Docin total
(as PhD/ PostDoc)
per capita as Post-Doc
per capita total (as
PhD/PostDoc)
370 694 4,6 8,6
Impact Factors
Total IF IF per capita Median IF
1.831,057 26,9 24,0
Publications
as Post-Docin total
(as PhD/ PostDoc)
per capita as Post-Doc
per capita total (as PhD/PostDoc)
291 545 4,9 9
Ifs calculated as follows:1st, co-1st, and last author: full IFCo-authorship: ½ IF
VIPS Activities• PostDoc Days• Project Management Workshop (3-day workshop; 6x in 2011-2013)• Scientific Illustrating (5x in 2013)• Time Management Workshop (2-day workshop; 2x in Oct. 2012 and Nov.
2013)• ENSEMBL Workshop (Oct. 2013)• Presentation Techniques Workshop (7x in 2011-2012)• Project Development and Administration (3x Oct. – Dec. 2012)• Biometrics I & II (Feb./March 2011)• Half a Day for Funding (Oct. 9, 2012), with participation of FWF, ÖAW and FFG• Gender Awareness Training (Nov. 2010 & April 2011)• Communications Workshop (April & July 2010)• Coaching• Mentoring
VIPS Activities
Together with IMP/IMBA/GMI:• FWF Grant Writing Workshop• Leadership Training • Grant Writing Course • Manuscript Writing Course • Scientific Communication
Super-Technician or Independent Scholar?The heterogeneous experiences of postdocs in the VIPS program
Report
VIPS Impact Assessment Study 2013
Ruth MüllerResearch Policy Institute, Lund University
VIPS Impact Assessment Study• A qualitative interview-based study of postdocs’ experiences in
the program• 16 interviews with VIPS postdocs (out of a total of 18); 2-3
hours each; biography and practice oriented• Comparative sample of interviews with postdocs not in such a
program from an earlier project (2007-2010; project leader: Ulrike Felt, Department of Science & Technology Studies, Univ. of Vienna)
• Aim: understanding the benefits/problems of the VIPS program & key tensions of the postdoc period more generally
• Focus of analysis: scientific independence (sensitizing concept)
Background• Growing number of postdoc researchers• Postdoc as ‘bottleneck of academic careers’ – high
competition for smaller number of senior jobs• Heterogeneous group (different positions considered
postdoc; different job profiles and career prospects)• Invisible group within institution (mobility; lack of
institutional representation)• VIPS program offered a definition and goal: transition
on from PhD holder to group leader; the goal is scientific independence
• How can this definition & goal be realized within the current organizational structure of life science research?
3 Questions
• What is scientific independence?
• How to establish scientific independence within an existing research group?
• Is scientific independence necessarily the only possible goal of the postdoc period?
Conclusions
• Group leaders matter for the success of program like VIPS.• Clear project agreements are important and should suit the
postdocs stage of academic development.• Mentors beyond the group are needed, who supervise that
both parties keep to the agreements.
• Alternative career paths in academic science need to be developed (staff scientists).
• Opening up career opportunities beyond academia matters.• Room to develop skills for these alternative paths in/outside
academia.
• Gender bias: Given current structures, more women ponder leaving academia/decide to leave.
Thank you for your attention!