Putting PhDs to work: career planning for today's scientist

Abstract

Individual development plans (IDPs) have been promoted nationally as a tool to help research trainees explore career opportunities and set career goals. Despite the interest in IDPs from a policy perspective, there is little information about how they have been used. The authors examined IDP awareness and use, the benefits of creating an IDP, and ways to facilitate its use by administering a survey to current or former postdoctoral researchers via the National Postdoctoral Association (NPA) and University of Alabama at Birmingham email lists; individuals belonging to Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology member societies who mentored postdocs; and postdoctoral administrators at member institutions of the Association of American Medical Colleges and the NPA. Although most postdoctoral administrators (>80%) were familiar with IDPs, less than 50% of postdocs and only 20% of mentors were aware of IDPs. For those postdocs and mentors who reported creating an IDP, the process helped postdocs to identify the skills and abilities necessary for career success and facilitated communication between postdocs and their mentors. Despite the fact that creating an IDP benefits postdocs and mentors, IDP use will likely remain low unless institutions and research mentors encourage trainees to engage in this process.

Figure 1.

IDP use and awareness. Many postdoctoral administrators are aware of the IDP, but fewer recommend or require that postdocs develop one. Less than half of postdocs who were aware of the IDP created one, and less than half of mentors who were aware of the IDP helped their postdocs to create one.

Figure 2.

Postdocs (P) were asked to rate how helpful the IDP process was overall and for various aspects of their career and professional development. Mentors (M) were asked to rate how helpful the IDP process was overall and for various aspects of their trainees’ careers and professional development. Ratings were on scale of 1–5, wherein 1 was “not at all helpful” and 5 was “very helpful.” Scores of 1 and 2 were considered “not helpful,” a score of 3 was considered “neutral,” and scores of 4 and 5 were considered “helpful.”