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

ruth.mueller@fpi.lu.se

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!