Mentoring gone wrong: What is happening to mentorship in academia?

Policy Futures in Education ◽

10.1177/1478210320972199 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 147821032097219

Author(s):

Francesco E Marino

Keyword(s):

Best Practices ◽

Current Model ◽

Early Career ◽

Research Institutions ◽

Recruitment And Retention ◽

Early Career Researchers ◽

A Priority ◽

Teaching Programs

Mentorship is one of the most important founding elements of academia. In fact, it can be easily argued that mentorship was born with academia. An effective mentorship in training and teaching programs results in the recruitment and retention of qualified students and early-career researchers. However, what are the current best practices of mentoring? And is mentorship currently a priority in academic and research institutions? The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief overview of the current model of mentorship in academia and highlight some of the key qualities of an academic mentor.

Download Full-text

I won’t be #BulliedIntoBadScience

Septentrio Conference Series ◽

10.7557/5.4596 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Corina Logan

Keyword(s):

Best Practices ◽

Academic Community ◽

Early Career ◽

Individual Level ◽

The Public ◽

Early Career Researchers ◽

Research Administrators ◽

Central Resource ◽

Peer Community ◽

The Individual

Watch the VIDEO.The #BulliedIntoBadScience (BIBS) campaign consists of early career researchers leading individuals and institutions in adopting open practices to improve research rigor (from all fields, not only the sciences). I will share how BIBS started and discuss what we as researchers are doing to stop exploiting ourselves and the public when sharing our research with each other and the public. We are developing best practices for facilitating higher quality research and tackling biases in this rapidly changing world of scholarly publishing. I will share case studies at the individual level (e.g., how a PI can run an open and transparent lab), at the level of the academic community (e.g., changing editorial practices via efforts such as Editors4BetterResearch and Peer Community in Ecology), and at the level of institutions (e.g., serving as Data Champions and advising governments). We at BIBS aim to be a central resource for people to share and organize best practices, thus it is useful for researchers, librarians and research administrators.

Download Full-text

Response to Flournoy (2021): Reflections on the benefits and challenges of communicating the results of a pre-registered study

10.31234/osf.io/wfe4r ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Monica E Ellwood-Lowe ◽

Ruthe Foushee ◽

Mahesh Srinivasan

Keyword(s):

Best Practices ◽

Review Process ◽

Research Process ◽

Early Career ◽

Scientific Process ◽

Journal Review ◽

Final Version ◽

Early Career Researchers ◽

Thoughtful Comment ◽

Dissemination Of Results

In 2020, we posted a preprint online presenting the results of two pre-registered studies, now published in revised form (Ellwood-Lowe et al., 2021; original preprint archived at https://osf.io/ktsdp/). While undergoing the journal review process, circulation of this preprint encouraged open feedback from peers, including a thoughtful comment on our studies and pre-registration best practices by Dr. John Flournoy (Flournoy, 2021). Here we respond to the points raised in Flournoy’s comments, and discuss the benefits and challenges of pre-registering “high-risk” studies, particularly as early career researchers. We begin by reflecting on our scientific process between the first pre-registration and the ultimate dissemination of results—pulling back a curtain to reveal a piece of the research process that is often occluded. Next, we address Flournoy’s comments directly and explain how they were helpful in shaping the final version of our paper. Finally, we make suggestions for pre-registered studies in the future.

Download Full-text

Lessons on Running a Laboratory Experiment (in Graduate School)

Political Science and Politics ◽

10.1017/s1049096517002062 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 51 (02) ◽

pp. 406-409

Author(s):

Daniel J. Mallinson

Keyword(s):

Best Practices ◽

Laboratory Experiment ◽

Graduate School ◽

Time Management ◽

Research Question ◽

Practical Experience ◽

Early Career ◽

Laboratory Notebook ◽

Early Career Researchers ◽

First Time

ABSTRACTExperimentation has taken on a new life in political science. As the use of experimental methods proliferates, it is important for researchers to share their experiences and best practices, particularly with early-career researchers. This article provides reflections from practical experience in the laboratory, particularly geared toward graduate students and early-career researchers who are conducting their first laboratory experiment. These lessons do not apply only to first-time experimenters. Experiences are presented regarding time management, using confederates and deception, incentivizing participation, and keeping a laboratory notebook. Finally, early-career researchers are encouraged to “go for it” if the methods are appropriate to their research question.

Download Full-text

THE IMPORTANCE OF TRANSPARENCY AND OPEN SCIENCE IN GERONTOLOGY: PERSPECTIVES FROM EARLY-CAREER RESEARCHERS

Innovation in Aging ◽

10.1093/geroni/igz038.086 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S23-S23

Author(s):

Jennifer Lodi-Smith ◽

Eileen K Graham

Keyword(s):

Best Practices ◽

Open Science ◽

Early Career ◽

Growing Up ◽

Aging Research ◽

Future Directions ◽

Longitudinal Methods ◽

The Past ◽

Early Career Researchers ◽

Science Movement

Abstract The past decade has seen rapid growth in conversations around and progress towards fostering a more transparent, open, and cumulative science. Best practices are being codified and established across fields relevant to gerontology from cancer science to psychological science. Many of the areas currently under development are of particular relevance to gerontologists such as best practices in balancing open science with participant confidentiality or best practices for preregistering archival, longitudinal data analysis. The present panel showcases one of the particular strengths of the open science movement - the contribution that early career researchers are making to these ongoing conversations on best practices. Early career researchers have the opportunity to blend their expertise with technology, their knowledge of their disciplines, and their vision for the future in shaping these conversations. In this panel, three early career researchers share their insights. Pfund presents an introduction to preregistration and the value of preregistration from the perspective of “growing up” within the open science movement. Seaman discusses efforts in and tool for transparency and reproducibility in neuroimaging of aging research. Ludwig introduces the idea of registered reports as a particularly useful form of publication for researchers who use longitudinal methods, and/or those who work with hard-to-access samples. The symposium will include time for the audience to engage the panel in questions and discussion about current efforts in and future directions for transparent, open, and cumulative science efforts in gerontology.

Download Full-text

Using participatory design and visual narrative inquiry to investigate researchers’ data challenges and recommendations for library research data services

Program electronic library and information systems ◽

10.1108/prog-01-2015-0012 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 49 (4) ◽

pp. 408-423 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Eleanor Mattern ◽

Wei Jeng ◽

Daqing He ◽

Liz Lyon ◽

Aaron Brenner

Keyword(s):

Best Practices ◽

Narrative Inquiry ◽

Research Process ◽

Research Data ◽

Early Career ◽

Visual Narrative ◽

Content Type ◽

Data Services ◽

Early Career Researchers ◽

Library Research

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to report on an information gathering study on users’ research data-related challenges and proposals for library research data services (RDS). This study probes how early career researchers visually conceptualize the research process in their disciplines, their self-reported research data challenges, and their recommendations for library RDS. Design/methodology/approach – Two focus group sessions were undertaken with a total of eight early career researchers. Adopting the visual narrative inquiry method, the participants were asked to sketch the general research process in their domain. The individuals’ illustrations of the research process were then used as the basis for reflecting on their data-related needs and potential RDS that would assist them during the research process. Findings – Participants presented a research process that was more personal and, in most cases, more imperfect than the research lifecycle models that academic libraries are increasingly using for RDS development and communication. The authors present their data-related challenges, which included data access barriers, low knowledge of best practices for research data management, the need for a deeper understanding of post-publication impact, and inconsistent awareness of existing library and institution RDS. The authors outline RDS recommendations that participants proposed, which included a web-based tools, customized training sessions, and “distilled” guides to research data best practices. Practical implications – The study flagged users’ gaps in understandings of existing library and institutional RDS, suggesting that there may be an opportunity to engage users in the design of communications plans for services. The findings from this user study will inform the development of RDS at the institution. Originality/value – This paper puts forth a methodological approach that academic libraries can adapt for understanding users’ needs and user-generated design solutions.

Download Full-text