Joining the European Science Foundation study to synergize efforts

TDR was invited to respond to a call for research support and funding organizations to join a doctorate career tracking project. The survey was launched in late 2014 by the European Science Foundation in Strasbourg, France. The aim of this call was to develop a methodology to design and implement a career tracking survey tool.

Five organizations joined the study: the AXA Research Fund, Paris, France (AXA); the Fonds National de la Recherche, Luxembourg (FNR); the Goethe Graduate Academy (GRADE), Frankfurt, Germany; the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI), Villingen, Switzerland and TDR. All data were disaggregated by organizations. Six hundred and thirty eight (638) trainees from the five partners responded to the survey with the following breakdown: 110 from the AXA fund, 84 from FNR, 105 from GRADE; 133 from PSI and 77 from TDR. The aggregated results from the 638 participants have been published [4].

Data were then disaggregated in 2015 and results specific to the TDR trainees are presented in this paper.

Survey populations

A total of 304 TDR trainees who completed their doctorate or master’s degree between 2000 and 2012 with a TDR grant were identified in the TDR information and management system. These included recipients of any of the following scheme of grants: research training grants (RTG); re-entry grants (REG); the Multilateral Initiative on Malaria (MIM); research grants and institution strengthening grants (ISG). RTGs were awarded to individuals in LMICs to pursue studies leading to a postgraduate degree (MSc or PhD) at their home country institution, in another LMIC or in a high income country. REGs were intended to facilitate the career development of young scientists returning to their home institution within 12 to 24 months, following completion of a graduate degree (MSc or PhD) or a post-doctoral fellowship. ISGs were designed to provide up to three years of support to an institution or research group to enhance infrastructure and the research environment. MIM grants [3] were used to provide support to core African research groups for the development of malaria control tools (Box 1).

Information on all individuals and institutions that received grants between 2000 and 2012 was extracted from the TDR information management system and tabulated for range and scope of research topics.

Trainees were contacted individually, through e-mail, to ascertain their willingness to participate in the career tracking survey and to update their personal information. From a total of 304 trainees identified, 117 trainees (39%) responded positively while 187 did not respond, either due to out of date e-mail addresses or possible lack of interest.

Designing the survey: Building upon existing questionnaires from various institutions

The questionnaire design was based on existing surveys of doctorate graduates conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Eurostat, the European Commission Marie Sklodowska-Curie actions, Wellcome Trust, UNESCO and the US National Science Foundation. The range of topics covered by the survey included demographics, mobility (virtual, physical and sectoral), research outcomes, roles and responsibilities, competence development and skills utilization. Several drafts of the questionnaire were reviewed by the five participating organizations and pre-tested in-house by ESF staff members, with the final questionnaire peer-reviewed by two independent international experts. The resulting questionnaire contained 52 questions, written in English.

Protecting data

Participants were informed about the detailed data protection and confidentiality arrangements that were in place for the survey such as the anonymization of replies before analysis. This included destroying all contact details before conducting any survey analysis and avoidance of any questions likely to collect sensitive or identifying information of any kind (date of birth, thesis title, disciplinary field, institution name, etc.). Written assurance was also given that contact details would only be used for the purpose of contacting the trainees during the data collection phase. Since ESF is located in Strasbourg, France, the modalities of the survey were declared to the Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL), the independent French authority protecting privacy and personal data.

Launching the survey, following up with participants and preparing for statistical analysis

The list of TDR trainees and their contact details were shared with ESF and names and e-mail addresses entered into an online survey database. The survey was launched with an explanatory cover note from ESF in September 2014. The questionnaire and an introductory message were sent to each of the 117 participants.

Any queries received by the ESF team from participants were dealt with on an individual basis, including practical questions regarding completion of the questionnaire. The number of respondents was logged on a daily basis and the percentage of responses on a weekly basis. A total of five reminders to participate in the survey were sent. The survey was closed in November 2014 and all respondents were thanked for their participation.

The survey data were imported into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for analysis by ESF.

Respondent profiles: Illustration of TDR training grant focus

Among the 304 TDR trainees identified, 117 trainees expressed availability to participate and were included in the survey. These included 54 RTG, 29 REG, 18 MIM and 16 ISG grants. Ultimately, 77 trainees responded to the survey (66% of those included). Unfortunately it was not possible to break down the analysis by grant as 68% responded to the question “Do you know the type of grant you received from TDR?” with “don’t know” and the survey was anonymous.

WHO Member States are grouped into six regions: Africa (AFR), the Americas (AMR), South-East Asia (SEAR), Europe (EUR), Eastern Mediterranean (EMR), and Western Pacific (WPR). Profiles of the TDR trainees who responded to the survey are shown in Fig 1A. The majority of respondents came from AFR (53%); 21% originated from AMR, mainly from Brazil (59%) and Argentina (25%); 11% were from SEAR, 11% from EMR and 4% from WPR.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Profile of the 77 TDR trainees who responded to the survey.

(A) geographic distribution by WHO region (AFR for African region; AMR for region of the Americas, SEAR for South East Asia region, EMR for Eastern Mediterranean region and WPR for Western Pacific region); (B, C) gender distribution in total and by WHO region, respectively; (D) use of language in AFR; (E) employment status of trainees by function (E1), and by nature (E2 and E3).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0006112.g001

Of the 77 respondents, 58% were men and 42% were women (Fig 1B). Representation of women was slightly higher than in the group of 304 initially contacted (62% men, 38% women). As shown in Fig 1C, women are well represented in all WHO regions except AFR where men are more represented (77%) than women (23%). In EMR, women are more represented (70%) than men (30%).

In terms of age, the majority of respondents were between 35 and 45 (51%). Women were slightly older than men: 34% of women were above 50 years of age as compared to 18% of men. In all WHO regions, except AMR, the vast majority of women have children (92%) but only 29% of women had children in AMR. Further investigation would be needed to understand any potential barrier for AMR women with children to access TDR training grants. Fifty-eight percent of men and 42% of women had other caring responsibilities such as care of an elderly person or an adult with a disability.

In AFR, the majority of respondents were from English speaking countries (64%) followed by French (33%) and Portuguese (3%) (Fig 1D). The response rate (number of trainees who responded to the questionnaire / number of trainees who received the questionnaire) was higher in Francophone (87%) than in Anglophone (55%) trainee sub-groups. When aiming at enhancing support to Francophone and Lusophone countries, further study may be needed to better understand the factors involved.

The influence of type and length of the support received

The 77 respondents were supported by TDR to obtain either a MSc (14 respondents), a medical doctorate (MD) (5 respondents) or a PhD (58 respondents).

All trainees studying for a master’s degree obtained their degree through structured means, involving a combination of defined courses and independent research. For trainees studying for a PhD, the majority of respondents (86%) achieved their degree through the traditional means of an independent research study under the guidance of a supervisor and only 14% through structured means. There was no relationship between the time taken to complete the degree and the structure followed. There was also no difference in the time taken and the structure followed to complete their degree between men and women.

The median time taken by respondents to complete their PhD was four years. Support provided by TDR did not always cover the full duration of the degree and ranged from one year (28%) or less (6%) to two years (20%), three years (25%), or more (21%). More men were supported for three years (30%) as compared to women (19%), and more women were supported for one year or less (39%) as compared to men (30%). The reasons for the variation of length of support are not clear. It would be important to better understand why duration of support was shorter for women than for men and what the implications were. Indeed early career support to acquire a degree is known to be a key factor for career development and a potential future leadership role [5].

Eight respondents (seven men from AFR and one woman from AMR) took a career break for one year or more. Of the seven men, only one found it very difficult to return to their previous position. The only woman who took a study break found it relatively easy to return to her position. However, the reasons for having taken a study break were not clearly explained; a more explicit question will be added in the next survey.

Creating opportunities for geographical mobility

A proportion of respondents (35% overall) moved outside of their country of origin to complete their degree, the majority from AFR. Forty-one percent of AFR respondents who moved abroad went to high-income countries, mainly in North America and Europe.

Overall, 65% of respondents completed their degree in their region of origin. Seventy-nine percent of TDR grantees from AFR who completed their degree in their region of origin were trained in three countries: Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa. Sixty-nine percent of TDR grantees from AMR who completed their degree in their region of origin were trained in Argentina and Brazil. All of the countries where training took place have a relatively high national gross domestic income, with a well-developed health research structure and capabilities [6]. Thus, the survey showed the great benefit of TDR and other agencies supporting capacity strengthening programmes to promote collaboration between scientists in countries with more advanced health research capacities and countries with lower health research capacities within the same region.

The gain of south-south collaboration as compared to north-south collaboration in term of career development was analysed based on the 41 trainees from AFR. Fifteen (15) studied in high-income countries (north-south collaboration), 20 studied in three other African countries (Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa) (south-south collaboration) while six studied in their own country. There was no difference in response to the different questions between trainees who studied in high-income countries and those who studied regionally. This may suggest that south-south collaborations are as effective and at a lower cost than north-south collaborations.

Career development following TDR support

Fostering career development in research

All of the TDR trainees who responded to this survey were employed, with 95% holding a position at a university or research institution and 89% working as academic researchers.

Fig 1E provides details of TDR trainees’ current employment. Most of the respondents held a full-time position with more than 30 hours per week (92%) in either a permanent (83%) or temporary position (9%). Women were more often in permanent full time positions (91%) than men (78%). While the number is small, only men were self-employed (2%).

The vast majority of respondents worked in the public sector (83%) in non-profit (79%) or for-profit (4%) institutions, followed by the private sector (12%) and others, including public-private partnerships (2%). Twenty eight (28%) were directly funded by their employer, while 72% were employed on grants funded by some other external party.

Table 1 presents TDR respondents working as academic researchers (89%) by career stages as per the Frascati definition [7, 8]. The only difference between men and women was that a higher proportion of women described themselves as R1 researchers (first stage) and more often they held positions as junior researchers. This was the case for all WHO regions.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. TDR respondents by career stage (Frascati definition) [7, 8] and gender (in %).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0006112.t001

The minority not working as researchers (11%) were asked to indicate the reason(s) for this. The most common reasons cited were the difficulty of obtaining a suitable academic research position (100%), the difficulty to secure a tenured post (100%), the lack of research career opportunities (80%) and the low remuneration in research positions (75%).

In terms of occupational areas, the highest proportion of respondents worked in life sciences (47%), followed by education (34%), training (31%), healthcare (31%) that included healthcare practitioners and healthcare support occupations, social sciences (5%) and administrative support.

Table 2 clearly shows that a higher proportion of men were involved in management. However, similar proportions of women and men worked in life sciences, education, healthcare, social sciences and administrative support. There was no difference based on country of origin, country of study, country of work and their career stages.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Occupational area and gender of TDR respondents (in %) (percentages do not add up to 100% since respondents can work in more than one occupational area).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0006112.t002

In general, it is quite difficult to compare salaries across the geographical spread of the various WHO regions. However, some gender differences in salary levels were evident, since a higher proportion of women earned less than €20 000 per year (55% women versus 44% men) regardless of the region of origin. This is perhaps due to the fact that women more often held positions of junior researchers (Table 1). It could also reflect the worldwide issue of the gender pay gap.

Enhancing regional and international collaborations

The survey asked respondents to indicate in how many different countries they had physically studied or worked for a period of more than three months during and after TDR support (physical mobility). The majority of respondents had studied and worked solely in their own country (72%) while 28% percent had studied or worked in other countries. It is worth noting that international physical mobility was higher for AFR respondents (48%). In general the survey showed a strong mobility to countries with more advanced health research capacities. The highest international physical mobility was to Europe (60%) and North America (38%) then Argentina and Brazil (11% each) and Australia (7%).

Virtual mobility, or collaboration via information and communication technology platforms, was also considered. The majority of respondents (75%) acknowledged virtual mobility had taken place solely within their own countries. From the 25% remaining respondents, the highest international virtual mobility was to countries in Europe (46%) and North America (31%). As was the case with physical mobility, virtual mobility was higher for AFR respondents (42%). Interestingly, international physical mobility to Europe was higher than virtual mobility.

The survey showed that 58% of respondents conducted research in collaboration with researchers based in another country, mainly in Africa, Europe and North America, through a joint publication (55%) and/or a joint project (52%), in line with the mobility trends described above.

Stimulating multidisciplinary and intersectoral collaborations

There was a considerable proportion of respondents who reported having engaged in multidisciplinary research activities (81%). Multidisciplinary collaboration was reflected through either joint publications (81%), collaborating at distance with occasional face-to-face (67%) or through web-based technologies (52%). Women seemed to engage in multidisciplinary approaches to a higher extent than men. Indeed, a higher proportion of women worked with researchers from a different field of expertise, either through joint publications (89% for women versus 74% for men) or virtual collaborations (63% for women versus 44% for men). This could be due to the fact that more women work in the field of social sciences than men. In a previous study analysing TDR support of 116 research training grants, 11/36 (30.50%) women and 11/80 (13.75%) men worked in the domain of social sciences. However in a recent study analazing gender differences in scientific collaborations, it is clear that women in the natural sciences domain have more collaboration in other fields than men [9]. Further research would be needed to better understand why TDR women trainees tend to engage in multidisciplinary approaches more often than men.

Intersectoral collaboration, in terms of joint activities between research institutions, industry or commercial ventures, was limited: 23% worked on a joint publication and 19% collaborated on a joint research project with industry. Men collaborated only slightly more frequently with industry (33%) than women (26%). There is a clear need to encourage intersectoral collaboration. This could be done though promoting and fostering mobility between research institutions, government and nongovernmental agencies, and the public and private sectors. It would help to make the career perspective after graduation more attractive and to reduce existing barriers to collaborative work between these sectors. Some of these barriers to career development are attitudinal, reflecting a lack of knowledge and sometimes a negative perception that academic staff may have about a career outside the university’s walls. The quality of career mentorship provided at the doctoral level could be an essential element to help overcome these concerns. Other barriers could be structural and institutional, bringing into question the reliance on publication output as the sole or main criterion for scientific recognition and career development.

Making a change: Impact on trainees’ current activities

Respondents, regardless of the region they came from, reported that they regularly used their doctoral skills in their current position (92%). They most often used these skills in managing research activities (74% of respondents dedicated more than 20% of their time to these activities). This was followed by staff management activities (47%), which included supervising students either at undergraduate and master levels (82%) and/or PhD level (65%) or supervising their peers’ work (75%); teaching activities (46% dedicated more than 20% of their time) and administrative activities (37% dedicated more than 20% of their time). Some dedicated time to transferring technology to industry (21%). There was no significant difference between genders in any of these activities.

Respondents reported having made presentations at national (73%) and international conferences (72%) and women were more active than men in international presentations (75% for women versus 66% for men).

Over 70% of respondents had been either lead authors (65%) or co-authors (70%) on peer-reviewed publications in the last 12 months. Similar proportions of men and women had been lead authors (69% for women versus 62% for men) but a higher proportion of men were co-authors (55% for men versus 45% for women) on peer-reviewed publications.

In terms of research and development, 20% of respondents had produced new research software resources and 9% of them had filled a patent. None of them had registered or licenced a product in the last 12 months.

Almost 25% of respondents claimed that their work had made a significant impact on influencing changes in policy and practice. This relatively low percentage could be due to the fact that respondents come from a largely academia-based group (98% held a position in university or in research institutions and 89% worked as academic researchers) which usually report impact more through publications, conference presentations and research awards. All trainee contact details or other identifying information of any kind (date of birth, thesis title, disciplinary field, institutional name, etc.) were destroyed before conducting any analysis. As a consequence, there was no possibility to verify if the work of the trainee had an impact on policy and practice. However, this percentage suggests the need to maintain and enhance efforts to bridge the gap between health research and policy-making and practice, as well as the need to capture such evidence in a systematic way. Indeed, the lack of evidence on translating research results into health policies, interventions or new tools has been identified for decades as a weakness in the evaluation of research capacity strengthening organizations [10].

Activities to communicate results to the public had been undertaken by 30% of respondents and media coverage was achieved by 22% of respondents. Men were more likely than women to claim impact on policy and practice changes (29% versus 19%), to communicate to the public (40% versus 16%) and to receive media coverage (27% versus 16%).

Degree, post degree, choice of career and TDR support

Respondents were asked to rate the importance of TDR support on achieving their professional career goals. Eighty (80) percent rated TDR support as very important, and 91% of respondents rated the TDR support as very or fairly important; no difference was observed between genders. This outcome is substantially higher when compared to the other four organizations involved in this survey, which scored an average of 54% of importance with the support received. These results confirm the need for research capacity strengthening in low-and middle-income countries and the catalytic role that TDR has played in research career development. Two additional elements, the first post-doctorate employer and the academic advisor, were rated as important for career progression by 64% and 63% of the respondents, respectively.

The post-degree career choices made by the respondents were strongly influenced by academic considerations. The most important reason influencing the decision to accept a post-doctorate position was the willingness to get additional training in the same area of their degree (70%). This was seen as a necessary step towards the employment they aspired to (67%). This is an important result to be taken into consideration when implementing future research capacity strengthening programmes for development. Increasingly, countries have identified the need for building capacity in research for implementation in order to enhance health care delivery and reach vulnerable populations. Research for implementation helps solve implementation bottlenecks, identify optimal approaches for real life settings and speed up the bench-to-bedside translation. TDR has recently shifted its strategic focus toward research for implementation, and is building upon capacity already developed with previous trainees.