Program development
Faculty climate and exit surveys suggested several factors and shortcomings that contribute to these representational gaps, including inconsistent professional development, lack of rigorous mentorship, inadequate scientific networking, and isolation. As shown in Table 1, multiple barriers to inclusive faculty hiring, retention, and success exist.
To address these systemic intra- and inter-institutional issues, in the summer of 2020, the University of Kentucky Office of the Vice President for Research, Office for Diversity and Inclusion in the College of Medicine, Center for Health Equity Transformation, and Office for Faculty Advancement launched the Research Scholars Program (RSP).
Programmatic origins and adaptation of the RSP
The RSP combines evidence-based strategies to promote research success for junior faculty, particularly those from groups underrepresented in biomedical and behavioral research (as defined by NIH OD-20–031). The program is based on principles and components common to the Meyerhoff Scholars Program (MSP) [9] and NIH’s Distinguished Scholar’s Program (DSP) [10] and, at our own institution, the Disparities Researchers Equalizing Access for Minorities (DREAM) Scholars Program [11]. Although serving scholars at different career stages, the key components of these programs are consistent with the RSP: multilevel mentoring, cohort-based professional development programming, and scientific and social networking [12,13,14]. Given the persistence of disparities in URM and other traditionally underrepresented populations in faculty promotion and retention rates at our institution and at the national level, we elected to prioritize research-intensive early-career faculty from underrepresented and disadvantaged groups, with an overall objective of cultivating the research success that enables progression and promotion and with the specific goals of increasing research confidence and productivity, as well as building a supportive research community to reduce isolation.
The components we include in RSP address four shortcomings — 1) inconsistent professional development, 2) lack of rigorous mentorship, 3) inadequate scientific network, and 4) isolation — confirmed through our institutional data as undermining research and career success. To contextually adapt these programs, we developed a prototype of the RSP with the input of a sixteen-faculty-member Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC). The sixteen FAC members represent numerous disciplines, departments, colleges, and backgrounds. Of these FAC members, ten maintained active research programs, six of whom lead large research centers; four of the FAC members lead faculty development programs; and the remaining two FAC members have expertise in DEIA. After these individuals provided extensive review and revisions of the prototype, we vetted the program to receive input from diverse stakeholders during a series of campus events. A special focus of this vetting involved key informant interviews with ten junior faculty, most of whom identified as belonging to groups underrepresented in the research workforce. These key informant interviews were undertaken by two senior faculty members (NS, SW) using a cognitive interviewing approach to solicit input on program components. The process of adaptation took approximately three months, with input from more than sixty faculty members and staff.
Eligibility
Eligibility criteria included having a doctoral-level degree, being a full-time assistant or associate professor in any faculty appointment requiring research activity for promotion, with priority given to investigators who had not yet achieved extramural funding as Principal Investigator and being a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. The requirement of U.S. citizenship or permanent residence is consistent with NIH’s eligibility criteria for most career development awards and fellowship programs [15], salient because many junior faculty apply for such opportunities. We prioritized the acceptance of those individuals from underrepresented and disadvantaged backgrounds (according to the NIH’s definition and applicant’s self-report) and required applicants to describe how their participation in the program would contribute to increasing the diversity and inclusive research excellence within their scientific discipline. The response to this prompt played a significant role in determining application acceptance.
Application process
Recognizing that the RSP was new and not well known, our campus-wide call for applications described the program, the benefits, and the intended audience: research-intensive (at least 30% of effort) junior faculty, prioritizing those from groups underrepresented and disadvantaged in biomedical and behavioral sciences. We sought assistance in dissemination from university leadership, including research leaders, deans, and department chairs, and encouraged them to actively reach out to eligible faculty members. Submissions included an applicant’s statement of research, a CV, and a description of how their participation would help to cultivate a more inclusive and diverse research workforce. We recruited twice — in 2020 and again in 2022 — for four RSP cohorts. During each of these recruitment periods, all applicants met criteria described above. After assessment by the FAC, all of the applicants were invited to participate, with a new six-person cohort beginning April 1 of each year and lasting twelve months. Given the demand for the program, our desire to include all qualified applicants, and the need to keep the program individualized and intensive, we employed a staggered cohort model. Cohort placement was determined by the applicants themselves and their perceived readiness to benefit from the program. For example, an applicant seeking to submit their first NIH R-series award within months was placed in Cohort 1, while a person who had recently arrived and was still formulating their research ideas was deferred to Cohort 2.
We established four cohorts, with six Research Scholars (RS) in each of the first three, and four in Cohort 4 (which will have two additional members by the time their participation starts in 2024). The small-group composition met our staffing limitations and adhered to recommendations from faculty focus groups, surveys, and exit interviews to build a cohesive and self-reinforcing cohort by limiting the size of the program.
Program elements
The RSP consists of three main elements: (1) five levels of Mosaic Mentorship; (2) group and tailored professional development programming; and (3) scientific and social networking. Figure 1 depicts RSP’s components.
Research Scholars Program (RSP) Components
Mentorship
We draw from the principles of the Mosaic Mentorship model [16], which incorporates five levels of mentorship with multiple individuals. Level one is the cohort itself, a group of highly interactive assistant or associate professors focused primarily on research success. In level two, in consultation with program leadership, RS select a primary scientific mentor who is offered a modest stipend to recognize their commitment to engage in regular (at least monthly) meetings. RS and their scientific mentors develop and sign a Mentoring Compact and Individualized Development Plan. Scientific mentors also are encouraged to complete the eight-week, evidence-based Entering Mentoring program [17]. In level three, three to five near-peer assistant or associate professors who have obtained R01-equivalent funding offer quarterly informal sessions on topics selected by the RS, including navigating work-life challenges and achieving research independence. In level four, Sponsors, who are senior scientific leaders of our university’s Research Priority Areas, are asked to advocate and sponsor RS for awards, prizes, and leadership opportunities; enhance their national networks; and provide scientific communities of belonging. Sponsors, representing the areas of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity, cancer, substance use, health equity, and neurosciences, were selected by the RS according to their research interest. For example, several RS with an interest in diet, nutrition, and metabolic disease sought the sponsorship of the Diabetes and Obesity Research Priority Area Leader. Finally, in level five, a Coaching Committee consisting of two senior faculty — selected from the FAC based on career success, familiarity with challenges of underrepresentation in academics, and interpersonal skills — assist RS in navigating the university climate and maintaining a healthy work-life integration. Coaches meet with RS once per semester as a group, or more frequently as needed, to provide RS with advice and tools to advance career development.
Professional Development (PD) programming
RS receive rigorous PD programming focused on developing, securing, and executing R01-equivalent research projects. During the first quarter of the RSP, RS are enrolled into the Faculty Success Program (FSP) offered by the National Center for Faculty Development and Diversity. The FSP is a 12-week online program involving weekly calls with a certified coach and three or four peers to share their goals and accomplishments each week. Participants also complete self-directed weekly modules and coach-directed homework while logging into the FSP platform to track their daily progress on research, writing, and personal objectives.
Several grant writing opportunities have been provided to the RS. First, our Proposal Development Office provides group and tailored advice on funding opportunities. These two sessions assist the RS in determining the most appropriate Sponsors (for example, National Science Foundation (NSF) versus NIH or specific institutes within the NIH), mechanisms (Career Development Awards versus R-series grants), and specific opportunities (Requests for Application (RFAs) or Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs)) for their proposed projects. Additionally, the first two cohorts joined an institutionally led, 13-week Grant Writing Workshop (GWW) that met weekly for two hours over the final months of their program participation. During the GWW, participants received didactic training on every component of an NIH grant, writing their own section for “homework” that week, and reviewing one another’s documents during the following week. Senior faculty facilitators also provided feedback. While the GWW was extremely thorough, the RS recommended beginning the program during the first few months of program participation, causing us to seek out an alternative program. We commissioned a “Grant Writing Boot Camp” (GWBC) consisting of five intense sessions with similar information for the RS, occurring within the first three months of their participation. Cohort 1 completed only the GWW, while the Cohort 2 completed the GWW and GWBC, Cohort 3 and future cohorts, will participate only in the GWBC since the feedback on the GWBC was so positive.
The FSP and GWBC are supplemented by regular communications from RSP leaders on enrichment events across campus and nationally. These events include a bi-weekly research enrichment program provided by the Office of the Vice President for Research, with topics including Good Clinical Practice, the Secrets of Success for Junior Faculty, and Conducting Humane Research with Animals. Programming through the Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS) provides another enrichment opportunity through the PI 101 course, biostatistical consultation, and the annual CCTS conference. RSP leaders also notify RS of events or organizations that may be of particular interest (for example, the Women in Medicine and Science group or a special workshop).
Scientific and social networking
To reduce isolation, provide support for faculty to overcome institutional or structural challenges, and facilitate connections within the research community and institution, the RSP coordinates monthly informal social gatherings. These “monthly meetups” are held at various locations in our community and refreshments are provided by the program. The monthly meetups foster a strong sense of community and allow for RS to share career updates and engage with mentors in an informal setting. The monthly meetups also provide RSP leadership with a venue to continually gather informal feedback on the program and answer pressing questions from the scholars.
To expand their scientific networks, RS also are linked to institutional Research Priority Areas, groups that have been targeted for strategic investment based on existing interdisciplinary strengths, infrastructure, and funding success. Finally, bridging scientific and social networking, RSP leaders conduct a monthly individual meeting with each RS, leaving the agenda to the scholars. Standard topics included hiring personnel for a laboratory, negotiating challenging leaders, and sequencing grant application submissions. The RSP also provides information and referrals on affinity groups and other non-academic supportive organizations.
RSP costs
Programmatic costs are calculated at $21,600 per faculty, paid by the sponsoring department/college; however, qualified faculty were accepted if the sponsoring department could not afford this cost, and the balance was covered by institutional funds. With the support of university leadership, we selected this budget model so that less well-endowed colleges could offer this program to their faculty members. While this model might lead to some discord (i.e., some departments paying “full price” while others do not), we prefer this model since it equalizes opportunities. Moreover, while all departments have the option of requesting assistance, very few actually request the subsidy. Thus far, of the 18 RS, only four participants (in two colleges/ four departments) have requested subsidized programmatic costs. With documentation of success, we anticipate financial stability through enhanced institutional support and through the receipt of extramural funding. Indeed, with strong backing and financial commitments from university leadership, our team recently has submitted an application to the NIH to support this program. Table 2 provides details on the RSP budget.
Assessment and analysis
Prior to starting the program, we informed RS and their nominators to anticipate allocating 10% of scholars’ effort to participate in the program. No additional departmental or college resources were allocated to protect the scholars’ time. RSP leadership consulted with nominators about how to represent this time allocation, with most considering this effort as unfunded research or professional development.
To determine whether the RSP achieves its stated goals of increasing research confidence and productivity, building a supportive research community, and reducing isolation, leading to overcoming barriers to the academic success, retention, progression, and promotion of underrepresented populations, we implemented a pre- and post-test assessment and exit interviews with the RS and others. Accordingly, we submitted an application to the University of Kentucky Institutional Review Board, approved as protocol #67,403. Participants voluntarily consented prior to completing the pre-test. We acknowledge that standard effectiveness evaluations are essential and we intend to include such evaluations in the future. However, given the program’s promise and the critical need to develop and disseminate information about programs to improve workforce equity, we have opted not to delay and to provide descriptive insights about the RSP.
Quantitative assessment
To determine the potential of the RSP to improve research skills and competencies critical to success, we used a modified shortened version of the Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory (CRAI-12) [18] to assess participants’ confidence in performing a variety of research tasks. Pre-test data were collected two weeks prior to program initiation, and post-test data were collected within two weeks after program completion, all via REDCap. RS rated their confidence to successfully perform each item on a scale from 1 (not at all confident) to 10 (extremely confident). Data were analyzed by the RSP evaluation team as anonymized, aggregated datasets, employing descriptive statistics to compare self-rated confidence levels on the successful performance of research tasks.
Qualitative assessment
At the conclusion of the program, two RSP FAC members jointly engaged in a 30–60-min virtual, semi-structured interview with each scholar individually. To avoid self-censorship or social desirability bias, no members of the RSP leadership were involved with these interviews. A list of semi-structured interview questions can be seen in Table 3. To ensure anonymity, the sessions were not recorded; instead, one FAC member asked the questions while the other took detailed notes. Given the structured nature of the questions and our goal of program evaluation, the notes were subjected to template coding [19]. Notes were compiled into an aggregated, deidentified dataset based on the question template. Themes were extracted by the RSP leadership team from the template.
