A cross-sectional study of the use and effectiveness of the Individual Development Plan among doctoral students

Introduction

The spotlight is bright today on the sustainability of the biomedical enterprise, especially regarding the support and general career outcomes of early career investigators and trainees^1–3. There is a significant supply of PhDs and a weak market demand for faculty positions, and the majority of doctoral trainees are moving into non-faculty positions in academia, industry, government agencies, or entrepreneurship^4,5. Greater career development support has been suggested by many as a key area of need to better support PhDs entering into this diverse workforce⁶.

In 2002, the U.S. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology created the Individual Development Plan (IDP) as a multi-component career planning worksheet that guides doctoral trainees through a self-assessment of skills, provides a platform for the exploration of scientific career paths, aids in the development of short and long term careers goals, and prompts the creation of action plans to achieve those goals⁷. In 2012, Science Careers launched a free online version of the IDP called myIDP⁸. In 2014, following the recommendation of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)’s Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group, the NIH implemented a policy requiring the reporting of IDP use by graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in grant progress reports⁹. Subsequently, many academic institutions have instituted policies dictating the use of the IDP for PhD trainees. Despite these policy implementations, studies investigating the use and effectiveness of the IDP have been limited to one report that was published in 2014, which studied 233 current postdoctoral researchers, 27 former postdoctoral researchers, and 337 mentors. This study demonstrated the low use of the IDP among postdoctoral researchers (19%) and their mentors (9%), but the perceived value of the instrument was high for those who had used the tool (71% for postdoctoral researchers and 90% for mentors)¹⁰. There have been recent calls to study the IDP more closely and for the NIH and other stakeholders to share the data collected on its use¹¹.

Herein, we describe the assessment of the use and effectiveness of the IDP among a sample of U.S. doctoral students. We surveyed doctoral students from at least 98 different U.S. universities in the spring and early summer of 2016 (March through June). We collected data from 663 respondents in PhD programs in the life/biological/medical (76.5%) or physical/applied sciences (23.5%), with the majority of respondents being female (70.9%) compared to their male (29.1%) counterparts (Supplementary File 1 and Supplementary File 2). We report evidence of the low usage and minimal effectiveness of the IDP, as measured by individuals’ perception of whether the tool is helpful to their career development. Further, our results suggest that the IDP is most effective when graduate students complete the tool with faculty mentors with whom they have a positive relationship. Confidence regarding the completion of doctoral training and post-training career plans and use of institutional career development resources are also associated with respondents being more likely to indicate that the IDP is helpful to their career development.

Methods

Results

IDP use

Only 53.6% of respondents reported that they are required to complete a formal IDP, while only 37.4% do so with their faculty advisor. Strikingly, 26.1% complete the tool but do not discuss it with their advisor. Further, only one-third, 33.6%, of respondents feel that they can have an honest conversion with their advisor via the IDP process and only 33.7% feel that the IDP is helpful to their career development (Figure 1 and Supplementary File 2). In the 2014 study, only 8% of postdoctoral researchers were required to complete an IDP, although overall usage among respondents was approximately 19%¹⁰. There appears to be a modest increase in usage of the IDP among doctoral students versus postdoctoral researchers.

Figure 1. The rates of Individual Development Plan use among doctoral students.

IDP effectiveness

We found that respondents in the life/biological/biomedical sciences (36.7% versus 23.6% for physical/applied sciences) and females (36.9% versus 26.1% for males) are more likely to find the IDP process helpful to their career development (Figure 2A, B and Supplementary File 3). Additionally, respondents that are required to complete an IDP in general (49.4% versus 14.6% who are not) and those that complete the IDP with their advisor (56.2% versus 19.7% who do not) are also more likely to find the IDP helpful (Supplemental File 3).

Figure 2. The effectiveness of the Individual Development Plan by field of study (A) and gender (B).

Across several measures, positive mentorship relationships also associate with the perception that the IDP process is helpful. For example, of those respondents who found the IDP to be helpful to their career development, 66% indicated that they could have an honest conversation with their PI/advisor via the IDP process versus 17.7% who did not agree, and 36.1% said their PI/advisor is an asset to their academic and professional career versus 26% who did not agree (Figure 3 and Supplementary File 3). These data corroborate anecdotal testimonies suggesting that supportive mentors can positively influence one’s IDP experience whereas non-supportive mentors can have the opposite impact¹².

Figure 3. The effectiveness of the Individual Development Plan by advisor/mentor relationship.

Further, those respondents that are confident about completing their training (36.4% versus 25.9% who are not), their career prospects (39% versus 30.4% who are not), and their post-training career (37.8% versus 30.9% who are not) are also more likely to report the IDP as being helpful to their career development. Lastly, respondents who attend career development programs at their institution are more likely to report the IDP as helpful to their career development (Supplementary File 3).

Dataset 1.Individual Development Plan survey data.

Columns Q1–Q26 correspond to the questions listed in Supplementary File 4.

Discussion

More than 15 years after the creation of the IDP and 4 years after the NIH required its use, do we know if the tool is working as it was intended? Unfortunately, the answer is no. The study focusing on postdoctoral researchers from 2014¹⁰ and current study cannot fully answer this question, but rather these studies should serve to elicit further discussion on how to best use the IDP, especially in relation to the enforcement of the tool’s use and use with PIs/advisors. Further, this work should stimulate additional research on the general use and effectiveness of the tool.

Policymakers, leaders of academic institutions, individual faculty, and career development specialists should find it concerning that IDP use and effectiveness is not well understood, despite the tool’s general acceptance and use at countless U.S. universities and the NIH’s requirement for reporting on the use of the IDP. Should we not have known more about such an instrument prior to it being mandated as a policy? Is there potential harm being done by the use of IDPs? Anecdotally, some doctoral students and postdoctoral researchers report that faculty sometimes reject non-academic career trajectories within the context of the IDP and these faculty try to force trainees toward an academic career path¹². Such negative mentorship relationships may partially explain the cause of the high rates of anxiety and depression in the doctoral student population¹⁴.

We have noticed that the structure of some IDPs has changed over time. For example, the University of Kentucky College of Medicine’s IDP has excluded the career exploration section of the tool¹⁵, which was prominently included in its original design. How widespread is such a change to the IDP? Could such a change have been made to appease stakeholders who are most interested in training PhDs to pursue faculty careers? Could such a change be driving a general increase in IDP usage among faculty mentors? These questions should be addressed in future research.

We recognize that there are limitations to our work. For example, this is a cross-sectional study that may not be representative of the entire U.S. research enterprise. Given the NIH’s adoption of the IDP, the agency should fund a more extensive longitudinal study with a larger sample size to understand the barriers that are preventing some trainees and mentors from using the IDP and to better understand the effectiveness of the IDP as doctoral students and postdoctoral researchers move through their PhD education and training experience. The IDP’s impact on specific outcomes, including career path decision making and long-term career outcomes, should be studied. Future work should also determine if there are any unintended negative consequences associated with IDP use.

We believe that our results call for the need for policymakers, funding agencies, and universities to focus attention on mentorship training for faculty and building career development infrastructure. If the NIH is to require the use of the IDP, they should require training of mentors on how to best support the career development of their mentees to obtain maximum impact, and institutional career development infrastructure is needed to achieve this. The NIH BEST program laid the foundation for building career development infrastructure at a limited number of institutions¹⁶. The National Institute of General Medical Sciences has recently incorporated career development components into their pre-doctoral T32 mechanism¹⁷, which is another good start to developing more widespread career development infrastructure. Other grant mechanisms should likewise be established so that a greater number of institutions can obtain NIH funds that will drive the creation of innovative career development programs across the U.S. Such programs should serve the needs of doctoral students and postdoctoral researchers and train faculty on the fine science and art of mentorship.

The NIH and several professional societies have been conducting “Train-the-Trainer” events to provide career and professional development training to faculty and staff. We recommend the extensive expansion of this program. The NIH could mandate such training for all faculty who pay doctoral students or postdoctoral researchers from NIH funds. Generally, it would likewise be prudent for universities to mandate that all faculty employing/supervising graduate students and postdoctoral researchers complete such training. The training could be developed and offered at each university through institutional career development offices.

Ultimately, the sustainability of the biomedical enterprise hinges upon the next generation of PhDs entering the diverse workforce. We should work to support this group of scientists with the same rigor and reproducibility that we strive for everyday as we conduct our experiments. The IDP is likely useful for supporting the career development of PhDs, but more work is needed to understand how best to use the tool.

Data availability

Dataset 1. Individual Development Plan survey data. Columns Q1–Q26 correspond to the questions listed in Supplementary File 4. DOI: 10.5256/f1000research.15154.d206394¹³.