Making Strides in Doctoral-Level Career Outcomes Reporting: Surveying the Landscape of Classification and Visualization Methodologies and Creating a Crosswalk Tool

Abstract

The recent movement underscoring the importance of career taxonomies has helped usher in a new era of transparency in PhD career outcomes. The convergence of discipline-specific organizational movements, interdisciplinary collaborations, and federal initiatives have all helped to increase PhD career outcomes tracking and reporting. Transparent and publicly available PhD career outcomes are being used by institutions to attract top applicants, as prospective graduate students are factoring these in when deciding on the program and institution in which to enroll for their PhD studies. Given the increasing trend to track PhD career outcomes, the number of institutional efforts and supporting offices for these studies have increased, as has the variety of methods being used to classify and report/visualize outcomes. This report identifies and summarizes currently available PhD career taxonomy tools, resources, and visualization options to help catalyze and empower institutions to develop and publish their own PhD career outcomes. Similar fields between taxonomies were mapped to create a new crosswalk tool. This work serves as an empirical review of the career outcome tracking systems available and highlights organizations, consortia, and funding agencies that are impacting policy change toward greater transparency in PhD career outcomes reporting.

Developing evidence-based resources for evaluating postgraduate trainees in the biomedical sciences

“…Targeted career-development programming and professional-development training can assist in career placement [32] without hindering productivity or efficiency [12]. In addition to NIGMS funding requirements for career outcomes reporting, recent efforts to increase career outcomes reporting have enabled more rigorous evaluation of such outcomes [4,10,[33][34][35][36]. A recent initiative to create more transparent access to evidence-based research on graduate and postdoctoral training was built through dozens of stakeholder insights across national organizations, indicating a true need for better program evaluation and dissemination thereof [37].…”