Dataset Information

Post-Doc Interviews in the Life Sciences: An Often-Overlooked Process that Is Susceptible to Bias.

ABSTRACT: Post-doctoral training is a critical career stage for researchers in the life sciences, yet interviewing for a post-doctoral position is largely an unregulated process. Without regulation, interviews are susceptible to unconscious biases that may lead to discrimination against certain demographic groups (e.g., women and minorities). Using data from an online survey of post-docs, we show that interview procedures for post-doctoral positions in the life sciences are correlated with several factors (e.g., candidate demographics) in ways that may bias the outcome of interviews. We discuss key components of interviews and suggest that conducting standardized, well-planned interviews that are less susceptible to unconscious biases may help increase the retention of women and under-represented minorities in the life sciences.

SUBMITTER: Burnett NP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7671148 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Post-Doc Interviews in the Life Sciences: An Often-Overlooked Process that Is Susceptible to Bias.

Burnett N P NP Combes S A SA

Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England) 20191025 1

Post-doctoral training is a critical career stage for researchers in the life sciences, yet interviewing for a post-doctoral position is largely an unregulated process. Without regulation, interviews are susceptible to unconscious biases that may lead to discrimination against certain demographic groups (e.g., women and minorities). Using data from an online survey of post-docs, we show that interview procedures for post-doctoral positions in the life sciences are correlated with several factors ...[more]

PMID: 33791541

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe purpose of this research is to understand the thought processes that underpin responses to stated preference approaches for eliciting quality of life, in particular the standard gamble.MethodsWe utilize standard gamble preference elicitation survey techniques to elicit quality-adjusted life year weights for two reduced health states: chronic severe depression and total blindness. After the survey, we conduct open-ended qualitative interviews with respondents to determine their thought processes while taking the surveys and to shed light on what their quality-adjusted life year weight is capturing. Survey responses were coded and analyzed for themes in NVivo, the results of which were then formalized in the terminology of decision sciences.ResultsThe qualitative results of the cognitive interviews present systematic evidence for a type of cognitive bias present in standard gamble quality-adjusted life year weight elicitation, which has not been previously highlighted and which we call treatment bias. We define this treatment bias as the consideration of salient treatment alternatives correlated with a reduced health state, when these alternatives are not explicitly posed in the question. Our formalization of this cognitive behavior demonstrates that treatment bias will always bias the elicited health state utility of treating the illness in question downward.ConclusionThe treatment bias highlighted in this study has implications for economic evaluation when comparing treatment for illnesses where alternative treatments are widely publicized versus those that are not. For example, comparing the effectiveness of treating depression versus arthritis may be biased against depression if advertisements for anti-depressants are more widely viewed by survey respondents than advertisements for arthritis treatments. We propose a statement to be imbedded in all questionnaires regarding stated preference elicitation of quality-adjusted life year weights in order to correct for this bias in future stated preference surveys.

Project description:BackgroundThe web has seen an explosion of chemistry and biology related resources in the last 15 years: thousands of scientific journals, databases, wikis, blogs and resources are available with a wide variety of types of information. There is a huge need to aggregate and organise this information. However, the sheer number of resources makes it unrealistic to link them all in a centralised manner. Instead, search engines to find information in those resources flourish, and formal languages like Resource Description Framework and Web Ontology Language are increasingly used to allow linking of resources. A recent development is the use of userscripts to change the appearance of web pages, by on-the-fly modification of the web content. This opens possibilities to aggregate information and computational results from different web resources into the web page of one of those resources.ResultsSeveral userscripts are presented that enrich biology and chemistry related web resources by incorporating or linking to other computational or data sources on the web. The scripts make use of Greasemonkey-like plugins for web browsers and are written in JavaScript. Information from third-party resources are extracted using open Application Programming Interfaces, while common Universal Resource Locator schemes are used to make deep links to related information in that external resource. The userscripts presented here use a variety of techniques and resources, and show the potential of such scripts.ConclusionThis paper discusses a number of userscripts that aggregate information from two or more web resources. Examples are shown that enrich web pages with information from other resources, and show how information from web pages can be used to link to, search, and process information in other resources. Due to the nature of userscripts, scientists are able to select those scripts they find useful on a daily basis, as the scripts run directly in their own web browser rather than on the web server. This flexibility allows the scientists to tune the features of web resources to optimise their productivity.

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life (HRQL) are increasingly used to evaluate treatment effectiveness in clinical trials, are valued by patients, and may inform important decisions in the clinical setting. It is of concern, therefore, that preliminary evidence, gained from group discussions at UK-wide Medical Research Council (MRC) quality of life training days, suggests there are inconsistent standards of HRQL data collection in trials and appropriate training and education is often lacking. Our objective was to investigate these reports, to determine if they represented isolated experiences, or were indicative of a potentially wider problem.Methods and findingsWe undertook a qualitative study, conducting 26 semi-structured interviews with research nurses, data managers, trial coordinators and research facilitators involved in the collection and entry of HRQL data in clinical trials, across one primary care NHS trust, two secondary care NHS trusts and two clinical trials units in the UK. We used conventional content analysis to analyze and interpret our data. Our study participants reported (1) inconsistent standards in HRQL measurement, both between, and within, trials, which appeared to risk the introduction of bias; (2), difficulties in dealing with HRQL data that raised concern for the well-being of the trial participant, which in some instances led to the delivery of non-protocol driven co-interventions, (3), a frequent lack of HRQL protocol content and appropriate training and education of trial staff, and (4) that HRQL data collection could be associated with emotional and/or ethical burden.ConclusionsOur findings suggest there are inconsistencies in the standards of HRQL data collection in some trials resulting from a general lack of HRQL-specific protocol content, training and education. These inconsistencies could lead to biased HRQL trial results. Future research should aim to develop HRQL guidelines and training programmes aimed at supporting researchers to carry out high quality data collection.

Dataset Information

Post-Doc Interviews in the Life Sciences: An Often-Overlooked Process that Is Susceptible to Bias.

Publications

Post-Doc Interviews in the Life Sciences: An Often-Overlooked Process that Is Susceptible to Bias.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets