A Retrospective Analysis of Career Outcomes in Neuroscience

Abstract

What factors are associated with career outcomes among biomedical PhDs? Much of the research to-date has focused on drivers of interest in (and intention to pursue) various careers, especially during graduate school, but fewer studies have investigated participants’ ultimate career outcomes. Even less is known about what factors matter most for groups historically underrepresented in the US STEM workforce, such as women, some racial and ethnic groups, and persons with disabilities (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), 2021a). This study reports a new analysis of data from 781 PhD neuroscientists that were obtained from a retrospective survey (Ullrich et al. (2021)) to investigate the factors that influence the career sector in which neuroscience PhDs are employed, and whether there were group differences according to social identity. We find evidence of academia as a “default path” for incoming PhD students, but interest in different careers increases gradually over time. Those who remained in academia had greater acceptance of the structural aspects of academic careers, such as the promotion and tenure process, and greater faculty support during their postdoctoral training. Conversely, prioritizing monetary compensation and wanting varied work were associated with not being in academia, while a strong interest in research was positively associated with being in non-academic research. Somewhat surprisingly, there were few interactions with gender, and no interactions with underrepresentation status, although perhaps this was due to lack of statistical power. Our findings also underscore the role of advisors, networking, and personal relationships in securing employment in STEM.

Significance Statement A new analysis of a retrospective survey from 781 PhD neuroscientists who have completed their training reveals factors associated with differences between respondents who are working in different sectors, including preferences about careers and experiences in graduate and postdoctoral training. We find evidence of academia as a “default path” for incoming PhD students, but interest in different careers changes gradually over time. Our findings also underscore the role of advisors, networking, and personal relationships in securing employment in STEM. To create a more inclusive and diverse academic environment, it's essential to address financial disparities, provide tailored support, foster mentorship relationships, and actively work to create inclusive academic cultures that embrace a variety of career paths for neuroscientists.