Transcript Chartig a path to success: Funding AuD / PhD students

CREATING A MAP FOR SUCCESS:
AUD/PHD RECRUITMENT,
PROGRAMMING,
AND FUNDING STUDENTS
Peggy Nelson, Mark DeRuiter
University of Minnesota
CAPCSD 2013
Peggy Nelson is an NIH-funded researcher. She
has no other financial or nonfinancial
relationships to disclose.
 Mark DeRuiter has no financial or nonfinancial
relationships to disclose.

The need
 Some solutions
 Our experience

 With
great appreciation from NIDCD program staff:
Daniel Sklare and Janet Cyr
Report on general Ph.D. shortages
(e.g., 2008)
 Anecdotally, there are concerns that the Au.D.
will create a vacuum of Ph.D.-level researchers

 Data?

Anecdotally, there are concerns re: attrition
 Data?

From the need we have seen diverse solutions,
including:
 Programs
with multiple points of entry
 Blended curricula
 Focused curricula (research vs. teaching)
 Different options for culmination of the degree
 University/graduate
school constraints

An attempt to pull from multiple models:



Multiple points of entry
Positive “cross talk” across degree programs/departments
Tri-level focus: Clinician, Scholar, Researcher
Time


Flexible degree conferral
Each of these factors assists us with funding:


Ability to advise students to take advantage of funding as it
is available
Ability to take advantage of timing of externships and
research opportunities

Flexibility has been key to funding




Fellowships (endowed)
Teaching assistantships
Research assistantships



http://slhs.umn.edu/assets/pdf/AuD%20PhD%20Sample%20Curric
ulum.pdf
Relationships across departments
Grant funding (Nelson)
Challenge: It has created a small amount of angst for
some students

Advising is critical to help students understand that they will
finish, but paths will vary
Peggy Nelson
FORMAL FUNDING MECHANISMS
 Three programs in research intensive institutions
(Vanderbilt, BTNRH, and NCRAR)
Provide summer research experiences to AUD students
nationwide each summer
NIDCD travels all these trainees to AAS to present their
research projects; several trainees are pursuing Ph.D. training
post-AuD
 AuD-PhD dual-degree programs are beginning to form
 National Clinician-Investigator Mentoring Networks Research
ASHA (Pathways Program)
Duke University/ Duke Clinical Research Institute

ASHA/NIDCD Clinical Investigator Mentorship Network, that goes
under the name of the Pathways Program.


http://www.asha.org/Research/Pathways-Program/



August Report emerging NIDCD Research Training Workshop



“Moving the NIDCD Research Training Program Forward in Fiscally
Constrained Times”
http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/research/training/Pages/Moving-NIDCDResearch-Training-Forward-2012.aspx
Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service
Awards (NRSAs)
Individual Fellowships
F30- Integrated Dual Degree (MD/PhD, AuD/PhD, etc)
F31- Predoctoral training (diversity and “generic”)
F32- Postdoctoral training
Institutional Training Grants (T32, T35)
Career Development (K-)Awards
Mentored Junior Clinician-Investigator (K08, K23)
Early-Stage Career Transition (K99/R00)
Junior-Midcareer Mentored Research Scientist Development
(K01, K25)
NIDCD-Supported Individual NRSA
Fellowship Mechanisms
Ruth L. Kirschstein
National Research Service Awards (NRSAs)
F30: Individual Predoctoral MD/PhD and Other Dual Doctoral
Degree Fellows (AuD/PhD, etc.)
supports up to 6 yrs of research and clinical doctoral training for students
in integrated dual-degree programs
F31: Individual Predoctoral Fellowships
“Generic” F31- supports up to 5 yrs (typically, 2-3 yrs) of dissertationstage research training
Diversity F31- supports up to 5 yrs of doctoral training (can include
predissertation-stage training)
F32: Individual Postdoctoral Fellows
supports up to 3 years of postdoctoral training
• Individual NRSA’s (F’s) represent ~1.3% of NIDCD’s budget
• Unique expedited submission-to-award timeline
• Current portfolio (as of 8/15/12) totals 107 awards: 10 F30 awards; 57 F31 awards;
& 40 F32 awards
*
Submitted NIDCD Individual NRSA
Fellowship Applications by Mechanism
# of submitted applications
100
80
60
F30
F31
F32
40
20
0
2007
2008
2009
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
*If the original and amended submissions are reviewed in the same FY, they are only counted once
100%
90
90%
80
80%
70
70%
60
60%
50
50%
33%
40
40%
30
30%
20
20%
10
10%
0
NIDA NIDCR NIDDK NIEHS NIA
NIAAA NIDCD NIMH NHLBI
Success rate
# of applications
100
Submitted
Awarded
Success rate
0%
9 NIH Institutes participated in the F30 mechanism
*If the original and amended submissions are reviewed in the same FY, they are only counted once
70%
300
60%
250
50%
200
39%
40%
150
30%
100
20%
50
10%
0
0%
Success rate
# of applications
350
9 NIH Institutes participate in the “generic” F31 mechanism
Submitted
Awarded
Success rate
503
# of applications
250
47%
60%
50%
200
40%
150
30%
100
20%
50
10%
0
0%
Success rate
300
20 NIH Institutes participated in the F32 mechanism
Data not shown for NIEHS, NINR, NHGRI, NIDCR, NCCAM, NIAAA; each had <25 submitted applications.
Submitted
Awarded
Success rate
Success of NIDCD F31 Awardees in
Obtaining Subsequent NIH F32 or R03 Awards
# of previous F31 awardees
180
160
140
171
Did not apply
120
100
Submitted
111
Awarded
80
NIH F32 awarded
60
40
NIH R03 awarded
61
20
0
42
19
For F31 awardees whose fellowship ended in FY1990-2009 (n=282):
• 39% applied for an NIH F32 or R03
• 55% of those who applied were successful, which is a 22% award rate
overall (total)
• of the PIs who had subsequent awards, 69% were F32s; 31% were
R03s; 4 had both F32 and R03
Success of NIDCD F32 Awardees in
Obtaining Subsequent RPG* Awards
(*R01, NIDCD R03, R15, and R29)
# of previous F32 awardees
140
120
100
80
138
121
85
No subsequent RPG*
submission
RPG* submitted
60
RPG* awarded
40
20
0
For F32 awardees whose fellowship ended in FY1990-2005 (n=259):
• 47% applied for a subsequent NIH RPG*
• 70% of those who applied were successful, which is a 33% award rate
overall (85/259 total)
Consider multi-pronged solutions that fit our
institutions
 Encourage conversation with NIDCD
 Encourage students to pursue pre-doctoral
funding options to increase their likelihood of
post-doctoral research support
