Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Using stakeholder insights to enhance engagement in PhD professional development

Contributed equally to this work with: Deepti Ramadoss, Amanda F. Bolgioni

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation School of Medicine Office of Graduate Studies, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America

ORCID logo

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Medical Sciences & Education, Boston University, Boston, MA, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Office of Graduate Education, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Resources, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Neuroscience and Cell Biology and School of Graduate Studies, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Office of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, D.C., United States of America

Roles Software, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Laboratory of Atomic and Solid State Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Graduate School, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States of America

  • Deepti Ramadoss, 
  • Amanda F. Bolgioni, 
  • Rebekah L. Layton, 
  • Janet Alder, 
  • Natalie Lundsteen, 
  • C. Abigail Stayart, 
  • Jodi B. Yellin, 
  • Conrad L. Smart, 
  • Susi S. Varvayanis

PLOS

  • Published: January 27, 2022
  • https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262191
  • See the preprint
  • Peer Review
  • Reader Comments

Table 1

There is increasing awareness of the need for pre- and post-doctoral professional development and career guidance, however many academic institutions are only beginning to build out these functional roles. As a graduate career educator, accessing vast silos and resources at a university and with industry-partners can be daunting, yet collaboration and network development are crucial to the success of any career and professional development office. To better inform and direct these efforts, forty-five stakeholders external and internal to academic institutions were identified and interviewed to gather perspectives on topics critical to career development offices. Using a stakeholder engagement visualization tool developed by the authors, strengths and weaknesses can be assessed. General themes from interviews with internal and external stakeholders are discussed to provide various stakeholder subgroup perspectives to help prepare for successful interactions. Benefits include increased engagement and opportunities to collaborate, and to build or expand graduate career development offices.

Citation: Ramadoss D, Bolgioni AF, Layton RL, Alder J, Lundsteen N, Stayart CA, et al. (2022) Using stakeholder insights to enhance engagement in PhD professional development. PLoS ONE 17(1): e0262191. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262191

Editor: Sina Safayi, Rush University Medical Center, UNITED STATES

Received: August 14, 2021; Accepted: December 20, 2021; Published: January 27, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Ramadoss et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: De-identified data is made available in accordance to IRB approved protocols. These file are available from the Open Science Framework (OSF) database (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/24SNV ).

Funding: This work was supported by the Burroughs Wellcome Fund Career Guidance for Trainees [CGT025] ( https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bwfund.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cdeepti.ramadoss%40pitt.edu%7C70f047ae361445cf2e1b08d9c5d2fb33%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C637758333513545052%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=LCoaETVuHImoupB%2FEQCCp%2BTS%2BZaReZm9FBmcRHfkSTU%3D&reserved=0 ) (DR), National Institutes of Health [DP7OD020322] ( https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nih.gov%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cdeepti.ramadoss%40pitt.edu%7C70f047ae361445cf2e1b08d9c5d2fb33%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C637758333513545052%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=zijFvu9h2EVOjSfrvYuZqWGM47CaHA1rE7P%2BVc4Pah0%3D&reserved=0 ) and Burroughs Wellcome Fund, Career Guidance for Trainees [1018849] ( https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bwfund.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cdeepti.ramadoss%40pitt.edu%7C70f047ae361445cf2e1b08d9c5d2fb33%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C637758333513545052%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=LCoaETVuHImoupB%2FEQCCp%2BTS%2BZaReZm9FBmcRHfkSTU%3D&reserved=0 ) (AFB); National Institutes of Health [DP7OD020317] https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nih.gov%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cdeepti.ramadoss%40pitt.edu%7C70f047ae361445cf2e1b08d9c5d2fb33%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C637758333513545052%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=zijFvu9h2EVOjSfrvYuZqWGM47CaHA1rE7P%2BVc4Pah0%3D&reserved=0 ) and National Institute of General Medical Sciences [1-R01GM140282-01] ( https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nigms.nih.gov%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cdeepti.ramadoss%40pitt.edu%7C70f047ae361445cf2e1b08d9c5d2fb33%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C637758333513545052%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=Ov7fbmaQgul6IdBM3NMR8ucsBwBkBCOHjkcqqbt6LLs%3D&reserved=0 ) (RLL); National Institutes of Health [1DP7OD020314] ( https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nih.gov%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cdeepti.ramadoss%40pitt.edu%7C70f047ae361445cf2e1b08d9c5d2fb33%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C637758333513545052%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=zijFvu9h2EVOjSfrvYuZqWGM47CaHA1rE7P%2BVc4Pah0%3D&reserved=0 ) (JA); University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences ( https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/education/graduate-school/ ) (NL); National Institutes of Health [DP7OD020316] ( https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nih.gov%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cdeepti.ramadoss%40pitt.edu%7C70f047ae361445cf2e1b08d9c5d2fb33%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C637758333513545052%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=zijFvu9h2EVOjSfrvYuZqWGM47CaHA1rE7P%2BVc4Pah0%3D&reserved=0 ) (CAS); National Institutes of Health [DP7OD18425] ( https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nih.gov%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cdeepti.ramadoss%40pitt.edu%7C70f047ae361445cf2e1b08d9c5d2fb33%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C637758333513545052%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=zijFvu9h2EVOjSfrvYuZqWGM47CaHA1rE7P%2BVc4Pah0%3D&reserved=0 ) (SSV) The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Institutions of higher education hold myriad potential connections between pre- and post-doctoral researchers, faculty and administrators, internal university offices, industry partners, professional societies, and funding organizations. Internal university partnerships are vital, ranging from pre- and post-doctoral researchers and university faculty, to externally-facing communications and alumni development offices. University career and professional development (CPD) programs also develop and rely on external partnerships, particularly with programming and resources designed for pre- and post-doctoral researchers. While CPD programs understand that these partnerships improve the pre- and post-doctoral training experience, provide pipelines for entry of pre- and post-doctoral researchers into the workforce, and lead to synergies and collaboration, the full value of these relationships may not be completely understood to internal and external partners. Our work explores the foundational value of internal and external intersections and how to best leverage them to prepare pre- and post-doctoral researchers for the workforce. The aim is to more efficiently and successfully coordinate relationships that meet all stakeholders’ needs with a more thorough understanding of stakeholder objectives and the relative value of engagements.

This project is a spinoff of the National Institutes of Health Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training–NIH BEST [ 1 ] Consortium’s Annual Meeting, in 2018. The Consortium (funded 2013–2019) was comprised of programs at 17 higher education institutions challenged by the NIH to develop innovative approaches to prepare pre- and post-doctoral researchers for a wide range of careers in the biomedical research enterprise. The Consortium’s final Annual Conference (in 2018) explicitly invited collaborations, presentations, and conversations through joint programming with institutions beyond the Consortium–ranging from well-established pioneer pre- and post-doctoral professional development program institutions to newer and aspiring institutional programs interested in establishing professional development programs, as well as external private and non-profit collaborators. This research project emerged from the massively audacious goal identified by and adopted by the Blue Sky Visioning Mastermind Group that “all pre- and post-doctoral scholars have support and resources needed to explore and pursue all careers, and faculty and institutional leadership buy in to the importance of this mission.”

The goals of this publication are to bring awareness within the higher education community about various stakeholders that commonly engage with graduate CPD, shed light on stakeholder perceptions of career development and engagement, broaden the composition of engaged collaborations, and provide engagement tools. This information can help institutions and individuals quickly self-assess and visualize strengths/opportunities with stakeholders for the purposes of CPD at their institution, and, over the long-term, build stronger relationships and partnerships.

Defining stakeholders

The authors quickly realized that to attain their goal, a broad set of stakeholders would need to be consulted. Informed by the authors’ experience in industry relations and engaging with higher education, stakeholders were identified, classified, prioritized, and consolidated into a rapid tool for stakeholder engagement (see Methods ). Table 1 displays internal and external stakeholder classification groups and subgroups: internal stakeholders include pre- and post-doctoral researchers, faculty/administrators, and external-facing staff; external stakeholders include non-profit and society partners and industry employers. Each stakeholder subgroup was approached with a specific set of questions to explore their perceptions of graduate career education and professional development, as well as their motivations for engaging with any of the other stakeholder groups, ultimately seeking advice for how to best engage them in CPD programming. Descriptions of desirable and required skills, as well as resources to share with pre- and post-doctoral researchers were sought.

thumbnail

  • PPT PowerPoint slide
  • PNG larger image
  • TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262191.t001

Internal stakeholders.

The group that receives the most frequent focus from CPD professionals includes pre- and post-doctoral researchers. Fostering stakeholder engagement from pre- and post-doctoral researchers is critical for providing effective programming [ 2 ]. CPD programs less frequently look beyond pre- and post-doctoral researchers to engage a full spectrum of university stakeholders within their own ecosystem.

Foremost among them is the faculty. Data from the BEST Consortium indicated that a large majority of faculty are supportive of career training for various careers and have recognized that pre- and post-doctoral researchers participating in CPD activities were happier and making timely progress toward degree completion–a fact that can be used to recruit additional internal stakeholder engagement from faculty [ 3 – 5 ]. Faculty don’t always believe they have the knowledge or resources to assist pre- and post-doctoral researchers whose career interests lie outside academia, although they largely support their career pursuits [ 5 – 8 ]. Promoting transparency, encouraging the normalized need for career support, and recommending conversations to initiate CPD coaching will help bridge some knowledge and awareness gaps.

In addition to partnerships with internal communications, environmental health and safety, or research support offices for experiential opportunities, identifying internal collaborators with external-facing roles has the potential to reduce the need to develop de novo program components, to seed ideas that leverage each other’s networks and knowledge domains, and to overcome common roadblocks [ 9 ]. Cost-sharing on resources and events are an added benefit for engaging with internal partners (including student leaders) and opens doors for pre- and post-doctoral researchers to engage in on-campus job shadowing and internship opportunities for experiential learning [ 2 , 9 , 10 ]. Collaborations with alumni relations and development offices can dramatically expand the network of potential speakers and mentors [ 11 ]; it can also lead to coordinated fundraising campaigns for CPD initiatives. Moreover, establishing relations with other internal partners with external-facing roles in industry or federal relations, technology transfer, licensing, or research commercialization can amplify the skill sets of pre- and post-doctoral researchers seeking experiential learning opportunities in real-world settings [ 10 ].

External stakeholders.

Efforts of career development professionals must simultaneously be internally and externally focused to fully understand the skills current pre- and post-doctoral researchers need to execute an informed transition into careers of their choice [ 12 ]. In addition, external focus identifies potential employers to build pipelines for these researchers, attract funding sources, access training opportunities to support their CPD, and increases visibility and accessibility of the resources offered by CPD programs. External stakeholders include partners and employers as seen in Table 1 . The categorizations in Table 1 are based on how CPD practitioners primarily interact with each group but can overlap with other categories, as many partners are also employers.

Stakeholders in external groups such as industry, non-profits and government agencies, including professional societies and associations, have long partnered with academia in disseminating research and technical training. They increasingly offer skill-building and career development opportunities via conferences and webinars to assist current pre- and post-doctoral researchers in the career selection process. Additionally, societies acknowledge multiple career options and wield positional influence to support culture change within academia.

A primary function of CPD programs is to strengthen the future workforce by preparing pre- and post-doctoral researchers for interaction with external stakeholders , ultimately, future employers. Therefore, the foci of these outward-facing efforts should be strategic to broaden networks and facilitate connections. Engaging external employer stakeholders in networking events, site visits, job shadowing, internships and panel discussions makes it possible for pre- and post-doctoral researchers to explore and test-drive various PhD careers [ 9 , 10 , 13 ]. This study provides what we hope are useful tools and insights to address all types of stakeholder engagement.

Stakeholder identification and engagement

Study design..

This study is intended as an exploration of a field, and an opportunity to observe emerging phenomena. The research team identified both internal and external stakeholder groups relevant to graduate CPD programs in order to further identify values that each stakeholder places upon bidirectional interactions to advance CPD for pre- and post-doctoral researchers. Common themes were identified through open-ended questions and unanticipated value propositions to develop potential approaches for improving interactions and methods of engagement between the university and potential partner organizations.

Data collection.

Interviews offer a rich and robust capture of perspectives [ 14 ], providing in depth, open-ended responses and opportunity for dialogue between researcher and participant. Single-interaction, semi-structured interviews, conducted either in-person (before COVID-19), by phone, or online via Zoom, were used with standardized questions and optional probing follow-up questions as needed (see S1 File for complete interview question list). Once core questions were established, subsets of parallel but slightly amended questions relevant to each stakeholder group were developed. Due to privacy concerns, neither recording nor transcriptions were requested/approved for human subjects. Instead, interviewers took digital or manual live notes. In all interviews, verbal consent was sought from participants.

Recruiting/access to and selection of participants.

Selection criteria for interview subjects were designed to be representative of identified stakeholder groups, with an initial goal of including 5–6 individual interview participants per stakeholder subgroup. External stakeholders initially included industry and non-profit/societies grouped together, but after the first few interviews, the research team discussed the difference in themes that arose from these interviews and arrived at the consensus to classify them as two distinct groups. Therefore, additional participants were recruited to ensure there were 5–6 participants for each of these subgroups.

Potential participants were identified by several means: by each interviewer independently, based on individuals known to the interviewers; referrals within and across the authors’ networks; or vetted Google searches. The invitation selection process considered a broad variety of types of organizations or groups based on stakeholder classification (see Table 1 ) and identified a sampling of individuals within a particular subgroup that included variety in perceived support for the premise, academic disciplinary background, education level, as well as across social identity categories including gender, race/ethnicity, and international status. Other factors considered included leadership/experience level, tenure in respective organizations, and any experience or interest in working at the interface of professional/career development for varying purposes. This background was not known for all and some were purposefully naïve or underexposed to CPD initiatives in higher education. A review of prospective participants’ general characteristics served to uncover similarities or duplications. Efforts were made to ensure that a variety of types of organizations were represented in each subgroup.

Conducting interviews.

Once selected, prospective participants were invited by email to participate in a short 15-20-minute interview. The template invitation (see S2 File ) included a brief script of the study’s purpose and description, plus an overview of the questions to be asked. Interviewer and participant found a mutually convenient time and format (in-person, phone, or video conference call).

After identifying stakeholder groups and subgroups (see Table 1 and Discussion for the importance of flexibility and refinement), four interviewers conducted a total of 45 stakeholder interviews (of 55 invitations). Themes were collected separately for the groups that used the same sets of questions to differentiate responses (i.e. pre- and post-doctoral researchers versus faculty and administrators, external partners versus employers). Following the first round of interviews, one group had a higher sample size than the others, therefore, to keep group numbers roughly equal, target recruitment goals were updated to a minimum of eight interviews per subgroup (see S1 Table ).

Data analysis and interpretation/validity.

A multi-stage process was used for data analysis and interpretation, including sorting of sensitizing concepts [ 15 ], and analysis and reduction of data through application of grounded theory [ 16 , 17 ], leading to the identification of emergent themes, hierarchical grouping, and concept categorization. One member of the research team who did not conduct any interviews was designated as coder. The coder and each individual interviewer reviewed and ’binned’ potential initial themes emerging from keywords and phrases, and separated text into categories using paraphrased concepts or the original words from each participant into each row of a spreadsheet with category column headings. This ongoing collaborative synthesis of data and collection of emergent themes contributed to the iterative data reduction and display process, including a process of contrast/comparison, and noting patterns and themes [ 18 ].

At the conclusion of coding of each interview, coder and interviewer reviewed the initial data-sorting and ’binning’ to ensure themes were appropriate and consistent with participant intent. With each subsequent interview within a stakeholder group ( internal , external ) and subgroup, themes were refined; new ’bins’ were created if the participant’s comments did not fit into an existing bin. If a response fit into two themes, then they were placed in both bins and coded as repeated. A second text review after all interviews were complete was conducted by the coder, with all authors working collaboratively in a process to establish inter-rater reliability. The team appraised the interviews in the larger context to make sure the original interview notes and emergent themes were not in conflict, still represented participant viewpoints, and to catch any themes missed in the first review. A final complete review by all authors prior to summation repeated this process through robust group discussion and collaborative decision-making [ 19 ]. All final themes and comments were reviewed and consolidated to assure researcher agreement on the accuracy of the themes and statements were selected to represent each theme.

Unique themes found in interview text were highlighted and reported as representative themes that arose when multiple instances of each theme occurred within a stakeholder subgroup.

Subjectivity/ethical issues/limitations.

All interviews were conducted by researchers who are professionals in higher education (e.g., program directors, associate directors, assistant deans) strongly invested in CPD for pre- and post-doctoral researchers (within offices of graduate education, postdoctoral affairs, CPD programs, evaluation). All interviewers are professionally full-time employed women in the US, and the study team included US and international interviewers, both people of color, Asian, and White.

The possibility of selectivity bias exists, in opinions or stories shared by participants based on their roles, and in the selection of participants within individuals’ networks tending toward supporters of graduate CPD. To attain a balanced view of various stakeholder subgroup perspectives as well as in recruiting participants, three methods were used to avoid compounding selectivity bias: 1) a semi-structured interview style with pre-selected questions (see Recruiting). 2) explicit recruitment of “nay-sayers” as well as “supporters” of university/organizational partnerships and graduate career training. 3) Online searches to identify further participants beyond known networks (e.g. Google), as well as searches and requests to members of known networks (e.g. LinkedIn) to suggest individuals the authors had no previous connection to, who might not be interested in or knowledgeable specifically about graduate professional development, but were in positions related to industry-university engagement activities. Each interviewer conducted interviews with individuals they knew and those they had never met, from offices or organizations they were familiar with and those with which they had no prior knowledge. Specific inclusion of the question, “Do you follow the national conversation about career development and outcomes of PhD-trained scientists?” helped determine their level of awareness of the subject matter. Nonetheless, the authors recognize the need to interpret findings with caution and that they will not represent all possible viewpoints. The results should be viewed as pilot data to inform additional research.

All participants provided oral informed consent. Participant names are anonymized using pseudonyms and all data is de-identified prior to sharing in accordance with IRB approved protocols (Rutgers–FWA00003913 Study ID Pro2020222400; PittPRO STUDY19110306-I4; UNC IRB# - 19–3054; Boston University H-40210). Note that the pseudonyms were randomly assigned and their perceived ethnicity or gender is not intended to represent the individual participant. Any correlation with a theme and gender, race or ethnicity is purely coincidental. Demographics were gathered at the last step to fill in post-analysis to prevent unconscious bias or revealing of identity or demographics of any participant. In detailed results in S3 File , only pseudonyms are used, using the code in S2 Table .

Stakeholder engagement tool

The authors observed a gap between the perceived awareness of the variety of stakeholders and the ability to assess and capitalize on strengths of potential existing partnerships with internal and external stakeholders . To help rapidly assess the two, a tool was created. During the development of the stakeholder engagement tool, categories were refined based on discussion among the authors, their combined experiences working with various stakeholders, as well as a two-way influence of the interview process (the tool influencing the interviews, and the stakeholder perspectives from the interviews influencing refining the tool).

The authors first debuted the tool publicly during interactive workshops at sequential meetings of the 2020 international conference hosted by the Graduate Career Consortium. Input from conference attendees participating in that workshop helped question previous assumptions and helped to better describe how users would customize the tool.

Use of the stakeholder engagement tool.

STEP 1: With your unit or collaborators, create a list of stakeholders—start with the suggested categories (see Table 2 below) and customize for your institution & geographic area by entering your own labels to tailor to your institution. Try to be specific (i.e. don’t say ’alumni office’ but rather, ’alumni association of Boston’). You can further break these down into lists of names and contact info. Note that engaging with naysayers/agnostics can be as valuable as engaging with your supporters to identify blind spots and valuable alternative perspectives.

thumbnail

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262191.t002

STEP 2: Based on your institutional knowledge, take one or two minutes with your team to quickly rank your perceived level of engagement with the stakeholder groups in the first column. The authors encourage users to define their own Likert scale to calibrate the level of engagement or use the suggested Likert scale in Table 3 .

thumbnail

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262191.t003

For analysis and interpretation of the stakeholder engagement tool, see the Results section.

A total of 45 individuals were interviewed by four interviewers ( S1 Table ). Consenting participants consisted of both men (42.2%) and women (57.8%). Participant demographics included US (71.1%) and international (28.9%); African American (15.6%), Asian (17.8%), White (62.2%), and Hispanic (4.4%). Participants were geographically diverse across the US, with interviewers accessing their own networks primarily across the Northeast, Southeast, and Midwest United States, but also extending geographic representation via national organization contacts and referrals.

Stakeholder organizations included public, private, and public-private hybrid institutions of higher education (some with medical schools); large and small companies in or serving the biotech, medtech or pharma industries; as well as foundations, non-profit organizations or business associations serving STEM fields. Major themes arising from each set of stakeholders are presented, with details available in S3 File .

Stakeholder 1 –Internal pre-doctoral students and post-doctoral researchers

Interviews ( S1 File ) probed attitudes towards devoting time to CPD. Responses from ‘frequent users’, ‘occasional users’, or ‘non-users’ of CPD programming were separated. Responses broadly had two flavors: support for CPD programs and their perceived benefits, or opportunities to improve ( Fig 1 ).

thumbnail

(a) Sankey diagram and (b) stacked bar graph representing the same data of the number of mentions for each theme representing benefits and challenges/opportunities to improve mentioned by frequent users, occasional users and non-users.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262191.g001

Support for and perceived benefits of CPD programs identified by pre- and post-doctoral researchers.

Pre- and post-doctoral researchers find CPD affects productivity in a positive way and allows for CPD programming users to get a broad overview of resources (12 mentions or 12 M). Community-building advantages of professional development activities, e.g. bridging researchers across labs was discussed (11 M), highlighting confidence-building, cultural, and gender-based inclusivity that these programs can provide via intentional conversations and making role models prominent. This aligns with findings of a sense of community among those attending CPD training, especially in cohort or mandatory participation models [ 2 ]. The benefit of networking activities with hiring managers and recruiters outside academia was underscored. Advantages such as exposure to different career paths, allowing for informed decision-making (6 M), embedded/required CPD training providing consistent support and messaging (6 M), and prestige for recruitment (4 M) were raised.

Challenges or opportunities to improve identified by pre- and post-doctoral researchers.

Pre- and post-doctoral researchers communicated their desire for consistent exposure to CPD activities throughout training (18 M). Centralized programming to equalize access to resources and institutionalize the concept of career development to facilitate faculty acceptance was viewed as necessary (5 M). Challenges around personal growth (4 M), and the express need for faculty permission (4 M) were identified.

For details, including representative comments for individual themes, see S3 File .

Stakeholder 2–Internal faculty and administrators

Participants answered the same questions as the pre- and post-doctoral researchers subgroup above ( S1 File ) focused on probing attitudes towards devoting time to CPD, and opinions of existing or hypothetical CPD opportunities. Themes that arose naturally divided participant responses into categories that were later identified as ‘enthusiastic supporter’, ‘cautious supporter’, and ‘non-supporter’ responses ( Fig 2 ).

thumbnail

(a) Sankey diagram and (b) stacked bar graph representing the same data of the number of mentions for each theme representing benefits and challenges/opportunities to improve mentioned by enthusiastic supporters, cautious supporters and non-supporters.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262191.g002

Perceived ‘benefits’ of CPD identified by faculty/administrators.

The benefits of CPD activities identified by faculty and administrators acknowledged evolving training requirements and climate (12 M), with comments ranging from requirements for training grant applications to how participation in these activities can improve mental health. Faculty and administrators acknowledged institutional peer pressure nationally among top tier universities to provide these opportunities, and that as educators, they believe there is an obligation to provide these experiences.

Enthusiastic supporters acknowledged the limited availability of faculty positions, and the value of transparency of workforce outcomes of alumni (9 M). Less supportive respondents believe that professional development is not related to graduate education, that it de-emphasizes academia as a career path, and that individuals who leave academia cannot return. Enthusiastic and cautious supporters noted valuable effects of CPD programming, such as promoting career planning and gaining professional skill sets (6 M), and improved reputation of graduate programs (3 M).

Challenges or opportunities to improve identified by faculty/administrators.

Multiple comments arose regarding early exposure to options, and the need for experiences tailored to each individual’s stage and priorities (17 M). Some faculty raised concerns and perceptions (13 M) such as the belief that CPD could be a distraction, and lengthen time-to-degree completion. Narrow definitions of professional development revolving only around academic skills (6 M) are among challenges observed by interviewees.

Stakeholder 3: External-facing staff (industry relations, tech transfer, communications, alumni relations and development)

Interviews with external-facing staff were guided by a different set of questions ( S1 File ). The goals of these questions were to identify with whom external-facing offices at institutions typically interacted, and around what topic(s) the majority of their interactions centered. While these offices are open to all institution affiliates, it is not known if the external contacts have an interest in STEM pre- and post-doctoral researchers.

Respondents in external-facing offices interact with small and large businesses and foundations (8 individuals), investors (4 individuals), alumni (3 individuals), inventors (2 individuals), and innovation centers (2 individuals). These respondents often wear several hats, and interact with many other affiliates and identities including experts, educators, presenters, business development and intellectual property professionals, an institution’s business school (e.g. on consulting projects), grateful patients, hospital systems, government, and professional organizations. It is of note that the themes below do not include a federal relations point of view ( Fig 3 ).

thumbnail

Bar graph representing the number of mentions of each theme.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262191.g003

Reasons to engage with industry identified by external-facing offices.

Bringing the voice of the market to academic research is a strong motivation for interactions between industry and academia (16 M). Building partnerships between the two (11 M) has several benefits such as fundraising, increasing awareness of internship programs, and co-creation of curriculum content, and furthermore, provides long-term relationships and resources. External-facing staff are motivated by the possibility of fundraising or financial support (10 M) for the institution, as well as the perceived benefit to pre- and post-doctoral researchers (4 M).

Reasons external stakeholders engage with academia identified by external-facing staff.

A recurring theme that emerged was the perceived interest of external stakeholders in early access to emerging technologies and innovations (18 M). External stakeholders are believed to be keen to assist in developing an entrepreneurial mindset (11 M), such as instilling skills to better serve both researchers and the workforce more broadly, with an external-facing staff member referring to a joint research brief on entrepreneurial mindset, Ernst & Young & Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship [ 20 ], and to reports published by the EU Commission [ 21 ] and World Economic Forum [ 22 ]. External-facing staff also identified external stakeholders’ keen desire to create connections to faculty expertise (8 M), to have a venue for talent identification (6 M), an interest in providing scholarships/grants, or to fund programs (5 M), and paying it forward by means of creating opportunities (3 M).

External stakeholders’ interest in STEM pre- and post-doctoral researchers identified by external-facing staff.

While STEM knowledge was discussed as important, business acumen and experience were deemed as the distinguishing features of a successful industry applicant (10 M). Creating an expertise or talent pipeline (10 M) motivates external companies to interact with external-facing offices at institutions. The mutual benefit to multiple stakeholders (10 M) and the desire to support student needs (4 M) are perceived to be the sustaining power of these relationships.

External-facing staff’s additional thoughts.

External-facing staff were eager to share suggestions for researchers to better prepare for their careers (11 M), such as being prepared to learn on the job independently, trusting critical thinking, and relying upon other transferrable skills developed in training. Based on their experience, external-facing staff provided suggestions regarding CPD programming, such as the need for new perspectives on training (6 M), ensuring one point of contact (4 M), and including an alumni engagement role (3 M).

Stakeholder 4: External partners–societies, foundations, non-profits

Interviews with societies, foundations, and non-profits indicated that there were many partnerships and exchanges of service through which they interact with academia including: networking and community building, providing resources for honing career skills, generating scholarship and publications, facilitating advocacy, providing feedback and advice, and creating funding opportunities.

Discussion with the stakeholders from societies, foundations and non-profits brought new themes to light. These highlight many available resources that are not always accessed by institutions. The most common reason societies, foundations, and non-profits provided for wanting to engage with academia was to build relationships to connect academics with the mission of their organization ( Fig 4 ).

thumbnail

Bar graph representing the number of mentions of each theme for themes mentioned 3 or more times.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262191.g004

External partner organizations’ engagement with academia.

Building relationships (16 M) was a large motivator for societies, foundations and non-profits to interact with academia, as is the prestige, recognition, and public visibility (8 M) that comes with interacting with prestigious academic institutions. This engagement is also seen as a catalyst for connections and knowledge (5 M).

Societies, foundations, and non-profits resources to offer.

Societies and foundations have several scientists on staff possessing a wide range of expertise and perspectives as a resource to offer (6 M), as well as varied online resources and guides (4 M), experiential learning opportunities (4 M), and self-exploration tools (2 M).

A few challenges faced by external partner organizations mentioned included limited funding (4 M), connecting with target audiences (3 M), and creating flexible, creative models along with the need for culture change (3 M).

External partner organizations’ view of career preparedness improvements.

The need for pre- and post-doctoral researchers to develop and broaden their skills and learning approach (11 M) was discussed frequently. Advice such as taking early initiative (8 M), improving self-efficacy and growth mindset (6 M), learning to listen with humanity and broaden diversity (4 M), making use of networking opportunities (2 M), and getting involved in professional societies (1 M) were provided, alongside the idea of defining one’s own success (1 M).

External partners’ view of engaging with academic institutions.

Non-profit and society stakeholders are keen to engage and disseminate their resources, and encourage institutions to coordinate on-campus visits (5 M), or organize for researchers to engage with them off campus (2 M). Some challenges discussed included the difficulty to integrate their offerings into training (2 M), their ability to engage at all levels with academic institutions (2 M), the perception that the wrong people make decisions regarding these partnerships (1 M), and the need for more industry mentors (1 M).

Stakeholder 5 –External employers–small and large companies, intellectual property firms, consultancies, accelerators

External employers interviewed for this study include representatives of large pharmaceutical, biotech, government or national labs, consulting firms, intellectual property firms, policy or communication organizations as well as small business/start-ups, accelerators and boutique consulting agencies.

Types of engagement already in place with universities include: recruiting events, career fairs, tours/site visits, case studies/workshops, serving on advisory boards for curriculum development, and internships. A key goal for this kind of engagement is to maintain relationships.

This representative sampling of interviews with external employer stakeholders revealed additional themes and underscored themes already brought to light in the previous interviews ( Fig 5 ).

thumbnail

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262191.g005

Reasons why industry external stakeholders engage with academia.

Companies desire being involved in professional development programs, as it helps recruit and broaden their reach (8 M), and are keen to build long-term relationships (5M), often facilitated by an alumna/us acting as the liaison. There appears to be a need for bidirectional partnerships (4 M), and advisory and feedback roles (3 M).

Training and collaboration industry-academia partnership benefits.

The modes of interaction between industry and academia include alumni working with their alma mater (8 M). Increasing awareness of industry’s resources to develop academia’s complementary skills was discussed (6 M), as well as advice to pre-doctoral and post-doctoral researchers to learn industry-relevant skills (4 M), recalibrate what is considered important in job functions (3 M), and make use of grants and academic collaborations (3 M).

An important aside arose that if a company’s needs are already met, they admitted to not seeking out interactions with academia.

Differing priorities and organizational complexities–Challenges with industry.

Challenges to industry interactions with academia include distrust due to perceived differing values (5 M), as well as a lack of a single point of contact at academic institutions (3 M).

External industry employers’ views on challenges with pre- and post-doctoral researcher preparedness.

Understanding career options, industry culture, and priorities (8 M) are considered critical to being a successful industry applicant. The need for pre- and post-doctoral researchers to develop skills such as good communication (8 M), present experience and motivation appropriately to employers (7 M), and increase focus on relationship building and collaborations (5 M) are seen as crucial skills for success in industry. The need for faculty culture change (4 M) to improve CPD relationships with industry was also discussed.

How to encourage industry professionals to interact and visit campus.

Several companies are glad to visit or interact with academic institutions upon receiving invitations, ideally by pre-doctoral or post-doctoral researchers (6 M), while some prefer attending high-impact events (3 M), match-ups (3 M), or hosting site visits at the company (1 M). Industry representatives advise academic leaders to be open-minded to industry (3 M), and mention the challenge of limited time and resources to engage with academia (1 M).

The vast majority of large and small external employers interviewed were unaware of the national conversation about career development and outcomes of PhD-trained scientists.

Stakeholder engagement tool purpose, use, and opportunities for action

A stakeholder engagement tool was created for practitioners to rapidly assess and identify with which stakeholder group they are primed to interact most efficiently. The tool can help practitioners quickly focus on existing strengths at their institution on which they can rely, as well as on areas of improvement and possible links to approach stakeholders strategically. Coupled with the themes found in the interview data, a targeted approach can be developed to improve stakeholder engagement.

The stakeholder engagement tool is fully customizable to reflect local organizations with whom to partner and those that already might have existing relationships. A 360-degree view of perceived stakeholder engagement can be quickly determined by encouraging colleagues around campus to fill out the tool. The resulting scores will inform discussion across offices to see where perceptions align and where there might be differences in scores. Since the tool is quick and easy to use and automatically creates a visual output by summing scores in each quadrant of the ensuing graph (representing internal pre- and post-doctoral researchers, faculty/administrators; external-facing staff; external partners; and external employers) practitioners gain a quick, holistic view of their engagement.

To interpret the output of the stakeholder engagement tool, use the Excel file ( S5 File ; Note: Please download the Excel file to view proper format) which automatically sums each quadrant. The scores toward the left or right of the plot indicate areas of focus externally (right, blue and grey) or internally (left, orange and red). The top half of the plot reveals information on internal/external users (in orange and blue), the lower half on internal/external partners (in red and grey). The sums in each quadrant indicate the relative strength in each stakeholder group (top left: internal stakeholders such as graduate students or faculty; top right: external stakeholders such as employers; bottom left: internal partners such as licensing office; and bottom right: external partners such as professional societies).

This is a self-reflection tool to identify areas of individual network engagement and areas for potential development. The more the sectors are filled to the outside of the circle, the more perceived relative engagement there is. Based on how you define your Likert scale (see suggested scale in Methods ), the score for the relative engagement may reflect representation of stakeholders belonging to each group, as well as frequency and quality of interactions between stakeholders. For example, the CPD office may only have one or two stakeholders in a given stakeholder group, but you might meet with them often and they might be extremely influential and enthusiastic about supporting CPD programs for graduate students and postdoctoral researchers. Moreover, it is important to engage with and address the concerns of naysayers, as this will add value to overall CPD operations and help to launch more successful programming.

In the example ( Fig 6 ), the internal stakeholders are visually a strength, especially graduate students, and there appears to be room for increased engagement with certain external stakeholders such as intellectual property firms.

thumbnail

A rapid assessment tool for internal and external stakeholders to evaluate competencies and determine strengths for engagement in career and professional development programming. Detailed instructions for entering values are in Methods, and interpretation can be found in Results. [see S5 File to download and use the stakeholder engagement tool and view proper format: https://osf.io/fc27x/?view_only=b166987514234b718d8457778651534f ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262191.g006

There are three basic approaches to action as a result of filling out the stakeholder engagement tool.

  • Evaluate competencies. Using this stakeholder engagement tool, start conversations in your group to identify a shared framework to address areas of strength and growth. Choose 1–3 areas to connect with stakeholders (some might be linked or be in one quadrant). Identify the decisions to be made and develop an action plan based on these linked competencies; for example, local companies and an accelerator/incubator might provide more opportunities around entrepreneurial career paths for postdocs.
  • Identify challenge areas. Look at the chart to identify three barriers to potential growth in stakeholder engagement (lowest scores, to the inside of the circle). Low scoring areas should be evaluated for feasibility and potential actions to take (or non-relevancy). These areas might form the basis for discussion of methods to overcome challenges. Pay attention to challenges pertaining to diversity among stakeholder networks, and reflection of stakeholder diversity as it pertains to the trainee population, such as international/domestic participants, gender or gender identities, and race/ethnicity. For example, conversations with your industry relations office, national labs and a trade organization might spark ideas; perhaps there are no business/tech parks nearby so a virtual site visit might increase interactions.
  • Map your strengths. In looking at the chart, identify three strengths (points reaching most to the outside of the circles). Look for strengths in each quadrant of users, internal/external partners, and employers. Identify key individuals in these areas and bring them together with your team to discuss next steps for engagement; for example, pre-doctoral researchers, career services and professional society representatives might meet to brainstorm ideas.

Common themes

When considering the diverse stakeholder groups, common themes emerged across the different internal and external groups. Themes that reappeared across the various stakeholders suggest that these topics should be priorities for CPD practitioners when attempting to engage broadly.

Individuals from all interviewed stakeholder groups recognized the value of CPD activities for pre- and post-doctoral researchers, despite different perspectives on similar concepts, with individual participants varying in levels of enthusiasm and commitment. For instance, there is a distinct need for CPD programs across stakeholder groups, who engage for varying reasons. Among internal stakeholders , most pre- and post-doctoral researchers believe these activities benefit their career growth, many faculty and administrators believe the programs strengthen researcher career development and benefit their mental health, and all external-facing offices are keenly aware of both the value to pre- and post-doctoral researchers and how these activities generate interest among external stakeholders . External partners and employers desire that researchers are well-prepared when entering the workforce, and encourage CPD programs to partner with them on program development. Notably, external partners develop many resources to aid CPD activities for pre- and post-doctoral researchers and encourage them to be involved and to use these resources.

Networking, making connections, partnering, and collaborating are seen as crucial aspects of CPD across all stakeholder groups. Pre- and post-doctoral researchers are interested in opportunities to build and grow their networks to help form their future careers, and faculty/administrators understand this to be critical to researcher development. Non-profits and foundations encourage non-prescriptive models for graduate learning, which could open the doors for more engagement across stakeholders, and industry partners offer assistance in developing programming and internship opportunities. Financial arrangements can be mutually beneficial: universities can benefit financially from industry interactions to support their research, and collaborative commercialization of research benefits industry. Additionally, external stakeholders are interested in connecting with academic institutions to have early access to emerging science and technology, develop partnerships to grow their own priorities, and build a talent pipeline. External employers also showed keen interest in collaborating with faculty, and recommend that academics engage with industry partners on joint publications to help highlight these partnerships in the media [ 23 ], and facilitate culture change regarding opinions on industry collaborations.

The timing and content of CPD activities was another important focal point with multiple subgroups (pre- and post-doctoral researchers, external-facing staff, external partners and employers) suggesting the need for integrated, persistent, embedded, and flexible access to these activities. In particular, pre- and post-doctoral researchers suggest that there is a need for consistent exposure to CPD throughout training, including by some infrequent users who believe that this programming should be woven into the curriculum for maximal benefit, as is common in professional schools. Historically, the common opinion was that pre- and post-doctoral researchers should focus on their careers after they complete their training, but this is not ideal as it delays the workforce pipeline [ 9 ]. In addition, some faculty stakeholders do not see the value of CPD activities and expressed some concern about the time their pre- and post-doctoral researchers dedicate to these activities. However, recent evidence-based research has shown that participation in internships, career development programming, K-12 outreach programs or IRACDA programs does not lead to increased time to degree or decreased productivity [ 3 , 24 – 26 ]. Pre- and post-doctoral researchers, faculty/administrators and external partners all noted the value of flexible programming to encourage pre- and post-doctoral researcher engagement. All stakeholders pointed to the need to remain informed about the needs of both researchers and the workforce when planning, designing, and executing CPD activities.

An important challenge identified by pre- and post-doctoral researchers, external-facing partners, and external stakeholders was the need to expand the purview of scientific training to include skill development for a variety of careers. Alongside this, these stakeholders comment on the challenge of normalizing CPD activities in the larger context of training, and the need to help academic leaders (e.g. faculty and administrators) understand that academic career preparation is only a part of CPD, and that other types of skill development are necessary, as they are complementary and important to the success of their pre- and post-doctoral researchers. For example, developing self-efficacy is extremely beneficial to researchers when approaching their CPD [ 2 , 27 ]. Relatedly, requiring faculty approval to participate in professional development activities can present a barrier to participation and reinforces the cultural stereotype that professional development is outside of the normal expected activities of a pre- and post-doctoral researcher. Despite federal agencies [ 28 ], clarifying that pre- and post-doctoral researchers’ skill development is critical, the concept of career exploration has not permeated to all faculty and administrators–it is evident that for successful CPD implementation, practitioners need to be active in outreach and engagement with internal faculty [ 5 , 9 ] and administrators. CPD offices should work to identify new strategies for conveying their services and value to develop faculty/administrator buy-in, e.g. more evidence-based research to convey the program’s benefits. Knowing the culture of local faculty and their attitudes toward CPD can help strategically design programs that will yield the highest number of participants [ 9 ].

Among other challenges discussed, one key challenge noted was the identification and implementation of streamlined methods to access or connect with the right resources or people. Pre- and post-doctoral researchers report struggling to identify resources at their institutions, suggesting the need for a centralized institutional CPD hub, while external-facing staff commented on not knowing the appropriate people within academic institutions with whom to connect their external contacts. External stakeholders recommend universities have a visible “one-stop shop”, to encourage external partners or employers to connect with them. Additionally, external stakeholders note that it is critical for a graduate career office to have strong engagement between past and present CPD practitioners, to ensure continuity of relationships with the various stakeholders.

A disconnect was revealed specifically for external stakeholders who are unaware of the national conversation about CPD activities, suggesting that practitioners at academic institutions should more frequently intermingle in industry settings and more broadly disseminate their findings to external stakeholders , perhaps at industry conferences.

The authors’ knowledge of internal stakeholders allowed them to engage with a spectrum of users of CPD services including frequent users, occasional users and non-users, as well as a range of faculty/administrators showing enthusiastic, cautious or no support for CPD activities. The variety of internal stakeholders interviewed resulted in valuable conversations to identify where CPD practitioners can improve. For example, pre- and post-doctoral respondent interviews cited requiring an increased awareness of their needs and purpose for engagement to better align existing CPD opportunities and guide new ones, while faculty/administrator interviews highlighted perceptions of CPD offices, identified concerns, collected suggestions on tailored experiences and exposures, and identified the need for clearly defined CPD. It appears valuable for CPD practitioners to have a clear understanding of internal stakeholders ’ needs and concerns to create effective programming. Simultaneously, university staff who engage with external stakeholders share similar interests to CPD offices that include supporting and giving advice to pre- and post-doctoral researchers. Hence collaborations with these partners can provide valuable external stakeholder perspectives.

In summary, common themes across all stakeholders are shown in S6 File . Many emerging common themes centered on a tailored approach to CPD programs. For example, while most stakeholders acknowledged the need for CPD, the desired timing and content of programming aligned with individual specific needs. This further accentuates the need for creating streamlined access, discussed by most stakeholders.

Stakeholder engagement

The stakeholder engagement tool was debuted at an international meeting of CPD practitioners to demonstrate how to evaluate and plot to extend their networks in a targeted and structured way. Feedback from university-based users included surprise to learn the number of partners that could be leveraged by sometimes small, understaffed offices tasked with serving large populations of graduate students and postdocs. Subsequently, the tool’s value was expanded to address diversifying not only the roles, sectors, and stakeholder groups existing within one’s network, but also who and which social identities or wide varieties of lived experiences were represented among those contacts. Newly identified partnerships across campus as well as in the local community were seen as options not previously considered, including (but not limited to; see S4 File for more examples) partnerships with Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), as well as Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC), Latinx and other groups, serving those who have been historically excluded and underrepresented in science (e.g., persons excluded due to ethnicity or race [ 29 ]). Benefits cited by meeting attendees included the rapid ability to identify a wide variety of stakeholders with whom to work and partners to increase opportunities for their pre- and post-doctoral scholars.

An added value identified by participants was the quick analysis of potential barriers to growth in stakeholder engagement that could guide future discussions to overcome challenges. The tool was also cited as useful because it was designed for customization to each institutional setting, e.g. whether appropriate for recruiting industry partners in the local area if high density of contacts is available regionally, or fitting to explore ways to connect across a university that is a large, decentralized behemoth. Templates for how to reach out to potential partners were also reported to be useful. Of course, the tool is intended only as a first step in engaging stakeholders. More research and time investment is needed to determine the exact person to reach out to at various organizations if no existing partnerships exist, but the process is intentionally step-wise so that over time more stakeholders can be involved in CPD to benefit all parties. The tool serves as a way to focus on strengths of existing relationships, hone in on partners to include in discussions, or optimize outreach to spark new collaborations across stakeholders, rather than to identify specific challenge areas or strengths within a stakeholder group. We would advocate to first use the tool as a preliminary screen to identify which stakeholder categories to focus on. Informed by these themes identified through our interviews, CPD offices can then follow up with stakeholders to develop strong partnerships. Should the stakeholder engagement tool indicate that increased interactions with faculty or university administrators is warranted, that might stimulate conversations among CPD offices, department chairs and deans, to better inform faculty of the advantage of transferrable skills for all careers. These actions will help promote culture change in academia and reinforce awareness of the range of career options beyond academia available to PhDs.

CPD practitioners should consider engaging with both alumni and future employers as key stakeholders. Alumni are one of the most accessible external stakeholders for graduate career development work. The personal experience of alumni in the workforce provides critical input for assessing skills required by employers and to inform curriculum changes [ 2 , 9 , 12 ]. Furthermore, alumni connections are valuable for establishing external partnerships. Individual institutions vary in their ability to cultivate and engage alumni, influenced greatly by the existence of an alumni relations office with active engagement strategies, for example, social media sites and accessible directories [ 10 , 11 ].

Finally, the process of identifying external employer stakeholders as well as engagement opportunities should include strategic consideration of the location of the institution. For example, universities located in urban areas with a high concentration of biopharma companies might develop mechanisms to promote pre- and post-doctoral researchers’ biomedical expertise, valuable to local external stakeholders [ 10 , 30 ]. More isolated universities might organize a conference or trek to a more biotech-rich area [ 10 , 23 ].

Limitations and future directions

Faculty and administrators were sampled from a wide variety of roles, ranging from rank-and-file faculty; through departmental leadership such as Chairs, Associate Deans, and other leaders; through leaders in graduate and postdoctoral education such as Deans of Students. Nonetheless, we acknowledge the importance of identifying unique themes and perspectives that may arise for Provosts, Presidents, Chancellors, and other high-level university-wide leadership roles which are crucial to setting strategic aims, funding, and program priorities. The current sample did not include a large enough subset of high-level leaders to analyze the data separately, and future directions of research could include examining this group of administrators specifically.

External stakeholders were sampled from a variety of roles in industry and non-profit employers including small and large companies, intellectual property firms, consultancies, and accelerators. While this study did not specifically sample alumni as a stand-alone stakeholder group, some external stakeholder individuals (e.g., For-Profit, Non-Profit/Society) were incidentally alumni of the institutions represented. Still, we realize it is important to include the voice of recent PhD and postdoctoral alumni for their understanding of how their training affected their employability, how their industry sector views PhDs, and their retrospective views of their careers. This is especially of interest since they are role models for our current students and postdoctoral researchers, and are now potentially in hiring positions. Alumni are a very strong stakeholder group to engage with, as they are eager to give back to their institution, are invested in the institution, and directly experienced programs and the various stakeholders involved in the programs. Hence, investigating this stakeholder group would be extremely useful as a future research topic.

Further analyses that merit additional attention include examining unique themes arising through intersectional identity groups (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity, international/domestic status, among others). Unfortunately, sample sizes within each stakeholder group were not large enough to examine these important differences; however, this is an important topic for additional work to consider.

Another useful future analysis would be to ask stakeholders to rank which challenges represent the biggest barriers, a function that was not queried in this study’s interviews. Such a ranking would assist CPD offices to prioritize resources to overcome challenges.

Though our research interviewed only people currently residing in the U.S., the importance of CPD globally should not be understated. A recent report from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) representing a coalition of 38 nations also emphasized the need for tracking PhD alumni career outcomes to help understand where the programs can increase their CPD, as postdoctoral researchers are outgrowing the number of tenured or permanently employed academic positions in many countries [ 31 ]. The importance of CPD and culture change around CPD is critical not only for the U.S. but also globally, and future research could garner more insights from a global perspective, although we recognize that the one-size fits all approach wouldn’t apply to all countries.

Conclusions

This study brings to light fundamental career and professional development (CPD) concepts that span the various internal and external stakeholder groups interviewed. Learning from these opinions is valuable, and can help form recommendations in the creation, design, and sustenance of effective CPD activities at individual institutions.

This study also presents the stakeholder engagement tool, which can be used for rapid self-analysis of practitioners’ networks to assess strong stakeholder relationships and areas where the practitioner can strengthen their network. Coupled with the various themes from interviews with 45 internal and external stakeholders across the country in various roles, graduate career practitioners can use the themes presented as discussion points to interact with their own stakeholders to prepare for potential meetings with new contacts. Meaningful and targeted engagement with various stakeholders is key to create and sustain successful graduate and postdoctoral CPD programs.

Supporting information

S1 table. number of interviews conducted per stakeholder subgroup, by interviewer..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262191.s001

S2 Table. Pseudonym assignments for stakeholder interviews.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262191.s002

S1 File. Rationale and sample questions for stakeholders.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262191.s003

S2 File. Sample wording for invitation to participate.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262191.s004

S3 File. Detailed results, including example comments.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262191.s005

S4 File. Examples for diversifying networks.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262191.s006

S5 File. Stakeholder engagement tool.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262191.s007

S6 File. Common themes across stakeholders.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262191.s008

  • 1. National Institutes of Health, Office of Strategic Coordination. NIH Director’s Biomedical Research Workforce Innovation Award: Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training (BEST) (DP7) [Internet]. 2014. Available from: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-RM-13-019.html
  • View Article
  • PubMed/NCBI
  • Google Scholar
  • 6. Engelhardt SR, Alder J. Chapter 7—Rutgers University’s interdisciplinary Job Opportunities for Biomedical Scientists (iJOBS) Program: iNQUIRE, iNITIATE, iMPLEMENT, iNSTRUCT. In: Infante Lara L, Daniel L, Chalkley RBT-B, editors. BEST Implementing Career Development Activities for Biomedical Research Trainees [Internet]. Academic Press; 2020. p. 103–21. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128207598000073
  • 8. Varvayanis S, Schaffer CB, August A. Chapter 2—Cornell BEST: Keys to successful institutionalization of career and professional development programming. In: Infante Lara L, Daniel L, Chalkley RBT-B, editors. BEST Implementing Career Development Activities for Biomedical Research Trainees [Internet]. Academic Press; 2020. p. 11–24. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128207598000024 https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-12-0270 pmid:32822277
  • 11. Qualls ADC, Lundsteen N, Purvis TN. Ph.D. Alumni: Hidden in Plain Sight [Internet]. Inside Higher Ed. 2021. Available from: https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2021/01/14/colleges-should-make-greater-collaborative-efforts-engage-phd-alumni-opinion
  • 14. Lofland J, Lofland LH. Analyzing social settings: a guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth; 1995.
  • 16. Glaser B. G. & Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine; 1967.
  • 17. Strauss A, Corbin J. Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In: Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc; 1994. p. 273–85.
  • 18. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, 2nd ed. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc; 1994. xiv, 338–xiv, 338.
  • 19. Kaner S, Lind L, Toldi C, Fisk S, Berger D. Facilitator’s guide to participatory decision-making. Third. Jossey-Bass; 2014.
  • 20. Ernst & Young, Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship (NFTE). Supporting the next generation: The entrepreneurial mindset and the future of work [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://www.nfte.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Joint-Research-Brief-The-Entrepreneruial-Mindset-and-the-Future-of-Work.pdf
  • 22. Drexler M, Eltogby M, Foster G, Shimizu C, Ciesinski S, Davila A, et al. Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Growth Dynamics–the Early-Stage Company Around the Globe and Entrepreneur’s Perspective [Internet]. World Economic Forum. 2014. Available from: www.weforum.org
  • 28. National Institutes of Health. OMB Clarifies Guidance on the Dual Role of Student and Postdoctoral Researchers [Internet]. 2014. Available from: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-15-008.html
  • 31. OECD. Reducing the precarity of academic research careers. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers. 2021.

Management of project stakeholders: facilitating project success in public sector projects in Nigeria

--> Dakas, Audu Isa Ibrahim (2014) Management of project stakeholders: facilitating project success in public sector projects in Nigeria. PhD thesis, University of Leeds.

This research is based on evidences which show that project success in public sector construction projects in Nigeria is hindered by, among other issues, poor stakeholder management. As a result, the study involved the development of a conceptual model for effective stakeholder management. Using the conceptual model, empirical studies to establish the practice of stakeholder management in Nigerian public sector projects in four public universities as case studies were carried out. The resulting data were analysed, which revealed significant weaknesses in the practice of stakeholder management. These include lack of wide and deep knowledge/understanding of the concepts of project and stakeholder management by the clients’ project management teams (or research participants); non-existence of formal/systematic process of project stakeholder management; and poor system of project information/data management. Consequently, an integrated framework to ensure effective stakeholder management that would facilitate project success was developed. The integrated framework involves a seven-step stakeholder management process model, considering participants and their qualifications, techniques and outputs of the stakeholder management process and a system for project information/data management, across three-phase project life cycle. To ensure that the framework is practically applicable, it was evaluated by the expected beneficiaries of the framework and other experts familiar and involved with project and stakeholder management in the case studies, using questionnaire survey. The results of the evaluation show acceptability of the framework to effectively manage stakeholders and improve project success. However, while the framework may have been developed using data from selected universities, its principles may be applicable with prudence to other universities and other public sector projects. Further similar empirical studies using this approach or other suitable approaches in other universities and/or public sectors are required to generalise the findings and improve project success.

--> Final eThesis - complete (pdf) -->

Filename: Audu Dakas' PhD Thesis University of Leeds, UK - CurrentFinal.pdf

Creative Commons Licence

Embargo Date:

[img]

You do not need to contact us to get a copy of this thesis. Please use the 'Download' link(s) above to get a copy. You can contact us about this thesis . If you need to make a general enquiry, please see the Contact us page.

-

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse this repository, you give consent for essential cookies to be used. You can read more about our Privacy and Cookie Policy .

  • Departments
  • University Research
  • About the University

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT IN PRACTICE: EVIDENCE FROM THE NIGERIAN OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY

WARITIMI, EKPOBOMENE (2012) STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT IN PRACTICE: EVIDENCE FROM THE NIGERIAN OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY. Doctoral thesis, Durham University.

Stakeholder management relates to how business organisations manage their relationships not only with their market stakeholders, but also with their nonmarket stakeholders. It requires firms and business managers to identify and develop effective strategies to balance the interests of many diverse groups or constituents. This requirement has of course been judged to be impractical by those who uphold narrow traditional views about how a firm operates; and is unsupported by those who believe that asking managers to focus on the interests or concerns of groups of constituents that do not directly contribute to the economic achievements or strategic objectives of a firm, is a distraction and an attempt to derail corporate objectives. However, in spite of the criticisms levelled against the notion of stakeholder management, firms can no longer ignore the fact that there are constituents who can affect, and are affected by their business objectives. The aim of this research is to illustrate the practical implications of stakeholder management by exploring how multinational oil corporations operating in the Nigerian oil and gas industry manage their relationships with nonmarket stakeholders; such as the local communities who are affected by their operations. In order to achieve the aims of this research, a case study approach has been adopted; the case study companies include Shell Petroleum Development Company (Shell), Total Exploration and Production (Total), and the Nigerian Agip Oil Company (AGIP). Furthermore, to achieve a balanced perspective regarding the stakeholder management practices of the oil companies, the research incorporates the views of stakeholders from local communities, and those from non-governmental organisations (NGOs). A mixed methods research strategy is employed in the data collection and analysis process to achieve not just triangulation, but also to assist in the comprehension of the research findings. The research established that each of the companies being studied has employed different stakeholder management strategies in order to manage their relationships with the local communities. The strategies employed by the companies, however, appear not to address the issue of environmental impact; the concern which triggered the breakdown in the relationship between the oil companies and the local stakeholders in the first place. They have instead mostly focused on ameliorating the socio-economic issues resulting from oil exploration and production activities, in part as a consequence of pressure from the local communities themselves. Additionally, the findings indicate that the companies have employed hostile and controlling engagement strategies such as intimidation, appeasement, and manipulation, when dealing with local community stakeholders. These strategies are believed to have undermined the quality of their relationship with the local communities. The most notable consequence of these engagement practices is damaged trust amongst community members, as well as between the communities and the oil companies. The findings of this research have strong implications for stakeholder theory, as well as future research into stakeholder management practices, particularly in relation to non-contractual or nonmarket stakeholders; they also shed light on several important practical issues in business management.

Quick links

  • Latest additions
  • Browse by year
  • Browse by department
  • Deposit thesis
  • Usage statistics

Prospective students

  • International students
  • Research degrees
  • Durham e-Theses
  • Deposit Guide

Last Modified: Summer 2013 | Disclaimer | Trading name | Powered by EPrints 3

Lund University Logo

External Stakeholder Analysis in Construction Project Management

Research output : Thesis › Doctoral Thesis (compilation)

Bibliographical note

Subject classification (ukä).

  • Construction Management

Free keywords

  • Anläggningsteknik
  • stakeholder management
  • construction projects
  • stakeholders
  • project management
  • Commercial and industrial economics
  • property development
  • Industriell ekonomi
  • Construction technology

Fingerprint

  • project management Earth & Environmental Sciences 100%
  • stakeholder Earth & Environmental Sciences 65%
  • project Earth & Environmental Sciences 42%
  • analysis Earth & Environmental Sciences 21%
  • conflict Earth & Environmental Sciences 6%
  • plan Earth & Environmental Sciences 5%
  • decision Earth & Environmental Sciences 5%
  • living standard Earth & Environmental Sciences 4%

T1 - External Stakeholder Analysis in Construction Project Management

AU - Olander, Stefan

N1 - Defence details Date: 2006-09-15 Time: 13:15 Place: Hörsal V:A, V-huset, John Ericssons väg 1, Lunds Tekniska Högskola External reviewer(s) Name: Engwall, Mats Title: Professor Affiliation: Vinnova, Stockholm ---

N2 - The planning and construction of a facility can affect several interests. Positive effects are, for instance, better communications, better housing and a higher standard of living. However, construction projects inevitably bring varying degrees of deterioration and change at the local level, not least at the construction site. Representatives of these interests are referred to as the project's stakeholders. A project stakeholder can be defined as a person (or group of people) who has a vested interest in the success of a project and the environment within which the project operates. Vested interest is defined as having possession of one or more of the stakeholder attributes of power, legitimacy or urgency for their claims upon the project. There are essentially two categories of stakeholders: internal, who are those actively involved in project execution; and external, who are those affected by the project. The challenge for the project manager is then to plan and implement the project in a manner that fulfils as many external stakeholder needs and concerns as possible without compromising the purpose of the project. The role of the project manager must involve not just an understanding of the technical process, but also an understanding of the links between technique, the environment, the community and the people in it. The purpose of the present research project is to contribute to, and increase, knowledge concerning external stakeholders for construction projects, and to develop methods and tools for the analysis of the influence of external stakeholders. From the perspective of the developer and the project manager, the external stakeholder analysis must be conducted with respect to the project's purpose. The aim must be to complete the project according to the requirements of the project owner. The challenge is then to find trade-offs that fulfil as many external stakeholder needs and concerns as possible. The external stakeholder analysis should provide a basis for forthcoming project decisions. One clear reason for controversy and conflict is that decisions on a course of action for the project were made without analysing the consequences for external stakeholders. The result of this was that the project manager was not prepared for the possible conflict that might arise, and thus had no plan of how to resolve or handle them.

AB - The planning and construction of a facility can affect several interests. Positive effects are, for instance, better communications, better housing and a higher standard of living. However, construction projects inevitably bring varying degrees of deterioration and change at the local level, not least at the construction site. Representatives of these interests are referred to as the project's stakeholders. A project stakeholder can be defined as a person (or group of people) who has a vested interest in the success of a project and the environment within which the project operates. Vested interest is defined as having possession of one or more of the stakeholder attributes of power, legitimacy or urgency for their claims upon the project. There are essentially two categories of stakeholders: internal, who are those actively involved in project execution; and external, who are those affected by the project. The challenge for the project manager is then to plan and implement the project in a manner that fulfils as many external stakeholder needs and concerns as possible without compromising the purpose of the project. The role of the project manager must involve not just an understanding of the technical process, but also an understanding of the links between technique, the environment, the community and the people in it. The purpose of the present research project is to contribute to, and increase, knowledge concerning external stakeholders for construction projects, and to develop methods and tools for the analysis of the influence of external stakeholders. From the perspective of the developer and the project manager, the external stakeholder analysis must be conducted with respect to the project's purpose. The aim must be to complete the project according to the requirements of the project owner. The challenge is then to find trade-offs that fulfil as many external stakeholder needs and concerns as possible. The external stakeholder analysis should provide a basis for forthcoming project decisions. One clear reason for controversy and conflict is that decisions on a course of action for the project were made without analysing the consequences for external stakeholders. The result of this was that the project manager was not prepared for the possible conflict that might arise, and thus had no plan of how to resolve or handle them.

KW - Anläggningsteknik

KW - stakeholder management

KW - construction projects

KW - stakeholders

KW - project management

KW - Commercial and industrial economics

KW - property development

KW - Industriell ekonomi

KW - Construction technology

M3 - Doctoral Thesis (compilation)

SN - 91-85257-95-8

PB - Construction Management, Department of Construction Sciences, Lund University

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, project relationship management and the stakeholder circle™.

International Journal of Managing Projects in Business

ISSN : 1753-8378

Article publication date: 25 January 2008

The aim of this paper is to summarise a successfully completed doctoral thesis. The main purpose of the paper is to provide a summary that indicates the scope of, and main issues raised by, the thesis so that readers that are undertaking research in this area may be aware of current cutting edge research that could be relevant to them. A second key aim of the paper is to place this in context with doctoral study and further research that could take place to extend knowledge in this area.

Design/methodology/approach

Research reported in this paper was based upon action learning from a series of case studies where a project management tool for managing stakeholder relationships was tested and refined.

The tool is useful in helping the project delivery team identify major influencing stakeholders and visualise their potential impact. This tool then helped the studied project delivery teams to develop stakeholder engagement strategies. While it was initially tested as a planning tool to be used at the early stages of a project it can be used through the whole implementation phase of a project as the flow of major stakeholders and their influence changes during a project.

Practical implications

The tool was further improved during 2006 and commercialised in 2007 and is currently being used by numerous organisations. In observing how it is being used and can be used, it is suggested that over time a useful data base of stakeholder behaviours is being established that can be mined and used to better predict stakeholder types and their likely actions.

Originality/value

This paper provides a summary of cutting‐edge research work and a link to the published thesis (see URL www.mosaicprojects.com.au/Resources_Papers_021.html for a pdf (7meg)) that researchers can use to help them understand how the research methodology was applied as well as how it can be extended.

  • Stakeholder analysis
  • Project management
  • Action learning

Bourne, L. and Walker, D.H.T. (2008), "Project relationship management and the Stakeholder Circle™", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business , Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 125-130. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538370810846450

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2008, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • View all journals
  • Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • 12 March 2024

Bring PhD assessment into the twenty-first century

You have full access to this article via your institution.

A woman holding a cup and saucer stands in front of posters presenting medical research

Innovation in PhD education has not reached how doctoral degrees are assessed. Credit: Dan Dunkley/Science Photo Library

Research and teaching in today’s universities are unrecognizable compared with what they were in the early nineteenth century, when Germany and later France gave the world the modern research doctorate. And yet significant aspects of the process of acquiring and assessing a doctorate have remained remarkably constant. A minimum of three years of independent study mentored by a single individual culminates in the production of the doctoral thesis — often a magisterial, book-length piece of work that is assessed in an oral examination by a few senior academic researchers. In an age in which there is much research-informed innovation in teaching and learning, the assessment of the doctoral thesis represents a curious throwback that is seemingly impervious to meaningful reform.

But reform is needed. Some doctoral candidates perceive the current assessment system to lack transparency, and examiners report concerns of falling standards ( G. Houston A Study of the PhD Examination: Process, Attributes and Outcomes . PhD thesis, Oxford Univ.; 2018 ). Making the qualification more structured would help — and, equally importantly, would bring the assessment of PhD education in line with education across the board. PhD candidates with experience of modern assessment methods will become better researchers, wherever they work. Indeed, most will not be working in universities: the majority of PhD holders find employment outside academia.

doctoral thesis stakeholder management

Collection: Career resources for PhD students

It’s not that PhD training is completely stuck in the nineteenth century. Today’s doctoral candidates can choose from a range of pathways. Professional doctorates, often used in engineering, are jointly supervised by an employer and an academic, and are aimed at solving industry-based problems. Another innovation is PhD by publication, in which, instead of a final thesis on one or more research questions, the criterion for an award is a minimum number of papers published or accepted for publication. In some countries, doctoral students are increasingly being trained in cohorts, with the aim of providing a less isolating experience than that offered by the conventional supervisor–student relationship. PhD candidates are also encouraged to acquire transferable skills — for example, in data analysis, public engagement, project management or business, economics and finance. The value of such training would be even greater if these skills were to be formally assessed alongside a dissertation rather than seen as optional.

And yet, most PhDs are still assessed after the production of a final dissertation, according to a format that, at its core, has not changed for at least half a century, as speakers and delegates noted at an event in London last month on PhD assessment, organized by the Society for Research in Higher Educatio n. Innovations in assessment that are common at other levels of education are struggling to find their way into the conventional doctoral programme.

Take the concept of learning objectives. Intended to aid consistency, fairness and transparency, learning objectives are a summary of what a student is expected to know and how they will be assessed, and are given at the start of a course of study. Part of the ambition is also to help tutors to keep track of their students’ learning and take remedial action before it is too late.

doctoral thesis stakeholder management

PhD training is no longer fit for purpose — it needs reform now

Formative assessment is another practice that has yet to find its way into PhD assessment consistently. Here, a tutor evaluates a student’s progress at the mid-point of a course and gives feedback or guidance on what students need to do to improve ahead of their final, or summative, assessment. It is not that these methods are absent from modern PhDs; a conscientious supervisor will not leave candidates to sink or swim until the last day. But at many institutions, such approaches are not required of PhD supervisors.

Part of the difficulty is that PhD training is carried out in research departments by people who do not need to have teaching qualifications or awareness of innovations based on education research. Supervisors shouldn’t just be experts in their field, they should also know how best to convey that subject knowledge — along with knowledge of research methods — to their students.

It is probably not possible for universities to require all doctoral supervisors to have teaching qualifications. But there are smaller changes that can be made. At a minimum, doctoral supervisors should take the time to engage with the research that exists in the field of PhD education, and how it can apply to their interactions with students.

There can be no one-size-fits-all solution to improving how a PhD is assessed, because different subjects often have bespoke needs and practices ( P. Denicolo Qual. Assur. Educ. 11 , 84–91; 2003 ). But supervisors and representatives of individual subject communities must continue to discuss what is most appropriate for their disciplines.

All things considered, there is benefit to adopting a more structured approach to PhD assessment. It is high time that PhD education caught up with changes that are now mainstream at most other levels of education. That must start with a closer partnership between education researchers, PhD supervisors and organizers of doctoral-training programmes in universities. This partnership will benefit everyone — PhD supervisors and doctoral students coming into the research workforce, whether in universities or elsewhere.

Education and training in research has entered many secondary schools, along with undergraduate teaching, which is a good thing. In the spirit of mutual learning, research doctoral supervisors, too, will benefit by going back to school.

Nature 627 , 244 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00718-0

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

doctoral thesis stakeholder management

  • Scientific community

Four years on: the career costs for scientists battling long COVID

Four years on: the career costs for scientists battling long COVID

Career Feature 18 MAR 24

People, passion, publishable: an early-career researcher’s checklist for prioritizing projects

People, passion, publishable: an early-career researcher’s checklist for prioritizing projects

Career Column 15 MAR 24

Divas, captains, ghosts, ants and bumble-bees: collaborator attitudes explained

Divas, captains, ghosts, ants and bumble-bees: collaborator attitudes explained

How to stop 'passing the harasser': universities urged to join information-sharing scheme

How to stop 'passing the harasser': universities urged to join information-sharing scheme

News 18 MAR 24

Take these steps to accelerate the path to gender equity in health sciences

Take these steps to accelerate the path to gender equity in health sciences

Nature Index 13 MAR 24

Pay for trees with carbon credits to deliver urban green spaces for all

Correspondence 12 MAR 24

Backend/ DevOps Engineer – National Facility for Data Handling and Analysis

APPLICATION CLOSING DATE: April 2nd, 2024. About the institute Human Technopole (HT) is a new interdisciplinary life science research institute, cr...

Human Technopole

doctoral thesis stakeholder management

Professorship for Pneumology (W3)

The Jena University Hospital (JUH) invites applications for a Professorship for Pneumology (W3) to be filled at the earliest possible date. The pro...

07743 Jena, Thüringen (DE)

Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena

doctoral thesis stakeholder management

Faculty Positions at Great Bay University, China

We are now seeking outstanding candidates in Physics, Chemistry and Physical Sciences.

Dongguan, Guangdong, China

Great Bay University, China (GBU)

doctoral thesis stakeholder management

Tenure-Track Assistant Professor to the rank of Associate Professor in computational biology

UNIL is a leading international teaching and research institution, with over 5,000 employees and 15,500 students split between its Dorigny campus, ...

Lausanne, Canton of Vaud (CH)

University of Lausanne (UNIL)

doctoral thesis stakeholder management

Assistant Scientist/Professor in Rare Disease Research, Sanford Research

Assistant Scientist/Professor in Rare Disease Research, Sanford Research Sanford Research invites applications for full-time faculty at the rank of...

Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Sanford Research

doctoral thesis stakeholder management

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

Stakeholder Management in International Projects

Kirsi aaltonen ( née eloranta).

Doctoral dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Science in Technology to be presented with due permission of the Faculty of Information and Natural Sciences for public examination and debate in Auditorium TU1 at the Aalto University School of Science and Technology (Espoo, Finland) on the 23 rd of October 2010 at 12 noon.

Overview in PDF format (ISBN 978-952-60-3344-0)   [648 KB] Dissertation is also available in print (ISBN 978-952-60-3343-3)

Today's international projects are implemented in institutionally demanding environments and executed by coalitions of stakeholders that have differing interests, objectives and socio-cultural backgrounds. Consequently, international projects are subject to the demands and pressures presented by external stakeholders such as community groups, local residents, landowners, environmentalists, regulatory agencies, and local and national governments. Despite the acknowledged importance of stakeholder management, project research still lacks both theoretical knowledge and empirical evidence concerning various project stakeholder related phenomena. The objective of this thesis is to contribute to project research by increasing the understanding of external project stakeholder behavior and a focal project's stakeholder management activities in international projects. The primary theoretical perspective used in this thesis is stakeholder theory, which is applied in the context of project stakeholder research.

The thesis comprises of a summary and five publications that are based on five separate case study research settings. Publications I and II adopt the perspective of project stakeholders. Their empirical results are based on an in-depth study of a pulp mill project in Uruguay that faced extreme stakeholder related challenges. The key contribution of publication I is that it identifies and describes empirically eight different influence strategies that external project stakeholders may use to shape their salience. In publication II eight propositions concerning external project stakeholders' potential to take action and influence the project management's decision making during the different phases of the project lifecycle are developed. Publications III, IV and V adopt the perspective of a focal project and examine its activities with respect to external stakeholder influences. The key contribution of publication III is that it identifies and describes different response strategies that a focal project may enact as a response to external stakeholder pressures. By adopting an environmental interpretation perspective, publication IV describes the practices through which project management teams analyze and interpret the project's external stakeholder environment in four international case projects. Publication V adopts a stakeholder network perspective and illustrates how a focal project's local stakeholder relationships are associated with the emergence and management of unexpected events in three international case projects.

The findings of this thesis highlight the importance of external stakeholder management in international projects. Through the application of the ideas of stakeholder theory, the results of this thesis provide new theoretical and empirical understanding of how external project stakeholders may influence the project management's decision making during the project lifecycle. The results of this thesis demonstrate how a focal project may analyze its external stakeholder environment and respond to external stakeholder pressures and unexpected events in the context of international projects. Ultimately, the new knowledge of external stakeholders' influence strategies and better understanding of how a focal project can deal with stakeholder influences, supports project managers in the development of effective project stakeholder management approaches.

This thesis consists of an overview and of the following 5 publications:

  • Kirsi Aaltonen, Jaakko Kujala, and Tuomas Oijala. 2008. Stakeholder salience in global projects. International Journal of Project Management, volume 26, number 5, pages 509-516.
  • Kirsi Aaltonen and Jaakko Kujala. A project lifecycle perspective on stakeholder influence strategies in global projects. Scandinavian Journal of Management. Accepted for publication.
  • Kirsi Aaltonen and Risto Sivonen. 2009. Response strategies to stakeholder pressures in global projects. International Journal of Project Management, volume 27, number 2, pages 131-141.
  • Kirsi Aaltonen. Project stakeholder analysis as an environmental interpretation process. International Journal of Project Management. In press.
  • Kirsi Aaltonen, Jaakko Kujala, Päivi Lehtonen, and Inkeri Ruuska. 2010. A stakeholder network perspective on unexpected events and their management in international projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, volume 3, number 4, pages 564-588.

Keywords: project stakeholder management, external project stakeholders, international projects, stakeholder theory

This publication is copyrighted. You may download, display and print it for Your own personal use. Commercial use is prohibited.

© 2010 Aalto University School of Science and Technology

Variation of the Technical Parameters of Steam-Activated Carbons Based on Peat and Polyurethane-Polyamide Fiber Waste

  • Sorption and Ion-Exchange Processes
  • Published: November 2005
  • Volume 78 , pages 1816–1820, ( 2005 )

Cite this article

  • A. N. Khomutov 1 , 2 ,
  • V. N. Klushin 1 , 2 &
  • V. M. Mukhin 1 , 2  

39 Accesses

2 Citations

Explore all metrics

The wear resistance, porosity, and ion-exchange properties of steam-activated cokes in the form of cylindrical granules, obtained from Dorlastan polyurethane-polyamide fiber waste and cotton grass-sphagnum peat under conditions of purely kinetic control were studied at the combustion loss increased to 50%.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Kolyshkin, D.A. and Mikhailova, K.K., Aktivnye ugli: svoistva i metody ispytanii: spravochnik (Activated Carbons: Properties and Testing Methods: Reference Book), 1972.

Voiloshnikov, V.I., Sorption Recovery of Noble Metals from Cyanide Solutions and Pulps, Cand. Sci. Dissertation , Irkutsk, 1989.

RF Patent Appl. 94 020 452/26.

Mukhin, V.M., Zimin, N.A., Zubova, I.D., and Labun', A.N., Abstracts of Papers, IX Mezhdunarodnaya konferentsiya po teoreticheskim voprosam adsorbtsii i adsorbtsionnoi khromatografii “Sovremennoe sostoyanie i perspektivy razvitiya teorii adsorbtsii”, k 100-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya akad. M.M. Dubinina (Int. Conf. on Theoretical Problems of Adsorption and Adsorption Chromatography “Current State and Prospects for Development of the Theory of Adsorption”, Dedicated to the Centennial of Acad. M.M. Dubinin), Moscow, April, 24–28, 2001, Moscow: Inst. Fiz. Khim. Ross. Akad. Nauk, 2001, p. 67.

Google Scholar  

Nikolaev, V.G. and Strelko, V.V., Gemosorbtsiya na aktivnykh uglyakh (Hemosorption on Activated Carbons), Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1979.

Dudarev, V.I., Carbon Adsorbents for Metal Recovery from Solutions and Pulps, Doctoral Dissertation , Moscow, 2001.

Pokonova, Yu.V., Khim. Tverd. Topl. , 2001, no. 2, pp. 24–34.

Khomutov, A.N., Klushin, V.N., and Mukhin, V.M., Sb. Nauchn. Tr. Ross. Khim.-Tekhnol. Univ. im D.I. Mendeleeva: Usp. Khim. Khim. Tekhnol. , 2004, vol. 18, no.6 (46), part 1, pp. 94–95.

Tarasevich, M.R., Elektrokhimiya uglerodnykh materialov (Electrochemistry of Carbon Materials), Moscow: Nauka, 1984.

Golub, D., Soffer, A., and Oren, Y., J. Electroanal. Chem. , 1989, vol. 260, pp. 383–392.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Tarkovskaya, I.A., Okislennyi ugol' (Oxidized Carbon), Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1981.

Boehm, H.P., Adv. Catal. Relat. Subj. , 1966, vol. 16, pp. 179–274.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Glushchenko, V.Yu., Adsorbtsiya i poristost': Trudy Chetvertoi vsesoyuznoi konferentsii po teoreticheskim voprosam adsorbtsii (Adsorption and Porosity: Proc. Fourth All-Union Conf. on Theoretical Problems of Adsorption), Moscow: Nauka, 1976, pp. 35–40.

Gunasingham, H. and Fleet, B., Analyst , 1982, vol. 107, pp. 896–902.

Mukhin, V.M., Klushin, V.N., and Tarasov, A.V., Aktivnye ugli Rossii (Activated Carbons of Russia), Moscow: Metallurgiya, 2000.

Gur'yanov, V.V., Polyakov, N.N., and Petukhova, G.A., Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk, Ser. Khim. , 2001, no. 6, pp. 933–937.

Besedina, I.N., Simkin, Yu.Ya., and Petrov, V.S., Khim. Rast. Syr'ya , 2001, no. 2, pp. 71–74.

Honyak, V.P., Mazina, O.I., and Drozhalina, N.D., Khim. Tverd. Topl. , 1990, no. 3, pp. 74–77.

Drozhalina, N.D., Uglerodnye molekulyarnye sita na osnove torfa (Peat-Based Carbon Molecular Sieves), Minsk: Nauka i Tekhnika, 1984.

Khomutov, A.N., Klushin, V.N., and Mukhin, V.M., Sb. Nauchn. Tr. Ross. Khim.-Tekhnol. Univ. im D.I. Mendeleeva: Usp. Khim. Khim. Tekhnol. , 2004, vol. 18, no.6 (46), part 2, pp. 95–97.

Cheremskoi, G.P., Metody issledovaniya poristosti tverdykh tel (Methods of Studying the Porosity of Solids), Moscow: Energoizdat, 1985.

Polyanskii, N.G., Gorbunov. G.V., and Polyanskaya N.L., Metody issledovaniya ionitov (Methods of Studying Ion Exchangers), Moscow: Khimiya, 1976, pp. 159–163.

Velikii, E.M. and Alifanova, N.N., Aktual'nye problemy adsorbtsionnykh protsessov: Materialy 4 Vserossiiskogo simpoziuma (Urgent Problems of Adsorption Processes: Proc. 4th All-Russia Symp.), Moscow, 1997 (publ. 1998), p. 145.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Mendeleev Russian University of Chemical Engineering, Moscow, Russia

A. N. Khomutov, V. N. Klushin & V. M. Mukhin

Neorganika Research and Production Association, State Unitary Enterprise, Elektrostal, Moscow oblast, Russia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Additional information

Translated from Zhurnal Prikladnoi Khimii, Vol. 78, No. 11, 2005, pp. 1848–1852.

Original Russian Text Copyright © 2005 by Khomutov, Klushin, Mukhin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Khomutov, A.N., Klushin, V.N. & Mukhin, V.M. Variation of the Technical Parameters of Steam-Activated Carbons Based on Peat and Polyurethane-Polyamide Fiber Waste. Russ J Appl Chem 78 , 1816–1820 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11167-005-0613-4

Download citation

Received : 25 November 2004

Accepted : 15 July 2005

Issue Date : November 2005

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11167-005-0613-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Wear Resistance
  • Technical Parameter
  • Kinetic Control
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

19th Edition of Global Conference on Catalysis, Chemical Engineering & Technology

  • Victor Mukhin

Victor Mukhin, Speaker at Chemical Engineering Conferences

Victor M. Mukhin was born in 1946 in the town of Orsk, Russia. In 1970 he graduated the Technological Institute in Leningrad. Victor M. Mukhin was directed to work to the scientific-industrial organization "Neorganika" (Elektrostal, Moscow region) where he is working during 47 years, at present as the head of the laboratory of carbon sorbents.     Victor M. Mukhin defended a Ph. D. thesis and a doctoral thesis at the Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia (in 1979 and 1997 accordingly). Professor of Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia. Scientific interests: production, investigation and application of active carbons, technological and ecological carbon-adsorptive processes, environmental protection, production of ecologically clean food.   

Title : Active carbons as nanoporous materials for solving of environmental problems

Quick links.

  • Conference Brochure
  • Tentative Program

Watsapp

IMAGES

  1. Classification of stakeholders [2]

    doctoral thesis stakeholder management

  2. Four Steps to Effective Stakeholder Management

    doctoral thesis stakeholder management

  3. [PDF] 1The Contribution of Stakeholder Theory to Supply Chain

    doctoral thesis stakeholder management

  4. Thesis Proposal : EECS Communication Lab

    doctoral thesis stakeholder management

  5. The Top 20 Stakeholder Analysis Techniques All PMs Should Know

    doctoral thesis stakeholder management

  6. Stakeholder management within BIM implemented projects in the UK

    doctoral thesis stakeholder management

COMMENTS

  1. PDF Stakeholder Management in International Projects

    The objective of this thesis is to contribute to project research by increasing the understanding of external project stakeholder behavior and a focal project's stakeholder management activities in international projects. The primary theoretical perspective used in this thesis is stakeholder theory, which is applied in the context of project

  2. PDF Digitalization as a Game Changer in Project Stakeholder Management

    WHITE PAPER February 2022 Digitalization as a Game Changer in Project Stakeholder Management Final Report Thesis Grant Christof Kier, MSc Principle Investigator, Doctoral Student WU Vienna, Department of Strategy and Innovation, Project Management Group Welthandelsplatz 1, 1020 Vienna, Austria Martina Huemann, PhD

  3. Stakeholder engagement for sustainability : a mixed method study of

    This dissertation contributes to our understanding of the strategies the companies use to engage external stakeholders, as well as the processes and outcomes of engagement. The first essay proposes a framework for evaluating a firm's stakeholder engagement strategy, comprised of eight dimensions that vary on a spectrum from least to most advanced.

  4. Using stakeholder insights to enhance engagement in PhD ...

    There is increasing awareness of the need for pre- and post-doctoral professional development and career guidance, however many academic institutions are only beginning to build out these functional roles. As a graduate career educator, accessing vast silos and resources at a university and with industry-partners can be daunting, yet collaboration and network development are crucial to the ...

  5. Project Management Communication Strategies to Engage Stakeholders and

    project failures (Storey et al., 2017). Effective communication management is a strategic tool for managing stakeholders and their varied requirements (Rajhans, 2018; Williams, 2017). The current study addressed communication strategies project managers use to engage stakeholders and improve project performance.

  6. Stakeholder management in international projects

    The findings of this thesis highlight the importance of external stakeholder management in international projects. Through the application of the ideas of stakeholder theory, the results of this thesis provide new theoretical and empirical understanding of how external project stakeholders may influence the project management's decision making ...

  7. Water Sustainability Leadership Fostering Stakeholder Engagement

    The contents of the stakeholder theory of stakeholders' trust and cooperation and stakeholder management contribute to the intention of behavioral change (Jones, Harrison, & Felps, 2018). Applying this theory to the present study's topic, if a reduction in careless citizen water use fails to have a progressive result on citizen mindset,

  8. Management of project stakeholders: facilitating project success in

    PhD thesis, University of Leeds. Abstract This research is based on evidences which show that project success in public sector construction projects in Nigeria is hindered by, among other issues, poor stakeholder management. As a result, the study involved the development of a conceptual model for effective stakeholder management.

  9. Stakeholder Management in International Projects

    Publication V adopts a stakeholder network perspective and illustrates how a focal project's local stakeholder relationships are associated with the emergence and management of unexpected events in three international case projects. The findings of this thesis highlight the importance of external stakeholder management in international projects.

  10. (PDF) Theories of Stakeholder Management

    Stakeholder management is intended to create methods to manage the different groups and relationships. Organizations need to better understand their stakeholders and how to strategically...

  11. Stakeholder Management in Practice: Evidence From the Nigerian Oil and

    Doctoral thesis, Durham University. PDF - Accepted Version 2048Kb Abstract Stakeholder management relates to how business organisations manage their relationships not only with their market stakeholders, but also with their nonmarket stakeholders.

  12. Stakeholder Management: An insightful Overview of Issues

    This paper attempts to contribute towards investigating the existing literature base of stakeholder management (SM), provide a compilation, and define any gaps in this area. Besides, explore...

  13. External Stakeholder Analysis in Construction Project Management

    Research output: Thesis › Doctoral Thesis (compilation) Overview Fingerprint Abstract The planning and construction of a facility can affect several interests. Positive effects are, for instance, better communications, better housing and a higher standard of living.

  14. Effective Stakeholder Management Strategies for Information Technology

    This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection at ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks. For more information, please ... stakeholder management strategies were a major ...

  15. PDF Stakeholder Management Within Bim Implemented Projects in The ...

    How can blockchain technology enhance the security and efficiency of supply chain management? This PhD thesis from the University of Wolverhampton explores the potential benefits and challenges of applying blockchain to various aspects of supply chain operations, such as traceability, transparency, trust, and collaboration. The thesis also proposes a conceptual framework and a prototype system ...

  16. External Stakeholder Analysis in Construction Project Management

    External Stakeholder Analysis in Construction Project Management. Stefan Olander. Published 2006. Engineering, Business. The planning and construction of a facility can affect several interests. Positive effects are, for instance, better communications, better housing and a higher standard of living. However, construction projects inevitably ...

  17. Project relationship management and the Stakeholder Circle™

    Project relationship management and the Stakeholder Circle™ - Author: Lynda Bourne, Derek H.T. Walker - The aim of this paper is to summarise a successfully completed doctoral thesis. The main purpose of the paper is to provide a summary that indicates the scope of, and main issues raised by, the thesis so that readers that are undertaking ...

  18. Bring PhD assessment into the twenty-first century

    PhD thesis, Oxford Univ.; 2018). Making the qualification more structured would help — and, equally importantly, would bring the assessment of PhD education in line with education across the ...

  19. Stakeholder Management in International Projects

    Stakeholder Management in International Projects Kirsi Aaltonen (née Eloranta)Doctoral dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Science in Technology to be presented with due permission of the Faculty of Information and Natural Sciences for public examination and debate in Auditorium TU1 at the Aalto University School of Science and Technology (Espoo, Finland) on the 23 rd of October 2010 at ...

  20. Active carbons as nanoporous materials for solving of environmental

    Victor M. Mukhin defended a Ph. D. thesis and a doctoral thesis at the Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia (in 1979 and 1997 accordingly). Professor of Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia.

  21. Digitalization as a Game Changer in Project Stakeholder Management

    In practice, we find that digitalization can become a game changer in project stakeholder management, as emerging digital technologies allow for new ways of stakeholder engagement. Digital technologies, such as augmented reality (Gheisari & Irizarry, 2016; Meža et al., 2015) and digital gamification (Goulding et al., 2014; Rüppel & Schatz ...

  22. Variation of the Technical Parameters of Steam-Activated ...

    The wear resistance, porosity, and ion-exchange properties of steam-activated cokes in the form of cylindrical granules, obtained from Dorlastan polyurethane-polyamide fiber waste and cotton grass-sphagnum peat under conditions of purely kinetic control were studied at the combustion loss increased to 50%.

  23. Intermittency and concentration probability density function in

    PDF | On Sep 1, 1986, Vladimir Sabelnikov published Intermittency and concentration probability density function in turbulent flows, Thesis Doctor en Science, Moscow Institute of Physics and ...

  24. Victor Mukhin

    Catalysis Conference is a networking event covering all topics in catalysis, chemistry, chemical engineering and technology during October 19-21, 2017 in Las Vegas, USA. Well noted as well attended meeting among all other annual catalysis conferences 2018, chemical engineering conferences 2018 and chemistry webinars.