Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Res. Metr. Anal.
Sec. Research Assessment
Volume 9 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/frma.2024.1473940
This article is part of the Research Topic Building Tomorrow’s Biomedical Workforce: Evaluation of How Evidence-Based Training Programs Align Skill Development and Career Awareness with a Broad Array of Professions View all 9 articles

An updated and expanded characterization of the biological sciences academic job market

Provisionally accepted
Brooklynn Flynn Brooklynn Flynn 1Ariangela J Kozik Ariangela J Kozik 2You Cheng You Cheng 3Ada Hagan Ada Hagan 4Jennifer Ng Jennifer Ng 5Christopher T Smith Christopher T Smith 6Amanda Haage Amanda Haage 7Nafisa M Jadavji Nafisa M Jadavji 10,8,9*
  • 1 Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine, Midwestern University, Downers Grove, Illinois, United States
  • 2 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
  • 3 Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
  • 4 Alliance SciComm & Consulting,, Russellville, United States
  • 5 University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, United States
  • 6 Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States
  • 7 University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota, United States
  • 8 University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
  • 9 Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois, United States
  • 10 Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    In the biological sciences, many areas of uncertainty exist regarding the factors that contribute to success within the faculty job market. Earlier work from our group reported that beyond certain thresholds, academic and career metrics like the number of publications, fellowships or career transition awards, and years of experience did not separate applicants who received job offers from those who did not. Questions still exist regarding how academic and professional achievements influence job offers and if candidate demographics differentially influence outcomes. To continue addressing these gaps, we initiated surveys collecting data from faculty applicants in the biological sciences field for three hiring cycles in North America (Fall 2019 to the end of May 2022), a total of 449 respondents were included in our analysis. These responses highlight the interplay between various scholarly metrics, extensive demographic information, and hiring outcomes, and for the first time, allowed us to look at persons historically excluded due to ethnicity or race (PEER) status in the context of the faculty job market. Between 2019 and 2022, we found that the number of applications submitted, position seniority, and identifying as a women or transgender were positively correlated with a faculty job offer. Applicant age, residence, first generation status, and number of postdocs, however, were negatively correlated with receiving a faculty job offer. Our data are consistent with other surveys that also highlight the influence of achievements and other factors in hiring processes. Providing baseline comparative data for job seekers can support their informed decision-making in the market and is a first step towards demystifying the faculty job market.

    Keywords: Biological sciences, Peer status, Faculty Job Market, gender, Gender non-conforming (GNC), post-doctoral, early career

    Received: 09 Aug 2024; Accepted: 04 Nov 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Flynn, Kozik, Cheng, Hagan, Ng, Smith, Haage and Jadavji. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: Nafisa M Jadavji, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.