IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v54y2025i1s0048733324001604.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transitioning to independence in medical research: A qualitative study using a systems theory perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Stavropoulou, Charitini
  • Viney, Ian

Abstract

Early career researchers' transition to independence in academia is critical. Funding bodies across the world have established early career schemes specifically for researchers who are looking to lead on their first independent project, transitioning from postdoctoral researchers to principal investigators. We interviewed 51 individuals who had received an early career fellowship or award from the Medical Research Council in the UK and conducted 18 focused groups with 95 fellows using a novel tool to facilitate the discussion. Using a systems theory approach, we show that in the process of becoming independent, early career researchers often fall between the cracks of a system that fails to treat them as independent, they are not clear about career pathways in research, and they receive conflicting information about their career progression. More than individual influences, such as motivation for research and gender, contextual factors, such as funding support, institutional commitment and wider political factors influence the career progression of individuals. Early career researchers do not always feel they have the level of institutional support they expected. These findings highlight structural challenges that early career researchers face when transitioning to independence and suggest there is still ground to be covered to meet the commitment universities and research institutions to support the career development of researchers. The challenges identified are not unique to the UK context and can inform funding policies across the word.

Suggested Citation

  • Stavropoulou, Charitini & Viney, Ian, 2025. "Transitioning to independence in medical research: A qualitative study using a systems theory perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(1).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:54:y:2025:i:1:s0048733324001604
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2024.105111
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324001604
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2024.105111?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donna K. Ginther & Shulamit Kahn, 2004. "Women in Economics: Moving Up or Falling Off the Academic Career Ladder?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 18(3), pages 193-214, Summer.
    2. Azoulay, Pierre & Greenblatt, Wesley H. & Heggeness, Misty L., 2021. "Long-term effects from early exposure to research: Evidence from the NIH “Yellow Berets”," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    3. Christine O’Connell & Merryn McKinnon, 2021. "Perceptions of Barriers to Career Progression for Academic Women in STEM," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, March.
    4. Catherine Buffington & Benjamin Cerf & Christina Jones & Bruce A. Weinberg, 2016. "STEM Training and Early Career Outcomes of Female and Male Graduate Students: Evidence from UMETRICS Data Linked to the 2010 Census," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 333-338, May.
    5. Lerchenmueller, Marc J. & Sorenson, Olav, 2018. "The gender gap in early career transitions in the life sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1007-1017.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Singhal, Karan & Sierminska, Eva, 2024. "Inequality in the Economics Profession," IZA Discussion Papers 17584, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Meoli, Azzurra & Piva, Evila & Righi, Hérica, 2024. "Missing women in STEM occupations: The impact of university education on the gender gap in graduates' transition to work," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(8).
    3. Emre Özel, 2024. "What is Gender Bias in Grant Peer review?," Working Papers halshs-03862027, HAL.
    4. Andrea Paz & Carolina Pardo-Díaz, 2024. "Female researchers are under-represented in the Colombian science infrastructure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(3), pages 1-18, March.
    5. Mancuso, Raffaele & Rossi-Lamastra, Cristina & Franzoni, Chiara, 2023. "Topic choice, gendered language, and the under-funding of female scholars in mission-oriented research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    6. Graddy-Reed, Alexandra & Lanahan, Lauren & Eyer, Jonathan, 2019. "Gender discrepancies in publication productivity of high-performing life science graduate students," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    7. Emilia Del Bono & Andrea Weber & Rudolf Winter-Ebmer, 2012. "Clash Of Career And Family: Fertility Decisions After Job Displacement," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 659-683, August.
    8. Muriel Niederle & Lise Vesterlund, 2007. "Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(3), pages 1067-1101.
    9. Bosquet, Clément & Combes, Pierre-Philippe & Garcia-Penalosa, Cecilia, 2013. "Gender and competition: evidence from academic promotions in France," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 58350, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Julian Kolev & Yuly Fuentes-Medel & Fiona Murray, 2019. "Is Blinded Review Enough? How Gendered Outcomes Arise Even Under Anonymous Evaluation," NBER Working Papers 25759, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Dolado, Juan J & Felgueroso, Florentino & Almunia, Miguel, 2005. "Do Men and Women Economists Choose the Same Research Fields?: Evidence From Top 50 Departments," CEPR Discussion Papers 5421, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Iturrieta Reyes, Paula, 2021. "Mujeres Economistas y Publicaciones. Diagnóstico Cualitativo de Mujeres Economistas y sus Publicaciones en Chile," Documentos de Trabajo 9, Estudios Nueva Economía.
    13. Grosch, Kerstin & Häckl, Simone & Kocher, Martin G., 2022. "Closing the gender STEM gap: A large-scale randomized-controlled trial in elementary schools," Department of Economics Working Paper Series 329, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    14. Michele Pezzoni & Fabiana Visentin, 2024. "Gender bias in team formation: the case of the European Science Foundation’s grants," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(2), pages 247-260.
    15. Gorodnichenko, Yuriy & Pham, Tho & Talavera, Oleksandr, 2021. "Conference presentations and academic publishing," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 228-254.
    16. John Robst & Jennifer VanGilder, 2016. "The relationship between faculty characteristics and the use of norm- and criteria-based grading," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1127746-112, December.
    17. Shulamit Kahn & Donna Ginther, 2017. "Women and STEM," NBER Working Papers 23525, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Verónica Amarante & Marisa Bucheli & María Inés Moraes & Tatiana Pérez, 2021. "Women in Research in Economics in Uruguay," Revista Cuadernos de Economia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, FCE, CID, vol. 40(84), pages 763-790, October.
    19. David Colander & Jessica Holmes, 2007. "Gender and graduate economics education in the US," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 93-116.
    20. Donna K. Ginther & Rina Na, 2021. "Does Mentoring Increase the Collaboration Networks of Female Economists? An Evaluation of the CeMENT Randomized Trial," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 111, pages 80-85, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:54:y:2025:i:1:s0048733324001604. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.