Resources for Early Career Researchers: A Collection of Guides & Perspectives
Science today—how we do it and how we communicate it—is a rapidly evolving landscape with technological advancements, cultural shifts, and global change. Early career researchers (ECRs) are not only training in these dynamic and competitive environments but also challenging norms and creating solutions so that science can advance in productive, responsible, and sustainable ways.
FACETS is highly supportive of ECRs. To help them navigate through these new challenges and achieve a successful career, we are providing a collection of perspectives on philosophical and practical aspects of research, academia, and science publishing.
This curated Collection includes resources on inclusive language in writing a grant, communicating science effectively, the responsible use of social media, working with Indigenous communities, and more.
New submissions welcome
This is an ongoing collection and will be continually updated with relevant articles published in FACETS.
To have your article considered for this collection, at step 3 of the submission process in ScholarOne specify that your manuscript is intended for the Resources for Early Career Researchers Collection.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Steven J. Cooke,
- Vivian M. Nguyen,
- Dimitry Anastakis,
- Shannon D. Scott,
- Merritt R. Turetsky,
- Alidad Amirfazli,
- Alison Hearn,
- Cynthia E. Milton,
- Laura Loewen,
- Eric E. Smith,
- D. Ryan Norris,
- Kim L. Lavoie,
- Alice Aiken,
- Daniel Ansari,
- Alissa N. Antle,
- Molly Babel,
- Jane Bailey,
- Daniel M. Bernstein,
- Rachel Birnbaum,
- Carrie Bourassa,
- Antonio Calcagno,
- Aurélie Campana,
- Bing Chen,
- Karen Collins,
- Catherine E. Connelly,
- Myriam Denov,
- Benoît Dupont,
- Eric George,
- Irene Gregory-Eaves,
- Steven High,
- Josephine M. Hill,
- Philip L. Jackson,
- Nathalie Jette,
- Mark Jurdjevic,
- Anita Kothari,
- Paul Khairy,
- Sylvie A. Lamoureux,
- Kiera Ladner,
- Christian R. Landry,
- François Légaré,
- Nadia Lehoux,
- Christian Leuprecht,
- Angela R. Lieverse,
- Artur Luczak,
- Mark L. Mallory,
- Erin Manning,
- Ali Mazalek,
- Stuart J. Murray,
- Lenore L. Newman,
- Valerie Oosterveld,
- Patrice Potvin,
- Sheryl Reimer-Kirkham,
- Jennifer Rowsell,
- Dawn Stacey,
- Susan L. Tighe,
- David J. Vocadlo,
- Anne E. Wilson, and
- Andrew Woolford
Various multiple-disciplinary terms and concepts (although most commonly “interdisciplinarity,” which is used herein) are used to frame education, scholarship, research, and interactions within and outside academia. In principle, the premise of interdisciplinarity may appear to have many strengths; yet, the extent to which interdisciplinarity is embraced by the current generation of academics, the benefits and risks for doing so, and the barriers and facilitators to achieving interdisciplinarity, represent inherent challenges. Much has been written on the topic of interdisciplinarity, but to our knowledge there have been few attempts to consider and present diverse perspectives from scholars, artists, and scientists in a cohesive manner. As a team of 57 members from the Canadian College of New Scholars, Artists, and Scientists of the Royal Society of Canada (the College) who self-identify as being engaged or interested in interdisciplinarity, we provide diverse intellectual, cultural, and social perspectives. The goal of this paper is to share our collective wisdom on this topic with the broader community and to stimulate discourse and debate on the merits and challenges associated with interdisciplinarity. Perhaps the clearest message emerging from this exercise is that working across established boundaries of scholarly communities is rewarding, necessary, and is more likely to result in impact. However, there are barriers that limit the ease with which this can occur (e.g., lack of institutional structures and funding to facilitate cross-disciplinary exploration). Occasionally, there can be significant risk associated with doing interdisciplinary work (e.g., lack of adequate measurement or recognition of work by disciplinary peers). Solving many of the world’s complex and pressing problems (e.g., climate change, sustainable agriculture, the burden of chronic disease, and aging populations) demands thinking and working across long-standing, but in some ways restrictive, academic boundaries. Academic institutions and key support structures, especially funding bodies, will play an important role in helping to realize what is readily apparent to all who contributed to this paper—that interdisciplinarity is essential for solving complex problems; it is the new norm. Failure to empower and encourage those doing this research will serve as a great impediment to training, knowledge, and addressing societal issues. - OPEN ACCESSInuit Nunangat, including Nunavik, is seeing an ever-increasing number of research projects. While mainstream approaches to research are colonial in nature and have historically contributed to the oppression of Indigenous peoples, a new paradigm is now emerging from Indigenous recommendations. Researchers are encouraged to collaborate with Inuit or Northern communities, organizations, and governments and to develop communication strategies to keep local populations informed. This paper focuses on outreach activities organized on several occasions throughout the Ice Monitoring project, in which we participated as PhD students. We share details on this periodic outreach program, which included a Facebook page, hosting an information table at the Co-op store, activities with high school classes, and participation in Raglan Mine’s Environmental Forum. We also discuss lessons learned and the transformation of our practice.
- OPEN ACCESSLapses in scientific integrity, such as plagiarism, persist in the scientific realm. To be successful and contributory, early-career researchers (ECRs), including graduate students, need to be able to effectively navigate the literature, peer-review process, and scientific research with integrity. Here we discuss different aspects of scientific integrity related to ECRs. Our discussion centres on the concepts of plagiarism and intellectual property, predatory journals, aspects of peer review, transparency in publishing, and false advanced accreditations. Negative elements within these topics may be especially damaging to ECRs, who may be less familiar with the research landscape. We highlight the need for ECRs to approach scientific investigation cautiously and thoughtfully to promote integrity through critical thinking.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Natalie M. Sopinka,
- Laura E. Coristine,
- Maria C. DeRosa,
- Chelsea M. Rochman,
- Brian L. Owens, and
- Steven J. Cooke
Consider for a moment the rate of advancement in the scientific understanding of DNA. It is formidable; from Fredrich Miescher’s nuclein extraction in the 1860s to Rosalind Franklin’s double helix X-ray in the 1950s to revolutionary next-generation sequencing in the late 2000s. Now consider the scientific paper, the medium used to describe and publish these advances. How is the scientific paper advancing to meet the needs of those who generate and use scientific information? We review four essential qualities for the scientific paper of the future: (i) a robust source of trustworthy information that remains peer reviewed and is (ii) communicated to diverse users in diverse ways, (iii) open access, and (iv) has a measurable impact beyond Impact Factor. Since its inception, scientific literature has proliferated. We discuss the continuation and expansion of practices already in place including: freely accessible data and analytical code, living research and reviews, changes to peer review to improve representation of under-represented groups, plain language summaries, preprint servers, evidence-informed decision-making, and altmetrics. - OPEN ACCESSWomen in science, technology, engineering, and math are not equally represented across tenure-track career stages, and this extends to grant funding, where women applicants often have lower success rates compared with men. While gender bias in reviewers has been documented, it is currently unknown whether written language in grant applications varies predictably with gender to elicit bias against women. Here we analyse the text of ∼2000 public research summaries from the 2016 Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) individual Discovery Grant (DG) program. We explore the relationship between language variables, inferred gender and career stage, and funding levels. We also analyse aggregated data from the 2012–2018 NSERC DG competitions to determine whether gender impacted the probability of receiving a grant for early-career researchers. We document a marginally significant gender difference in funding levels for successful grants, with women receiving $1756 less than men, and a large and significant difference in rejection rates among early-career applicants (women: 40.4% rejection; men: 33.0% rejection rate). Language variables had little ability to predict gender or funding level using predictive modelling. Our results indicate that NSERC funding levels and success rates differ between men and women, but we find no evidence that gendered language use affected funding outcomes.
- OPEN ACCESSA key dimension of our current era is Big Data, the rapid rise in produced data and information; a key frustration is that we are nonetheless living in an age of ignorance, as the real knowledge and understanding of people does not seem to be substantially increasing. This development has critical consequences, for example it limits the ability to find and apply effective solutions to pressing environmental and socioeconomic challenges. Here, we propose the concept of “knowledge in the dark”—or short: dark knowledge—and outline how it can help clarify key reasons for this development: (i) production of biased, erroneous, or fabricated data and information; (ii) inaccessibility and (iii) incomprehensibility of data and information; and (iv) loss of previous knowledge. Even in the academic realm, where financial interests are less pronounced than in the private sector, several factors lead to dark knowledge, that is they inhibit a more substantial increase in knowledge and understanding. We highlight four of these factors—loss of academic freedom, research biases, lack of reproducibility, and the Scientific tower of Babel—and offer ways to tackle them, for example establishing an international court of arbitration for research and developing advanced tools for research synthesis.
- OPEN ACCESSNowadays, individuals heavily rely on search engines for seeking information. The presence of information bubbles (filter bubbles and echo chambers) can threaten the effectiveness of these systems in providing unbiased information and damage healthy civic discourse and open-minded deliberation. In this paper, we propose a new paradigm for search that aims at mitigating the information bubble in the search. The paradigm, which we call perspective-based search (PBS), is based on the intuition that in a fair search the user should not be limited to the results corresponding to a specific perspective of the search topic. Briefly, in PBS, different perspectives of the search topic are identified and presented to the user and the user can select a perspective for the search results. In this paper, we focus on the paradigm itself, why it is an appropriate solution, and how it differs from other solutions. We raise new questions and call for research on the paradigm and on providing solutions for implementing its required components. We do not aim at providing any specific implementation for it, although we provide some hints on implementing it. We also provide a survey of the related concepts and methods and discuss their differences with PBS.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Kim-Ly Thompson,
- Nikkita Reece,
- Nicole Robinson,
- Havana-Jae Fisher,
- Natalie C. Ban, and
- Chris R. Picard
Researchers and government agencies are increasingly embracing Indigenous knowledge to inform ecological monitoring. However, there are few detailed accounts of designing monitoring methods based in Indigenous knowledge to meet Indigenous objectives. This research details the design of a program initiated by the Gitga’at First Nation to document the knowledge and observations of their harvesters as a contemporary monitoring initiative. We, Gitga’at and academic researchers, first conducted informal interviews with knowledge holders to gauge interest and to establish community objectives. We then convened community meetings and workshops to design methods to document harvesters’ knowledge and observations. We tested and revised these methods (a post-harvest season interview guide, and a logbook to be completed by harvesters) over the course of two harvest seasons. Semi-structured interviews were more successful than the logbooks in meeting multiple community monitoring objectives. However, we were encouraged by younger participants’ suggestions to develop a digital app based on the logbook to encourage future participation. Our work can serve as a guide to other Indigenous peoples and collaborators who wish to leverage the knowledge of their land and (or) sea users, and the methods we develop are available to adapt to other cultural, social-ecological, and political contexts. - OPEN ACCESS
- Gwyneth A. MacMillan,
- Marianne Falardeau,
- Catherine Girard,
- Sophie Dufour-Beauséjour,
- Justine Lacombe-Bergeron,
- Allyson K. Menzies, and
- Dominique A. Henri
For decades, Indigenous voices have called for more collaborative and inclusive research practices. Interest in community-collaborative research is consequently growing among university-based researchers in Canada. However, many researchers receive little formal training on how to collaboratively conduct research with Indigenous communities. This is particularly problematic for early-career researchers (ECRs) whose fieldwork often involves interacting with communities. To address this lack of training, two peer-led workshops for Canadian ECRs were organized in 2016 and 2017 with the following objectives: (i) to cultivate awareness about Indigenous cultures, histories, and languages; (ii) to promote sharing of Indigenous and non-Indigenous ways of knowing; and (iii) to foster approaches and explore tools for conducting community-collaborative research. Here we present these peer-led Intercultural Indigenous Workshops and discuss workshop outcomes according to five themes: scope and interdisciplinarity, Indigenous representation, workshop environment, skillful moderation, and workshop outcomes. Although workshops cannot replace the invaluable experience gained through working directly with Indigenous communities, we show that peer-led workshops can be an effective way for ECRs to develop key skills for conducting meaningful collaborative research. Peer-led workshops are therefore an important but insufficient step toward more inclusive research paradigms in Canada. - OPEN ACCESS
- Katrine Turgeon,
- Sarah C.F. Hawkshaw,
- Kristin M. Dinning,
- Brady K. Quinn,
- Danielle N. Edwards,
- Catarina Wor,
- Courtenay E. Parlee,
- Allan Debertin,
- Mike Hawkshaw,
- Benjamin W. Nelson,
- Fan Zhang,
- Laura Benestan,
- Eric Angel,
- Bryan L. Morse, and
- Daniel Mombourquette
Fisheries involve complex problems not easily addressed by a single discipline, methodology, or set of stakeholders. In 2010, the Canadian Fisheries Research Network (CFRN) was initiated to increase fisheries research capacity in Canada through interdisciplinary and inclusive research collaborations. As post-graduate students in the network, we reflected on the type of training necessary to tackle fisheries problems and reviewed opportunities available at Canadian universities to receive such training. This paper presents an overview of fisheries education currently available in Canada, reflects on our training within the CFRN, and proposes improvements to fisheries education and research. Our review of the subject revealed few dedicated fisheries programs, limited interdisciplinary programs, few specialized fisheries training programs, and a heavy reliance on academic supervisors to secure research opportunities in fisheries. In contrast, the CFRN enhanced our training by deliberately focusing on tools and techniques to address fisheries issues, providing venues to foster interdisciplinary and inclusive research collaborations, and exposing the realities of stakeholder collaborations. We call for post-graduate-level fisheries education and research that is interdisciplinary, collaborative, and inclusive to produce well-rounded scientists and managers, and we suggest ways that universities, researchers, and funding agencies can incorporate these themes into fisheries education and research. - OPEN ACCESS
- OPEN ACCESS
- Nora J. Casson,
- Colin J. Whitfield,
- Helen M. Baulch,
- Sheryl Mills,
- Rebecca L. North, and
- Jason J. Venkiteswaran
Engagement of undergraduate students in research has been demonstrated to correlate with improved academic performance and retention. Research experience confers many benefits on participants, particularly foundational skills necessary for graduate school and careers in scientific disciplines. Undergraduate curricula often do not adequately develop collaborative skills that are becoming increasingly useful in many workplaces and research settings. Here, we describe a pilot program that engages undergraduates in research and incorporates learning objectives designed to develop and enhance collaborative techniques and skills in team science that are not typical outcomes of the undergraduate research experience. We conducted a collaborative science project that engaged faculty advisors and upper year undergraduates at four institutions and conducted a review to assess the program’s efficacy. Students developed a broad suite of competencies related to collaborative science, above and beyond the experience of completing individual projects. This model also affords distinct advantages to faculty advisors, including the capacity of the network to collect and synthesize data from different regions. The model for training students to conduct collaborative science at an early stage of their career is scalable and adaptable to a wide range of fields. We provide recommendations for refining and implementing this model in other contexts. - OPEN ACCESSThere have been strong calls for scientists to share their discoveries with society. Some scientists have heeded these calls through social media platforms such as Twitter. Here, we ask whether Twitter allows scientists to promote their findings primarily to other scientists (“inreach”), or whether it can help them reach broader, non-scientific audiences (“outreach”). We analyzed the Twitter followers of more than 100 faculty members in ecology and evolutionary biology and found that their followers are, on average, predominantly (∼55%) other scientists. However, beyond a threshold of ∼1000 followers, the range of follower types became more diverse and included research and educational organizations, media, members of the public with no stated association with science, and a small number of decision-makers. This varied audience was, in turn, followed by more people, resulting in an exponential increase in the social media reach of tweeting academic scientists. Tweeting, therefore, has the potential to disseminate scientific information widely after initial efforts to gain followers. These results should encourage scientists to invest in building a social media presence for scientific outreach.
- OPEN ACCESSScience helps us identify problems, understand their extent, and begin to find solutions; it helps us understand future directions for our society. Scientists bear witness to scenes of change and discovery that most people will never experience. Yet the vividness of these experiences is often left out when scientists talk and write about their work. A growing community of practice is showing that scientists can share their message in an engaging way using a strategy that most are already familiar with: storytelling. Here we draw on our experiences leading scientist communication training and hosting science storytelling events at the International Marine Conservation Congress to share basic techniques, tips, and resources for incorporating storytelling into any scientist’s communication toolbox.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Steven J. Cooke,
- Austin J. Gallagher,
- Natalie M. Sopinka,
- Vivian M. Nguyen,
- Rachel A. Skubel,
- Neil Hammerschlag,
- Sarah Boon,
- Nathan Young, and
- Andy J. Danylchuk
It is increasingly common for scientists to engage in sharing science-related knowledge with diverse knowledge users—an activity called science communication. Given that many scientists now seek information on how to communicate effectively, we have generated a list of 16 important considerations for those interested in science communication: (1) Define what science communication means to you and your research; (2) Know—and listen to—your target audience; (3) Consider a diverse but coordinated communication portfolio; (4) Draft skilled players and build a network; (5) Create and seize opportunities; (6) Be creative when you communicate; (7) Focus on the science in science communication; (8) Be an honest broker; (9) Understand the science of science communication; (10) Think like an entrepreneur; (11) Don’t let your colleagues stop you; (12) Integrate science communication into your research program; (13) Recognize how science communication enhances your science; (14) Request science communication funds from grants; (15) Strive for bidirectional communication; and (16) Evaluate, reflect, and be prepared to adapt. It is our ambition that the ideas shared here will encourage readers to engage in science communication and increase the effectiveness of those already active in science communication, stimulating them to share their experiences with others. - OPEN ACCESS
- H.H. Wagner,
- S. Temple,
- I. Dankert, and
- R. Napper
This paper completes a two-part series on graduate advising that integrates concepts from adult learning, leadership, and psychology into a conceptual framework for graduate advising. The companion paper discussed how to establish a learning-centered working relationship where advisor and graduate student collaborate in different roles to develop the student’s competence and confidence in all aspects of becoming a scientist. To put these ideas into practice, an advisor and a student need to communicate effectively. Here, we focus on the dynamics of day-to-day interactions and discuss (1) how to provide feedback that builds students’ competence and confidence, (2) how to choose the way we communicate and avoid a mismatch between verbal and nonverbal communication, and (3) how to prevent and resolve conflict. Miscommunication may happen out of a lack of understanding of the psychological aspects of human interactions. Therefore, we draw on concepts from Educational Transactional Analysis to provide advisors and students with an understanding of the psychological aspects of graduate advising as a basis for effective communication. Case studies illustrate the relevance of the concepts presented, and four worksheets (Supplementary Material) support their practical implementation. - OPEN ACCESS
- H.H. Wagner,
- C. Boyd, and
- R. Napper
This paper starts a two-part series on graduate advising that integrates concepts from adult learning, leadership, and psychology into a conceptual framework for graduate advising. A companion paper provides guidance on how to communicate effectively in graduate advising. Here, we present concepts and tools that enable advisors and graduate students to collaborate effectively and share the responsibility for the student’s learning. We specifically discuss (1) how to promote learning about learning to help students make sense of their experience and identify their supervision needs; (2) how to clarify roles and address conflicts of interest between different roles; and (3) how to establish an effective, learning-centered working relationship. By making the advising process explicit, using the concepts and worksheets presented here, advisors will contribute to the training of the next generation of graduate advisors. - OPEN ACCESSIn setting up a data access policy to share controlled access data from the McGill Epigenomics Mapping Centre (EMC), an International Human Epigenome Consortium (IHEC) partner project, we encountered ethical and legal challenges that are likely to be relevant to other researchers sharing data, especially from Canadian projects. We discuss our solutions to the following data-sharing challenges, based on comparative legal and policy analysis: (1) providing access to data to a growing number of researchers; (2) maintaining Canadian privacy standards while sharing controlled access data internationally; (3) freedom of information requests; and (4) providing more incentives for researchers to share pre-publication data.
- OPEN ACCESSFor science communication to be effective, scientists must understand which sources of information their target audiences most frequently use and trust. We surveyed academic and non-academic scientists, natural resource managers, policymakers, students, and the general public about how they access, trust, and communicate scientific information. We found trust and use of information sources was related to participant age and group identity, but all groups had high levels of use and trust of personal experience and colleagues. Academic journals were the most trusted source by all groups, and social media the least trusted by most groups. The level of communication between target groups was not always bilateral, with the public generally perceiving their interaction with all other groups as low. These results provide remarkable insight into the flow of scientific information. We present these findings in the context of facilitating information flow between scientists and other stakeholders of scientific information.