1. Gwen Latendresse, PhD, CNM Jane Dyer, PhD CNM, FACNM Linda Edelman, PhD, RN Ginette Pepper, PhD, RN, FAAN

2. Background & Purpose  The NINR Strategic Plan (2011) & IOM Future of Nursing Report (2010) statements:  Need for a cadre of nurse scientists to ensure a strong base for practice and education (and research?).  The early stage investigator period is critical to generation of scientists to address the increasing complexity of nursing science  Our purpose is to describe innovative models that support early stage investigators

3. Specific Aims  Synthesize the career development needs of early investigators  Describe specific exemplars of research team approaches/models conducive to the growth of early investigators  Evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches

4. Methods  PubMed and CINAHL search  Identify publications 2000 to 2011 regarding career development of new investigators  Facilitated focus groups:  Early and late stage investigators  Large and small groups (external and internal)  Interviewed representatives from select schools reputed to have excellent mentoring programs  Synthesized data  Identified and implemented models for early career scientist development programs

5. Results: Needs of early investigators  Actual “protected” time for research  Sufficient training and administrative support in the preparation of research proposals, grant preparation, time management, and statistical support  “Active” mentoring from senior, and appropriately matched investigators (inclusion on publications, grant applications, research proposals, critique and feedback on project development and career advice) within multidisciplinary research teams

6. Results: Needs of early investigators  Supportive environment, including peer support  Interaction with colleagues in an intellectual community  Distance technology to facilitate long-distance mentoring  Support in developing research networks and teams

7. A sense of community Emotional Support Expressed Needs of New Investigators

8. Professional development Area Specific Feedback Expressed Needs of New Investigators

9. Institutional/Political sponsorship Access to Networks Expressed Needs of New Investigators

10. Expressed Concerns of New Investigators Unclear criteria for promotion & tenure Lack of Support for Work-Life Balance

11. Expressed Concerns of New Investigators Minimal feedback and support Need to front-load research portfolio

12. Expressed Concerns of New Investigators Long probationary period followed by a series of high-stakes, yet anonymous votes Ever-escalating expectations for research and funding

13. Results: Exemplars and Models  RITe Initiative (Research Innovation Team)  “Pre-centers” with a diversity of investigators, but with similar research interests/coherent theme  Enhance mentoring, shared resources, and intellectual engagement leading to increased research innovation and productivity  Resource incentives (i.e. FTE, $$, administrative support staff, statistical core, physical work space)  Outcome directed, e.g. increased submission of grant applications

14. Results: Exemplars and Models  Moving Ahead in your Academic Career (MAAC)  Monthly meeting of tenure-track faculty with Associate Dean for Research  Guest speakers  Affinity Groups:  “Women’s Health Research Affinity Group” provides a forum for engaging in the conceptualization, design, implementation, analysis, and dissemination of research related to women's health  Clinical/Research Partnerships

15. Results: Exemplars and Models  “K Club” approach: monthly meetings support new investigators by discussing and reviewing study proposals and grant applications  Interdisciplinary collaborations and mentoring  Inter-institutional collaborations and mentoring  Distance technology to facilitate mentoring  One-on-one career mentor; meeting on regular basis for guidance and accountability

16. Results: Advantages and disadvantages  Group mentoring increases ability to function in collaborative, multidisciplinary teams  Group mentoring fosters linkages between research interests  Leverages senior faculty and administrative support  Increased sense of progress in professional goals and confidence in scholarly pursuits  Perception of work/life balance is improved  Fosters research culture  Ability to attract and retain jr. faculty  Increased productivity? Advantages

17. Results: Advantages and disadvantages  One-on-one mentoring is not optimal for “team science” world  One-on-one mentoring lacks direct benefits to the mentor  High level of time, energy, and organization to develop teams  Limited number of senior faculty  Lack of match between senior and junior faculty  Funding not available for most mentoring unless obtained via non- “K” grant mechanisms  Mentoring of clinical faculty (i.e. DNP) into team science is problematic Disadvantages

18. Conclusions  A peer-mentored research team approach supports pre- tenure faculty, as well as student, mid-career and senior nurse investigators, and ultimately promotes the research mission of the institution, as well as nursing science.  Future plans: evaluate effectiveness of models for supporting early stage investigators using a dashboard of outcome indicators (i.e. number of publications and presentations, success in obtaining funding, satisfaction with investigator/academic role etc.)

19. Questions?