The Development of Scientific Communication Skills: A Qualitative Study of the Perceptions of Trainees and Their Mentors

Abstract

Purpose

Scientific communication, both written and oral, is the cornerstone of success in biomedical research, yet formal instruction is rarely provided. Trainees with little exposure to Standard Academic English may find developing scientific communication skills challenging. In this exploratory, hypothesis-generating qualitative study, the authors examined the process by which mentored junior researchers learn scientific communication skills, their feelings about the challenges, and their mentor’s role in the process.

Method

In 2010, the authors conducted semi-structured focus groups and interviews to explore research trainees’ and faculty mentors’ perceptions and practices regarding scientific communication skills development, as part of the development phase of a larger quantitative study. The facilitator took detailed notes and verified their accuracy with participants during the sessions; a second member of the research team observed and verified the recorded notes. Three coders performed a thematic analysis, and the other authors reviewed it.

Results

Forty-three trainees and 50 mentors participated. Trainees and mentors had diverging views on the role of mentoring in fostering communication skills development. Trainees expressed varying levels of self-confidence but considerable angst. Mentors felt that most trainees have low self-confidence. Trainees expressed interest in learning scientific communication skills, but mentors reported that some trainees were insufficiently motivated and seemed resistant to guidance. Both groups agreed that trainees found mentors’ feedback difficult to accept.

Conclusions

The degree of distress, dissatisfaction, and lack of mutual understanding between mentors and trainees was striking. These themes have important implications for best practices and resource development.

As doctoral students and postdoctoral fellows in the biomedical sciences progress through their academic careers, they are trained not only in research skills but also in the norms of their disciplines.¹ This model is in keeping with the apprenticeship style of teaching that dominates graduate basic science education--the required “curriculum” of skills and behaviors often is not explicit and is taught by role modeling rather that formal didactics.² Despite educators’ wide acceptance of the critical importance of written and oral communication skills for trainees to succeed in academic research^1-6, formal education in this area is seldom a top priority for graduate programs, and organizing communication training is typically a major challenge for trainees and mentors^* alike. Even when trainees begin producing publishable research, formal communication training is often not available to them.

As graduate students in the biomedical sciences begin to transition from the student model of education to the apprentice model of research training, entering a community of practice⁷, they typically develop dedicated relationships with their supervising principal investigator. In these relationships, the mentor, often the principal investigator, provides training unique to the discipline and research specialty and plays a major role in the trainee’s socialization in the discipline. The trainees’ responsibilities include beginning to produce formal professional-level oral and written products acceptable to the community and to develop the capacity to participate in the informal professional discourse of the community. Eager to enter the discipline, trainees seek to emulate the particular styles and conventions modeled by their research mentors.^1,8-11 During this process, research mentors help trainees develop oral and written communication skills ad hoc, often with little experience in language education and few resources. Not all mentors however view this job as part of their responsibilities as mentors.^1,12

For the growing number of mentors and trainees for whom English is not their primary language, these issues regarding oral and written communication skills are more complex. These trainees do not always recognize that their writing abilities need improvement¹³, and they may find that developing their English skills is overwhelming as they work to bridge the gaps between their grammar, vocabulary, syntax, and rhetorical styles and those of formal scientific English.^6,14-16 Mentors who are themselves non-native English speakers in turn can find the responsibility of instructing their trainees in spoken and written English especially challenging. Because of the important role that mentors play in trainees’ development¹, knowing more about how mentors and trainees navigate both this process of teaching and learning scientific communication skills and trainees’ entrance into communities of practice can help us to create the most useful and practical methods and resources to support this critical learning.

Some innovative scientific communication programs already exist. For example, Cargill and O’Connor¹⁷ created writing courses that are delivered through the Chinese Academy of Sciences, which pair a science content expert with a writing expert to teach English-language research writing skills. Also, the Dissertation House program at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (http://my.umbc.edu/groups/dh) and other similar programs, as well as less formal writing groups, provide social and content-area support to graduate students struggling with writer’s block and writing-related procrastination and time management obstacles. The Writing and Publishing Scientific Articles workshop at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC)⁵, which is taught by scientific editors, provides interactive and in-depth instruction in the format and content of research articles, while the Scientific English program, also at MDACC⁴, accelerates non-native English speaking trainees’ acquisition of spoken and written English.

In addition to such programs, textbooks and instruction manuals on scientific writing^15-16,18-21 are readily available. While undeniably valuable, these resources do not fully address the developmental needs of trainees. Skillful scientific writing requires not only a full command of the scientific content but also interpretive and critical thinking skills, organizational skills, and the mastery of paraphrase and summary, grammar, and diction. Furthermore, trainees must apply culture-specific rhetorical conventions that underpin both English-language and discipline-specific academic discourse--the secret handshake that is easy when you know it but mysterious and opaque when you do not.^{8,14,15,22,23} Learning these skills is a gradual process, with continuous practice accompanied by specific, constructive feedback.^1,2,11,24-26 In addition to working hard to master technical writing skills, many trainees (and some of their mentors) also struggle with affective challenges, such as writer’s block and perfection paralysis.^27-28

Not only do trainees have to master such written communication skills, but they also must develop oral communication skills, including those for both planned presentations (journal clubs, conference presentations) and spontaneous speech (lab discussions, professional networking). Both types of professional oral communication require standardized academic styles of pronunciation and grammar, specialized vocabulary and phrasing, and culturally appropriate scientific arguments.^15,23,29 For trainees with limited or no exposure to Standard Academic English in their formative years, acquiring these skills may be exceptionally challenging and accompanied by anxiety, discouragement, shame, and possibly apprehension about discrimination.³⁰ Speech characteristics (such as accent, grammar, dialect) are powerful markers of identity and belonging, and differences in speech are often interpreted as markers of the speaker’s diminished credibility.^30-40 Regardless of trainees’ linguistic background or acquired repertoire, however, their oral communication skills are limited by affective barriers, such as public speaking anxiety and shyness.^41-45 Anxiety about public speaking can be particularly debilitating for non-native English speaking trainees and may ultimately inhibit their academic performance⁴⁶ and goal achievement.⁴⁷

While a few studies describe the difficulties that mentors and mentees face in teaching and learning oral and written scientific communication skills^1,12,47, we are unaware of any that report on systematic investigations into the dynamics of mentor-mentee interaction, including either the perspectives of both mentors and trainees or all forms of scientific communication. Neither are we aware of any programs that purposefully assist both trainees and their mentors in learning and teaching scientific communication skills. Courses, writing groups, workshops, and textbooks are undoubtedly useful, but given that mentor feedback is the dominant means by which trainees acquire scientific communication skills¹, we must pay more attention to how trainees and mentors imagine, experience, and construct this process. This knowledge will help us to find ways to benefit both trainees and mentors as they work together.

In this exploratory, hypothesis-generating qualitative study, we examined how mentored junior researchers acquire scientific communication skills and what role mentoring plays in the process. We conducted focus groups and interviews with mentors and trainees at an academic health science institution with the goal of eliciting themes and constructs related to how mentors and trainees perceive trainees’ development of writing skills, oral presentation skills, and skills in spontaneous conversation, as well as the role that mentors play in this process.

Method

Study design

From June through August 2010, we conducted one hour focus groups with a purposive sample of postdoctoral fellows and doctoral students as well as faculty who serve as research mentors at MDACC. We stratified groups by gender and language status (L1, English is the primary language or L2, English is not the primary language). We asked participants to self-identify their language status, based on the language with which they were most comfortable. Questions differed for trainees and mentors. After an extensive review of the literature on mentoring, scientific communication skills development, and sociolinguistics, an interdisciplinary team of investigators worked together to develop the focus group scripts. The team included specialists in scientific mentoring skills development; issues of race, ethnicity, and gender in scientific mentoring; sociolinguistics; scientific communication skills; qualitative research and focus group methodology; psychometrics; and statistics. We designed and conducted the focus groups according to methods described by Krueger.⁴⁸ An experienced interviewer (MG) participated in the script development and facilitated the focus groups using a semi-structured format. See Supplemental Digital Appendix 1 [LWW INSERT LINK] for the complete focus group scripts.

Procedures and participant recruitment

At MDACC, an average of 1,115 trainees are assigned to 550 faculty mentors in recent years. Among those trainees, approximately 9% are members of underrepresented minority (URM) groups and 70% are visa holders. Among those mentors, approximately 6% are members of URM groups (data on international origins were unavailable).

We solicited participants through email invitations sent by the MDACC Office of Institutional Research to distribution lists of trainees and faculty in the basic biomedical, population, behavioral, and quantitative sciences. The email invitations stated the eligibility criteria for participants. Trainees were required to be either doctoral students or postdoctoral fellows working with supervising research mentors; some were members of structured training programs and others were not. Faculty were required to have mentored doctoral students or postdoctoral fellows. All respondents who accepted the invitation were included in one focus group or, for those with time conflicts, scheduled for an interview. The MDACC institutional review board approved our study, and all participants provided written informed consent. Each participant received a $10 gift card to an MDACC dining facility, and, at each focus group, lunch was served.

A licensed clinical social worker from the MDACC Employee Assistance Program was present during all trainee focus groups in the event that participants appeared distressed or requested a personal discussion after the focus group. Although, we did not receive any such requests. The expert facilitator (MG) recorded all participants’ answers and comments on flip charts and transcribed the focus group session and interview notes. The research team anticipated that participants would express significant concerns regarding mentor/trainee confidentiality; therefore, to maximize participation, we did not audiotape the sessions. To ensure accuracy of the transcribed session notes, the facilitator consistently verified the chart notes with the participants during the sessions. In addition, the social worker verified the accuracy of the facilitator’s note-taking during and after the sessions. The facilitator and social worker later recorded their impressions of the tone and dynamics of the focus groups in separate documents as supplementary information, although we did not use their impressions in our analysis or theme generation. We used a similar verification process for the interviews. Two members of the research team (CC, CLC) were present for each interview, and the interviewer (CC) conducted continuous verification with the interviewee.

Because trainees are required to demonstrate proficiency in English by passing the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) before they are accepted to MDACC, we did not use translators during the focus groups. We gave each participant a written copy of the focus group questions to prevent any misunderstanding of the questions, and the facilitator and social worker closely monitored participants’ comprehension. Participants’ responses indicated adequate comprehension.

Three members of the research team (SC, CC, CLC) separately read and re-read the focus group notes and interview transcripts. They hand-coded the participants’ contributions and categorized them into common themes; they did not create any categories in advance. All three researchers recorded emerging themes and discussed them together. Using the constant comparative method, they iteratively discussed, compared, and refined the codes, categories, and themes until they reached a consensus.⁴⁹ The focus group facilitator and social worker did not participate in this coding and categorizing process. Three other members of the research team (MG, CDB) (including the focus group facilitator and social worker) then reviewed the codes, categories, and themes. Finally, two randomly chosen participants from the trainee focus groups conducted member checking of the themes and quotes and confirmed the themes. Faculty focus group participants were not available for member checking.

Results

We conducted 8 trainee focus groups total, 2 focus groups for each of 4 trainee groupings, stratified by language status and gender (L1 women, L1 men, L2 women, L2 men), and 6 trainees each participated in a 30-minute telephone interview (n = 43; 27 women, 16 men; 10 URM). We also conducted 10 faculty mentor focus groups total, 4 focus groups for each of L1 women and L1 men, and 1 each of L2 women and L2 men, and 16 mentors completed a 30-50 minute telephone interview each (n = 50; 22 women, 28 men; 2 URM) (see Table 1 for complete data).

Table 1.

Characteristics of Participants by Language Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Gender in a Qualitative Study of Trainees and Their Mentors Regarding the Development of Scientific Communication Skills, 2010

	Trainees			Mentors
Characteristic	Total No. (% of 43)	Male No. (% of 16)	Female No. (% of 27)	Total No. (% of 50)	Male No. (% of 28)	Female No. (% of 22)
Language status *
L1	29 (67)	10 (63)	19 (70)	39 (78)	21 (75)	18 (82)
L2	14 (33)	6 (37)	8 (30)	11 (22)	7 (25)	4 (18)
Underrepresented minority (URM) status
Hispanic/Latino	8 (19)	2 (13)	6 (22)†	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
African American	2 (5)	1 (6)	1 (4)	2 (4)	0 (0)	2 (9)
Not URM	33 (77)	13 (81)	20 (74)	48 (96)	28 (100)	20 (91)

^*L1 indicates English is the primary language; L2, English is not the primary language.

^†Three of these 6 are L2 Hispanic/Latina females.

Salient themes in both trainee and mentor focus groups included perceptions of (1) trainees’ self-confidence in developing writing, presentation, and conversation skills, and mentors’ self-confidence in helping trainees acquire these skills; (2) trainees’ interest in developing scientific communication skills; (3) degree of mentors’ involvement in teaching scientific communication skills; and (4) trainees’ response to mentors’ feedback about their writing and speaking skills. The mentor focus groups raised 3 additional themes: (1) self-confidence in teaching scientific communication skills; (2) perceptions of trainees’ writing and speaking skills; and (3) perceptions of trainees’ attitudes as a barrier to teaching these skills. Themes were consistent across the focus groups and interviews, although the latter provided greater detail. See Table 2 for a summary of the themes and for supporting quotations.

Table 2.

Themes and Representative Quotations from a Qualitative Study of Trainees and Their Mentors Regarding the Development of Scientific Communication Skills, 2010^*

Theme	Trainees’ comments	Mentors’ comments
Trainees’ self-confidence in developing scientific communication skills	Most of the time my speech is similar [to that of other scientists], and when it isn’t, it doesn’t stop me from speaking. (L2 female) [I] was considering a faculty position; reconsidering academia now based on thoughts of my ability in scientific communication. (bilingual female; interview) My scientific writing is bad. (L1 female) I have received more attacks on my writing [than on my speaking]. [emphasis added] (L1 female) I was forced to present data to a lay audience. [emphasis added] (L1 female) It depends on the audience. If the audience has a statistics background, then I’m OK; if they do not, or they have a biology or chemistry background, then I am not OK. (L2 male)	Some are afraid to open their mouth; they have psychological problems; they must have had bad experiences somewhere else, not here at [our] institution, but yes in other places. (L2 male) They have an inferior feeling; many don’t understand the importance and their frustration builds more quickly. (L1 male) [Trainees] need to be responsive to help…The attitude is ‘Mom read it and it was fine’; defensive! They need to start practicing. (L1 female) [Trainee] reaction is not [to] acknowledge weakness in writing. (L2 female)
Trainees’ interest in developing scientific communication skills	My mentor wants me to do better in publications. (L1 female) There should be more pressure to write and speak more. It is hard to focus because of research. (L2 male) I need a lot of training. (L2 male) The environment isn’t set up to work on things like that. (L1 male)	Lack of appreciation [of the importance of] scientific writing to their career. (L1 male) They don’t write enough; I don’t know how to get around that. (L1 male) Publication record has a huge impact on their career, but they may feel we are torturing students. (L1 male) They are usually excellent on the bench but reluctant to try writing a draft. (L2 male)
Degree of mentors’ involvement in teaching scientific communication skills	My mentor encouraged me to get more practice. (L1 female) I get opportunities to test presentations, but I normally turn those down. (L1 male) [H]e gives feedback on writing--not grammar and wording--more on content and what to include in grant proposals. (L1 female) [My mentor] is more content focused; not on writing skills. (L1 male) When I ask my mentor for feedback on my writing, I do not get a straight answer. (L2 female) I have no help with writing--I need help. (L2 male) [We] don’t talk about speaking and writing. (L2 male) [She] doesn’t understand [my] concerns or fears; she does not realize the time it takes to prepare presentations, manuscripts, or emails. (L2 female) My mentor understands but does not give a specific plan to help. (L2 female) I receive no feedback from my mentor on my speaking skills. (L2 female) …never had a conversation about it. (L2 female) My mentor corrects my papers--it is his job and he’s good at it. (L2 male) My mentor is always pushing and says I will improve. (L2 female) [My mentor gives me feedback on my writing]…tells me everything that needs to improve--very good at how to improve. (L1 male)	Teaching grammar! I’m not an English major and this is hard! (L1 female) I’m…tired of redoing information for trainees; tired of problems with attitudes and the great responsibility. (L2 female) Resist the temptation to write it [myself]; it takes a long time for a thorough review. (L1 male) If it takes too long, I take over. (L1 male)
Trainees’ response to mentors’ feedback	[I was] taken aback. I realized he wanted a more polished presenter. (L1 male) It was devastating; it took me time to figure it out. (L1 female) I have trouble knowing what my mentor wants me to say. (L1 female) My mentor told me the way I presented made me seem like I didn’t know what I was saying; that felt bad. (L1 female) I was first shocked. (L2 male) My mentor speaks to me about writing and speaking skills using a ‘tough’ love, negative mentoring style. (L1 female)	[S]ome have a hard time recovering from criticism. (L1 female) Too many comments bring them down. (L1 female) The trainees need to take to heart the critique is not about them… [I tell them] if I can take it, you can take it. (L1 female) One student felt it was a privilege for a mentor; it should be their prerogative not to use their edits. (L1 female) They didn’t listen. (L1 female) I tell them to take the Scientific Publication course; their reaction is to ignore me. (L2 male) Some…are not receptive to changing their presentation style and it is sometimes tiring to argue with them. (L1 female) They don’t want to talk with their mentors about mistakes or what did not work. (L1 female)
Additional themes regarding mentoring in scientific communication skills		I can’t teach speech…I don’t have a solution. (L1 male) I do not give constructive oral feedback. (L1 female) It is quite difficult and always a problem and never get to the techniques. (L2 male) I would like to learn to communicate why the sentence is not well written. (L1 female) If I could get the time and courses were available, I would like to learn coaching pronunciation for English. (L1 male) I would like to know the professed diagnostics of other languages…and provide therapy. (L2 male) With English speakers, there is a problem with consistently poor grammar. (L1 female) ESL and non-ESL--don’t use proper scientific language. (L2 male) Even English majors have a problem with the style of scientific writing. (L1 male) Trainee laziness, procrastination; inability to…accept responsibility for writing. (L1 female) [R]esentful when mentioning deadlines. (L2 female) Our graduate students are like spoiled children…Their attitude is ‘why work?’. (L2 male) We need rules and regulations to work hard as a trainee [sic]. (L2 male) Overconfident; ill-prepared on topic. (L1 male)

^*L1 indicates English is the primary language; L2, English is not the primary language.

From these data, some trends emerged. L1 female trainees, for example, expressed low self-confidence relative to L1 male trainees and L2 female trainees. Although we did not use these observations in our analysis, the facilitator and social worker both reported observing L1 female trainees expressing a startling degree of insecurity, as revealed by their body language, tone of voice, and words. L2 male trainees almost uniformly expressed low self-confidence as well as sensitivity to the audience’s background when communicating through spoken English. L1 male trainees expressed the highest levels of self-confidence in both their writing and speaking skills. Mentors’ comments about trainees did not vary substantially by mentor gender or language status. Mentors consistently expressed frustration with trainees and with their limitations in helping trainees.

Discussion

Our results indicate that trainees’ development of scientific communication skills is a stressful and difficult process both for trainees and for their mentors. A wide divide separates mentors’ and trainees’ understanding of the process, the issues, and their experiences with each other.

We found that perceptions varied considerably about who is responsible for ensuring that trainees develop scientific communication skills. Trainees expressed awareness of the importance of learning these skills (they knew their mentors expected it), but they felt that their mentors did not always sufficiently help them develop these skills and that some even failed to provide social and/or emotional support during the process. Although some trainees described feeling comfortable with their scientific communication skills, many reported low levels of self-confidence. Mentors, on the other hand, expressed the view that their trainees were not sufficiently aware of the crucial importance of scientific communication skills, sometimes had poor attitudes or were reluctant to seek resources, and demonstrated poor communication skills, even late in training. Mentors also talked about the difficulty of working with trainees in this area and the effort it required, and they seemed to agree that their concerns applied to L1 trainees as well as to L2 trainees (in some cases, especially to L1 trainees). Although some mentors felt confident leading their trainees in developing their skills, many, especially L2 men, described a lack of confidence in their ability to teach trainees.

Others have reported findings similar to ours regarding L2 trainees’ needs and the burden placed on both trainees and mentors.^1,13 Kranov’s study of the development of scientific writing skills in L2 graduate students, using the Delphi method, is particularly detailed.¹² This study described trainees as facing an “exceedingly complex cognitive and social challenge” and faculty as facing “tremendously complex and challenging” barriers. Our study confirms these findings and further demonstrates that such issues are not limited to L2 students and their L1 mentors. Notably, mentors in our study emphasized that L1 trainees struggle with written communication skills just as L2 trainees do.

Our study also confirms many of the themes from the qualitative study by Aitchison and colleagues¹ who studied doctoral students, their mentors, and the development of scientific writing skills at a health sciences institution in Australia. The frustrations of mentors, the distress of trainees, the friction in giving and receiving feedback, and the lack of a common perspective between the two groups in our study were remarkably similar to the findings of the Australian study. Our participants even expressed similar sentiments (mentors: “it’s not my job”; “I’m not an English lecturer”; “it’s nothing personal”; “student[s] spoke of receiving demoralizing, unhelpful, and crushing feedback”). However, another study, which identified specific difficulties and sources of encouragement among medical, nursing, and physical therapy students following a randomized writing intervention, elicited somewhat different themes.⁹ The researchers reported barriers to initiating or structuring writing (notably, the “subjective and objective cognitive burden” of grappling simultaneously with content and structure), as well as helpful learning strategies, such as group support/mentoring, and backward design of manuscripts. Participants in this study expressed a preference for having a mentor’s guidance in their writing, but did not describe the nature of the relationship (whether formal or informal, research or writing mentoring).

Substantially less attention in the literature is paid to the development of oral communication skills, whether rehearsed or spontaneous. To our knowledge, no studies have been conducted on science trainees’ oral communication skills development and mentoring. Yet, a sizeable literature exists on public speaking anxiety in secondary education and its negative effects on morale, performance, and achievement, especially with respect to L2 students.^41-47,50 While presentation and conversation skills may be somewhat less overtly connected than writing skills with trainees’ academic and career success, they are nonetheless powerful covert influences on trainees’ relationships with colleagues and senior scientists who may affect their careers. When and how often trainees speak up in meetings, approach new people at conferences, handle presentations and the questions that follow, and describe their professional goals, have as much to do with others’ judgments of their credibility as do their grammar, vocabulary, and accent in these settings. The interconnectedness of writing and speaking skills⁵¹ and their association with the development of critical thinking skills² provides additional support for understanding and promoting their development in trainees. To our knowledge, our study is the first to investigate both spontaneous and rehearsed oral communication skills as well as scientific writing development processes for both L1 and L2 mentors and trainees.

Our study has a number of limitations. First, selection bias--we recognize that those who chose to participate in our study may not be representative of all trainees at MDACC or trainees in general at other institutions. Focus groups may have included trainees and mentors with special and personal concerns about the topic. In addition, because we did not audiotape the focus groups and interviews, we have not reported verbatim comments; however, the statements we reported in Table 2 were carefully verified by the facilitator and the social worker with participants. Finally, stratification of participants, by English-language skills and race/ethnicity, would have been desirable had the study population been large enough to accommodate this design strategy.

Conclusions

Our qualitative study elicited trainees’ and mentors’ perceptions about the role of the mentoring relationship in addressing the development of scientific communication skills. It also laid important groundwork for a comprehensive investigation of these issues. The degree of distress and dissatisfaction among both mentors and trainees and the disconnect between each group’s understanding of the other’s perspective was striking. Clearly, we need solutions that are practical and realistic, given the constraints on the time, energy, and resources of trainees and mentors alike, and that also align with trainees’ affective needs.

Designing and implementing such solutions will require considerable creativity. An accurate understanding of the problem from the perspectives of all parties is a necessary prerequisite to accomplishing this goal. To study these themes in detail with a larger population, we intend to compare the themes across trainee and mentor race/ethnicity, gender, education, and L1 and L2 language status. We also plan to address the potential role of L1 non-standard dialects and exposure to Standard Academic English. Once we have established the perceptions and self-identified needs of both mentors and trainees, and have analyzed the dynamics of the mentoring relationship, we can begin to design targeted interventions and resources that address those needs, with the ultimate goal of increasing the self-confidence and career success of junior researchers, as well as the satisfaction and effectiveness of their mentors.