personal development plan journal pdf

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, personal development plans: insights from a case based approach.

Journal of Workplace Learning

ISSN : 1366-5626

Article publication date: 11 July 2016

In light of contemporary shifts away from annual appraisals, this study aims to explore the implications of using a personal development plan (PDP) as a means of focussing on continuous feedback and development to improve individual performance and ultimately organisational performance.

Design/methodology/approach

Data were collected through an employee survey in one private sector organisation in the UK finance sector using a case study approach. Secondary data in the form of completed PDPs were used to compare and contrast responses to the survey.

Results indicate that the diagnostic stage is generally effective, but support for the PDP and development activity post diagnosis is less visible. Implications of this are that time spent in the diagnostic stage is unproductive and could impact on motivation and self-efficacy of employees. Furthermore, for the organisation to adopt a continuous focus on development via PDPs would necessitate a systematic training programme to effect a change in culture.

Research limitations/implications

This study was limited to one organisation in one sector which reduces the generalisability of results. Research methods were limited to anonymous survey, and a richer picture would be painted following qualitative interviews. There was also a subconscious bias towards believing that a PDP containing documented goals would lead to improved individual and organisation performance; However, the discussion has identified the concept of subconscious priming which implies that verbal goals may be equally valid, and further comparative research between verbal and written goals is recommended.

Practical implications

The results indicate the potential value that using PDPs could bring to an organisation as an alternative to annual appraisal, subject to a supportive organisational culture.

Originality/value

PricewaterhouseCoopers, in a recent article for CIPD (2015), reported that two-thirds of large companies are planning to rethink their annual appraisal system. One of the key drivers for this was the desire for more regular feedback. Given the recent shift in thinking, little research has been conducted into what would replace the annual appraisal. This paper therefore focusses on the extent to which PDPs can contribute to supporting this more regular contact and feedback.

• Performance management
• Human resource development
• Workplace learning
• Management development
• Annual appraisal
• Personal development plan

Greenan, P. (2016), "Personal development plans: insights from a case based approach", Journal of Workplace Learning , Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 322-334. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-09-2015-0068

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2016, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Building Learning Experiences in a Changing World pp 235–265 Cite as

The Use of Personal Development Plans (PDPs) in the Workplace: A Literature Review

• Simon Beausaert 4 ,
• Mien R. Segers 5 ,
• Janine van der Rijt 5 &
• Wim H. Gijselaers 4  
• First Online: 01 January 2011

2363 Accesses

16 Citations

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

It is evident that in the current knowledge economy learning does not stop after graduation. Learning for a profession is only a starting point for learning in the profession. One tool to enhance learning in the profession is a personal development plan (PDP). Although this tool is very popular to date, there is no review study available to inform researchers and practitioners about effects and conditions enhancing the effectiveness. Therefore, we conducted a systematic narrative literature review, selecting empirical studies to research PDPs in the workplace. The purpose of this review-study was to analyze the literature on the goals that PDP assessment is being used for in the workplace, its effectiveness to reach those goals and the desirable supporting conditions that will enlarge its effectiveness. The results highlight nine clusters of goals PDP assessment is used for, namely: professional development; reflective learning; providing evidence; documenting; certification, selection, and promotion; external mobility; coaching; stimulating confidence; and organizing. Furthermore, the small amount of empirical evidence on the effectiveness of PDP assessment ( N studies = 54) indicates that the instrument is effective for personal or continuing professional development, stimulating reflection and improving professional practice. There nevertheless exists a gap between the popularity of this tool and the availability of evidence of its effectiveness. Moreover, almost all studies researching PDPs took place in an educational or healthcare setting. Finally, only the support received from a coach or supervisor and the time and resources provided have been researched as supporting process conditions and were found to have positive effects. In most other included articles the supportive conditions are no object of study but are theoretically discussed and argued upon. It is clear that to inform human resource development professionals using PDPs, more studies systematically investigating the effects of the tool and the supporting process conditions are necessary.

• Literature review
• Portfolio assessment
• Professional development plan (PDP)
• Organization

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

For clarity reasons, we will use the term “personal development plan” or “PDP” in this chapter, even if the literature source we are referring to uses one of the synonyms we used as search terms in the systematic literature search process (see methodology section).

For clarity reasons, we will use the term “he” when we refer to the employee, while it should be “she or he.”

Twenty-seven references focused on the validity, reliability, and/or assessment criteria of portfolio assessment, which is not the scope of this literature review (e.g., van der Schaaf et al. 2005 ).

A literature review is defined as: “The selection of available documents (both published and unpublished) on the topic, which contain information, ideas, data and evidence written from a particular standpoint to fulfill certain aims or express certain views on the nature of the topic and how it is to be investigated, and the effective evaluation of these documents in relation to the research being proposed” (Hart 1998 ).

Those studies are integrated more than once in the table.

Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474.

Article   Google Scholar  

Alsop, A. (2002). Portfolios: Portraits of our professional lives. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65 (5), 201–206.

Google Scholar  

Austin, Z., Marini, A., & Desroches, B. (2005). Use of a learning portfolio for continuous professional development: A study of pharmacists in Ontario (Canada). Pharmacy Education, 5, 175–181.

Bahrami, J., Rogers, M., & Singleton, C. (1995). Personal education plan: A system of continuing medical education for general practitioners. Education for General Practice, 6, 342–345.

Barber, P. (1992). Developing the ‘person’ of the professional carer. In S. Hinchliff, S. Norman, & J. Schober (Eds.), Nursing practice and health care (4th edn., pp. 334–373). Sevenoaks: Edward Arnold.

Beck, R. J., Livne, N. L., & Bear, S. L. (2005). Teachers’ self-assessment of the effects of formative and summative electronic portfolios on professional development. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28, 221–244.

Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (Eds.). (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning . London: Kogan Page.

Bradshaw, L. K., & Hawk, P. P. (1996). Portfolios for the continuing licensure of beginning teachers: Their development and assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Staff Development Council, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 10 Dec 1996.

Brown, R. (1995). Portfolio development and profiling for nurses (2nd ed.). Lancaster: Quay.

Brown, G., & Irby, B. J. (1998). Recent developments in the use of career advancement portfolios for administrators: Implications for leadership preparation programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, 13–17 Apr 1998.

Bullock, A., Firmstone, V., Frame, J., & Bedward, J. (2007). Enhancing the benefit of continuing professional development: A randomized controlled study of personal development plans for dentists. Learning in Health and Social Care, 6 (1), 14–26.

Bunker, A., & Leggett, M. (2004). Being wise about teaching portfolios: Exploring the barriers to their development and maintenance. http://www.herdsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/conference/2004/PDF/P047-jt.pdf. Accessed 20 Sept 2007.

Bunker, A., & Leggett, M. (2005). Teaching portfolios: Rhetoric, reality and reflection . Unpublished.

Cayne, J. V. (1995). Portfolios: A developmental influence? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21, 395–405.

CBI (Confederation of British Industry). (1999). Making employability work: An agenda for action . London: CBI.

Challis, M. (2001). Portfolios and assessment: Meeting the challenge. Medical Teacher, 23, 437–440.

Daniel, P. L., & Stallion, B. K. (1995). Research report on the implementation of professional development in Kentucky. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Biloxi, MS, 9 Nov 1995.

Daudelin, M. W. (1996). Learning from experience through reflection. Organizational Dynamics, 24 (3), 36–48.

Department of Health. (1998). A review of continuing professional development in general practice. London: DoH.

Dixon, R., Dixon, K., & Pelliccione, L. (2005). The professional electronic portfolio project: The production process. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane05/blogs/proceedings/19_Dixon.pdf. Accessed 20 Sept 2007.

Dornan, T., Carroll, C., & Parboosingh, J. (2002). An electronic learning portfolio for reflective continuing professional development. Medical Education, 36, 767–769.

Driessen, E. W., van Tartwijk, J., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Wass, V. J. (2007). Portfolios in medical education: Why do they meet with mixed success? A systematic review. Medical Education, 41, 1224–1233.

Ekbatani, G., & Pierson, H. (1997). Teacher portfolios, vehicles of faculty assessment, reflection, and growth. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 31st, Orlando, FL, 11–15 March 1997.

Evans, A., Ali, S., Singleton, C., Nolan, P., & Bahrami, J. (2002). The effectiveness of personal education plans in CPD: An evaluation. Medical Teacher, 24 (1), 79–84.

Fenwick, T. J. (2003). Professional growth plans: Possibilities and limitations of an organizationwide employee development strategy. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14, 59–77.

Firssova O. (2006). ePortfolio as a coaching support tool for workplace learning of teachers. Paper presented at ePortfolio conference, Oxford, 11–13 Oct 2006. http://www.eife-l.org/news/ep2006/programme. Accessed 20 Sept 2007.

Friedman, A., & Philips, M. (2004). Continuing professional development: Developing a vision. Journal of Education and Work, 17, 361–376.

Grandgenette, R. S. (1999). The professional development 2001 portfolio. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 99 (5), 612–614.

Guaglianone, C. L. (1995). Portfolio assessment of administrators. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, 49th, Williamsburg, VA, 8–12 Aug 1995.

Guaglianone, C. L., & Yerkes, D. M. (1998). Administrative portfolios: Current uses and development by prospective and practicing administrators. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

Guthridge, M., Komm, A. B., & Lawson, E. (2008). Making talent a strategic priority. The McKinsey Quarterly, No. 1.

Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review. Releasing the social science research imagination. London: Sage.

Hrisos, S., Illing, J. C., & Burford, B. C. (2008). Portfolio learning for foundation doctors: Early feedback on its use in the clinical workplace. Medical Education, 42, 214–223.

Irby, B. J., & Brown, G. (1999). A gendered dichotomy in written reflections in professional development portfolios. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 19–23 Apr 1999.

Johnston, M., & Thomas, M. (2005). Riding the wave of administrator accountability: A portfolio approach. Journal of Educational Administration, 43 (4), 368–386.

Joo, B.-K. (2005). Executive coaching: A conceptual framework from an integrative review of practice and research. Human Resource Development Review, 4, 462–488.

Joyce, P. (2005). A framework for portfolio development in postgraduate nursing practice. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 14, 456–463.

Jun, M.-K., Anthony, R., Achrazoglou, J., & Coghill-Behrends, W. (2007). Using eportfolio for the assessment and professional development of newly hired teachers. Techtrends, 51 (4), 45–50.

Kicken, W., Brand-Gruwel, S., van Merriënboer, J., & Slot, W. (2008). Design and evaluation of a development portfolio: How to improve students’ self-directed learning skills. Instructional Science, 37, 453–473.

Kjaer, N. K., Maagaard, R., & Wied, S. (2006). Using an online portfolio in postgraduate training. Medical Teacher, 28, 708–712.

Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Chicago: Follet.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Chicago: Prentice Hall.

Korthagen, F. A. J. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 77–97.

Lammintakanen, J., Saranto, K., Kivinen, T., & Kinnunen, J. (2002). The digital portfolio: A tool for human resource management in health care? Journal of Nursing Management, 10, 321–328.

Leggett, M., & Bunker, A. (2006). Teaching portfolios and university culture. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 30, 269–282.

Little, P., & Hayes, S. (2003). Continuing professional development (CPD): GPs’ perceptions of post-graduate education-approved (PGEA) meetings and personal professional development plans (PDPs). Family Practice, 20 (2), 192–198.

London, M., & Smither, J. W. (1999). Empowered self-development and continuous learning. Human Resource Management, 38, 3–15.

London, M., Larsen, H. H., & Thisted, L. N. (1999). Relationships between feedback and self-development. Group & Organizational Management, 24, 5–27.

Lyons, N. (1998). Reflection in teaching: Can it be developmental? A portfolio perspective. Teacher Education Quarterly, 25, 115–127.

Lyons, N., & Evans, L. (1997). Portfolio: A tool for self-directed learning at work. Paper presented at the Self-directed Learning: Past and Future Symposium, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Sept 1997.

Marcoux, J., Brown, G., Irby, B. J., Lara-Alecio, R. (2003). A case study on the use of portfolios in principal evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, 21–25 Apr 2003.

Mathers, N. J., Challis, M. C., Howe, A. C., & Field, N. J. (1999). Portfolios in continuing medical education effective and efficient? Medical Education, 33, 521–530.

McMullan, M., Endacott, R., Gray, M. A., Jasper, M., Miller, C. M. L., Scholes, J., & Webb, C. (2003). Portfolios and assessment of competence: A review of the literature. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41, 283–294.

Moore, Z., & Bond, N. (2002). The use of portfolios for in-service teacher assessment: A case study of foreign language middle-school teachers in Texas. Foreign Language Annals, 35 (1), 85–92.

Noe, R. A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41, 457–479.

Noe, R. A. (1996). Is career management related to employee development and performance? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 119–133.

O’Connor, C. R., & Herrelko, J. (2000). Individual professional development plans: In search of learning for teaching . Paper presented at the Mid-Western Educational Research Association’s Annual Conference, 27 Oct 2000.

Orland-Barak, L. (2005). Portfolios as evidence of reflective practice: What remains “untold.” Educational Research, 47 (1), 25–44.

Pearson, D. J., & Heywood, P. (2004). Portfolio use in general practice vocational training: A survey of GP registrars. Medical Education, 38, 87–95.

Pinder, H., & Turnbull, M. (2003). Teacher professional development: A portfolio approach. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 11–13 Sept 2003.

Pitts, J., Curtis, A., While, R., & Holloway, I. (1999). Practice professional development plans: General practitioners’ perspectives on proposed changes in general practice education. British Journal of General Practice, 49, 959–962.

Redman, W. (1994). Portfolios for development: A guide for trainers and managers. London: Kogan Page.

Riggs, I. M., Sandlin, R. A., Scott, L. D., Childress, L., & Mitchell, D. E. (1997). The new teacher portfolio: A bridge to professional development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL, 24–28 March 1997.

Roberts, G. E. (2003). Employee performance appraisal system participation: A technique that works. Public Personnel Management, 32, 89–98.

Schmitz, C. C., & Schillo, B. A. (2005). Report carding: A model for foundation portfolio assessment. American Journal of Evaluation, 26, 518–531.

Seng, S. H., & Seng, T. O. (1996). Reflective teaching and the portfolio approach in early childhood staff development. Paper presented at the Joint Conference of the Educational Research Association of Singapore and the Australian Association for Research in Education, Singapore, 25–29 Nov 1996.

Smith, K., & Tillema, H. (1998). Evaluating portfolio use as a learning tool for professionals. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 42, 193–205.

Smith, K., & Tillema, H. (2001). Long-term influences of portfolios on professional development. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45, 183–202.

Smith, K., & Tillema, H. (2003). Clarifying different types of portfolio use. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 625–648.

Snadden, D., & Thomas, M. L. (1998). Portfolio learning in general practice vocational training does it work? Medical Education, 32, 401–406.

Snadden, D., Thomas, M. L., Griffin, E. M., & Hudson, H. (1996). Portfolio-based learning and general practice vocational training. Medical Education, 30, 148–152.

Snyder, J., Pippincott, A., & Bower, D. (1998). The inherent tensions in the multiple use of portfolios in teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 25 (1), 45–60.

Spence, W., & El-Ansari, W. (2004). Portfolio assessment: Practice teacher’s early experience. Nurse Education Today, 24, 388–401.

Stewart, I. (2004). Using portfolios to improve teaching quality: The case of a small business school. Journal of Education for Business, 80 (2), 75–79.

Stone, B. A. (1998). Problems, pitfalls, and benefits of portfolios. Teacher Education Quarterly, 25 (1), 105–114.

Sullivan, J. H. (2004). Identifying the best foreign language teachers: Teacher standards and professional portfolios. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 390–402.

Swallow, V., Clarke, C., Iles, S., & Harden, J. (2006). Work based, lifelong learning through professional portfolios: Challenge or reward? Pharmacy Education, 6 (2), 77–89.

Tigelaar, D. E. H., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & van den Vleuten, C. P. M. (2004). Using a conceptual framework and the opinions of portfolio experts to develop a teaching portfolio prototype. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 30, 305–321.

Tigelaar, D. E. H., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., de Grave, W. S., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2006a). Participants’ opinions on the usefulness of a teaching portfolio. Medical Education, 40, 371–378.

Tigelaar, D. E. H., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., de Grave, W. S., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2006b). Portfolio as a tool to stimulate teachers’ reflections. Medical Teacher, 28, 277–282.

Tillema, H. H. (1998). Design and validity of a portfolio instrument for professional training. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 24, 263–278.

Tillema, H. H. (2001). Portfolios as developmental assessment tools. International Journal of Training and Development, 5 (2), 126–135.

Tillema, H., & Smith, K. (2000). Learning from portfolios; differential use of feedback in portfolio construction. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 26, 193–210.

Tisani, N. (2008). Challenges in producing a portfolio for assessment: In search of underpinning educational theories. Teaching in Higher Education, 13, 549–557.

Tucker, P. D., Stronge, J. H., Gareis, C. R., & Beers, C. S. (2003). The efficacy of portfolios for teacher evaluation and professional development: Do they make a difference? Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 572–602.

Van der Schaaf, M., Stokking, K., & Verloop, N. (2005). Cognitive representations in raters’ assessment of teacher portfolios. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31, 27–55.

Wasylyshyn, K. M. (2003). Executive coaching: An outcome study. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 55, 94–106.

Webb, T. P., Aprahamian, C., Weigelt, J. A., & Brasel, K. J. (2006). The surgical learning and instructional portfolio (SLIP) as a self-assessment educational tool demonstrating practice-based learning. Current Surgery, 63, 444–447.

Wildy, H., & Wallace, J. (1998). Professionalism, portfolios and the development of school leaders. School Leadership and Management, 18 (1), 123–140.

Wolf, K., & Dietz, M. (1998). Teaching portfolios: Purposes and possibilities. Teacher Educational Quarterly, 25 (1), 9–22.

Wright, W. A., Knight, P. T., & Pomerleau, N. (1999). Portfolio people: Teaching and learning dossiers and the future of higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 24 (2), 89–102.

Zeichner, K., & Wray, S. (2001). The teaching portfolio in US teacher education programs: What we know and what we need to know. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 613–621.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Educational Research and Development, School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University, Tongersestraat 53, 6211 LM, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Simon Beausaert & Wim H. Gijselaers

School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University, Tongersestraat 53, 6211 LM, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Mien R. Segers & Janine van der Rijt

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon Beausaert .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Institute for Education and Information, Venusstraat 35, Antwerp, 2000, Belgium

Piet Van den Bossche

, Dept. of Educational Research and Develo, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, Maastricht, 6200 MD, Netherlands

Wim H. Gijselaers

The Johns Hopkins Carey Business School, International Drive 100, Baltimore, 21202, Maryland, USA

Richard G. Milter

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Beausaert, S., Segers, M.R., van der Rijt, J., Gijselaers, W.H. (2011). The Use of Personal Development Plans (PDPs) in the Workplace: A Literature Review. In: Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W., Milter, R. (eds) Building Learning Experiences in a Changing World. Advances in Business Education and Training, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0802-0_14

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0802-0_14

Published : 13 April 2011

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-94-007-0801-3

Online ISBN : 978-94-007-0802-0

eBook Packages : Business and Economics Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

• PMC6240468.1 ; 2018 Jul 25
• ➤ PMC6240468.2; 2018 Oct 25

Use and effectiveness of the Individual Development Plan among postdoctoral researchers: findings from a cross-sectional study

Nathan L. Vanderford

1 Department of Toxicology & Cancer Biology, University of Kentucky, College of Medicine, 800 Rose Street, KY, USA

2 Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, 800 Rose Street, KY, USA

3 Center for Cancer and Metabolism, University of Kentucky, 800 Rose Streer, KY, USA

Teresa M. Evans

4 Department of Pharmacology, University of Texas Health San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX, USA

L. Todd Weiss

Lindsay bira.

5 Department of Psychiatry, University of Texas Health San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX, USA

Jazmin Beltran-Gastelum

6 Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Arizona, College of Pharmacy , 1295 N. Martin Ave, Tucson, AZ, USA

Associated Data

The data referenced by this article are under copyright with the following copyright statement: Copyright: © 2018 Vanderford NL et al.

Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication). http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

Dataset 1. Individual Development Plan survey data. Columns Q1–Q26 correspond to the questions listed in Supplementary File 4 . 10.5256/f1000research.15610.d222615 7

Version Changes

Revised. amendments from version 1.

In response to the reviewers’ critiques, we have made a number of significant changes to the article, the most substantial of which are: 1) the analysis of the Likert scale data has been revised to now include three categories with the neutral responses being separated from the agree and disagree responses; 2) additional text and references have been included to better contextualize our work; 3) the IDP effectiveness analysis of associations (Figure 2 and Supplementary File 3) has been further clarified to indicate that the analysis was conducted only on those respondents that completed an IDP; 4) the discussion section has been expanded to include additional content on the study’s limitations and future research questions that should be addressed; and 5) we have revised the dataset, Figure 2, and Supplementary files 2 and 3 to reflect the changes in the data analysis regarding the separation of the neutral Likert scale responses. We have also responded to each reviewers’ report below.

Peer Review Summary

The individual development plan (IDP) is a career planning tool that aims to assist PhD trainees in self-assessing skills, exploring career paths, developing short- and long-term career goals, and creating action plans to achieve those goals. The National Institutes of Health and many academic institutions have created policies that mandate completion of the IDP by both graduate students and postdoctoral researchers. Despite these policies, little information exists regarding how widely the tool is used and whether it is useful to the career development of PhD trainees. Herein, we present data from a multi-institutional, online survey on the use and effectiveness of the IDP among a group of 183 postdoctoral researchers. The overall IDP completion rate was 54% and 38% of IDP users reported that the tool was helpful to their career development. Positive relationships with one’s advisor, confidence regarding completing training, trainees’ confidence about their post-training career, and a positive experience with institutional career development resources are associated with respondents’ perception that the IDP is useful for their career development. We suggest that there is a need to further understand the nuanced use and effectiveness of the IDP in order to determine how to execute the use of the tool to maximize trainees’ career development.

Introduction

The Individual Development Plan (IDP) was first introduced by the U.S. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in 2002, and in 2014 the National Institutes of Health implemented a policy requiring the reporting of the tool’s use by graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in grant progress reports 1 – 3 . Also in 2014, a survey of over 200 postdoctoral researchers found that 19% of respondents used the IDP with 71% of those users finding it valuable 4 . The IDP has been suggested to be capable of, for example, enhancing the structure of a training environment, facilitating better communication between mentees and mentors, aiding in identifying and pursuing career paths, guiding the identification of skills and knowledge gaps and creating action plans for addressing such gaps 4 , 8 – 10 . IDPs are suggested to be a staple career development activity for PhD trainees, especially related to supporting trainees’ preparation for and decisions in navigating a diverse job market 11 . We suggest, however, that more research is needed to further characterize the use and effectiveness of IDPs in maximizing trainees’ career development. As such, within this report, we present data on the use and effectiveness of the IDP among a group of 183 postdoctoral researchers.

These data were collected as part of a broader health and wellbeing online, survey-based study of graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in the spring and early summer of 2016 (March to June). The study was approved by the University of Kentucky (protocol 15-1080-P2H) and University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio (protocol HSC20160025X) institutional review boards. Respondents read a cover page and anonymously consented to the study by engaging the online survey. The survey was distributed via social media and direct email. To be eligible for this study, respondents had to be current postdoctoral researchers in the life/biological/medical or physical/applied sciences at a U.S. institution. Subjects responded to the IDP questions within the survey using the five-point Likert scale of strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree. For data analysis, these items were recoded into three categories: strongly agree and agree became an agree category, disagree and strongly disagree became a disagree category, and neural remained its own category. One-way frequencies were calculated ( Supplementary File 2 ) and the Pearson chi-square test was used to assess the univariate associations between the survey variables and the outcome “I Find the IDP Process Helpful to my Career Development” only among the respondents who completed an IDP as defined by those unique respondents who agreed with questions 2 or 3 within the survey ( Supplementary File 4 ). All summaries and statistical analysis were performed in SAS 9.4 .

Among 183 total postdoctoral respondents, 45.4% reported being required to complete an IDP, 27.5% reported completing the tool with their PI/advisor, and 33.9% completed the IDP, at some point, without discussing it with their PI/advisor ( Figure 1 and Supplementary File 2 ). In total, 54.1% of respondents actually completed the IDP with or without their advisor (based on the unique responses to questions 2 and 3 within the survey). Further, 24.3% of all respondents reported being able to have an honest conversation with their PI/advisor in the context of the IDP process ( Figure 1 and Supplementary File 2 ).

Shown here are rates for variables measuring whether respondents are required to complete an IDP, complete an IDP annually with their PI/advisor, complete an IDP but do not discuss it with their PI/advisor, can have an honest conversation with the PI/advisor in context of the IDP, and whether the IDP process is helpful to their career development. One-way frequencies for all other survey variables can be found in Supplementary File 2 .

As a measure of IDP effectiveness, 22.4% of all respondents found the IDP helpful to their career development ( Figure 1 and Supplementary File 2 ). Among the respondents that completed an IDP, 38.4% found the tool helpful ( Supplementary File 3 ). As we have recently shown with PhD students 5 , the effectiveness of the IDP among its users is associated with positive mentorship relationships ( Figure 2 and Supplementary File 3 ). For example, 62.2% of those respondents who indicated that they could have an honest conversation with their PI/advisor found that the IDP process was helpful to their career versus 26.3% of those who disagreed (p < 0.001). Likewise, 56.7% of those who indicated that their PI/advisor positively impacts their emotional/mental wellbeing versus 34.4% of those who disagreed with this statement found the IDP process to be helpful to their career (p = 0.05). IDP effectiveness was also associated with confidence regarding the completion of training, being prepared for one’s post-training career, and positive interactions with career development resources ( Figure 2 and Supplementary File 3 ).

IDP effectiveness was assessed only among the subset of respondents who completed an IDP by determining the univariate associations between the survey variables and the outcome “I Find the IDP Process Helpful to my Career Development.” The Pearson chi-square test was used to measure statistical significance. *** p < 0.001; ** p ≤ 0.01; * p ≤ 0.05.

Individual Development Plan survey data

Columns Q1–Q26 correspond to the questions listed in Supplementary File 4

The IDP is widely touted as a gold standard career development tool even though we know relatively little about its use and effectiveness. Compared to a 2014 study in which 19% of surveyed postdoctoral researchers used the IDP and 71% of users found it valuable 4 , the current data suggests that there may be a general increase in IDP usage among postdoctoral researchers with 54.1% of respondents in this study indicating that they completed an IDP while its perceived value seems to have decreased to less than 40% of the tool’s users. Additional studies should further understand the overall usage rates and perceived value of the IDP.

In general, the trends presented here for postdoctoral researchers are similar to our recent findings on the use and effectiveness of the IDP in PhD students 5 , but there are some nuanced differences. For example, compared to the rates in PhD students, the rates of required completion of the IDP among this study’s postdoctoral researchers are lower; the rates of completing the IDP but not discussing it with a PI/advisor are higher; and the rates of reporting that the IDP process is helpful to one’s career development are lower. The correlation of IDP effectiveness and mentorship relationships and use of career development resources are similar between PhD students and postdoctoral researchers. It will be important to conduct additional studies to further delineate differences and similarities in the usage and effectiveness of the IDP between PhD students and postdoctoral researchers.

While this work will add to our understanding of the IDP, there are some limitations to the study including the potential lack of generalizability across all institutions and/or fields of study and potential data/outcome bias. Additionally, this study may not capture all the issues related to the IDP, respondents may not be aware of their institution’s IDP policies, the IDP structure and processes may vary within and between institutions, and the measure of the effectiveness of the IDP herein is subjective and limited. Subjects’ responses may also reflect multiple experiences with the IDP during their training. Given potential differences in study populations and differences in study designs, care should also be taken in comparing this work to other IDP use/effectiveness data.

Overall, this study demonstrates that IDP use and effectiveness is quite nuanced. Additional research is needed to further understand the use and effectiveness of the IDP. For example, we need a better understanding of all the variations of the IDP used in the community and whether any one variation has advantages over others, whether completing an IDP with or without a mentor leads to varying outcomes, whether the IDP has any influence on career outcomes and much more.

Ultimately, the IDP is likely an effective career development tool in general, but we should better understand how to use it in the most effective way so that we can provide the most positive impact on trainees’ career development.

Data availability

Acknowledgements.

We thank the Markey Cancer Center Research Communications Office for formatting and graphic design assistance; Dr. Paula Chambers, Versatile PhD, for her input on and aid in distributing the study survey; and the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at the University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio for providing partial funding for the study.

[version 2; referees: 3 approved

Funding Statement

N.L.V. is supported by the University of Kentucky’s Cancer Center Support Grant [NCI P30CA177558], the Center for Cancer and Metabolism [NIGMS P20GM121327], and the Appalachian Career Training in Oncology (ACTION) Program [NCI R25CA221765]. T.M.E is supported by the University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio's Science Education Partnership Award [NIGMS R25GM129182].

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

Supplementary File 1. Self-reported institution of all respondents.

Supplementary File 2. One-way frequencies of all respondents, separated by demographic characteristics.

Supplementary File 3. Univariate analysis of the survey’s variables and the perception of Individual Development Plan helpfulness among respondents who completed an Individual Development Plan.

Supplementary File 4. Example copy of the survey questions relevant to this study.

Referee response for version 2

Tammy collins.

1 Office of Fellows' Career Development, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

We thank the authors for their revisions, and feel that the manuscript has been improved and clarified.  The authors addressed most of my initial concerns, but some areas remain to be addressed:

• Reporting values of 24.3% (honest conversation with PI about IDP) and 22.4% (found IDP helpful) may be misleading to casual readers because these percentages include respondents who didn’t complete an IDP at all—and as reviewer 5 points out, they would have little basis for judgement. While the authors do report the value of 38.4% (% of those who  completed an IDP  and found it helpful), evidence that the aforementioned percentages can be misleading is found in the reviews of this manuscript, with the “22.4% value” cited as evidence that IDPs may not be effective strategies for improving postdoc outcomes. I recommend removing these two percentages from the graph and, within the text, reporting/highlighting the responses from only those who completed an IDP—which is in line with the rest of the analysis in the manuscript.
• The authors emphasize that the IDP’s value has decreased to less than 40%, specifically comparing their results to Hobin  et al.  2014 1 . They addressed our concern somewhat and indicate later in the manuscript that care should be taken in comparing this current manuscript to other work. However, this point should be made (and further clarified) alongside their comparison because the study designs are quite different—both in the: a)  number & type of questions on IDP effectiveness & b) the manner in which the questions are asked. The Hobin  et al.  paper asks a series of several questions specifically addressing the helpfulness of different aspects of IDPs (ex: in identifying careers, assessing skills, facilitating communication, etc.), and then asks “How helpful was the IDP process overall?” In this study, one question is asked about IDP effectiveness—individuals are asked about their level of agreement with the statement:  “I find the IDP process helpful to my career development.”  Since it is emphasized that IDP effectiveness has decreased (a key result in this manuscript), readers could better compare these outcomes if a description about the nature & degree of difference between these study designs is included.
• In line with other reviewers’ concerns about Figure 2’s clarity, I feel that it is important to reword Figure 2’s title & legend in order to clearly explain what this graph is showing, as it is not readily intuitive to readers. Likewise, some of the manuscript text should be clarified to remove ambiguity—RE: “For example, 62.2% of those respondents who indicated that they could have an honest conversation with their PI/advisor found that the IDP process was helpful to their career versus 26.3% of those who disagreed.”  ...suggest to change to something like:  “For example, 62.2% of those respondents who indicated that they could have an honest conversation with their PI/advisor found that the IDP process was helpful to their career versus 26.3% of those  who still found the IDP process helpful but disagreed that they could have an honest conversation .”  
• Regarding the issue of ‘additional context’ – as this current study specifically addresses effectiveness of ‘individual development plans’ among postdocs— it will be helpful to readers to elaborate a bit more on the related work mentioned previously (Davis 2006 2 ). The Davis study identifies many positive ‘correlates of success’ associated with postdocs who have a written training plan—although the plans referred to by Davis were not specifically termed ‘IDPs’—in principle, the idea of a written training plan (among postdocs) and associated outcomes is highly related/relevant to this current work.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Kristen L. W. Walton

1 Department of Biology , Missouri Western State University, St. Joseph, MO, USA

The authors have addressed my comments in the initial review.  I have no further concerns or suggestions for improvement.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Adriana Bankston

1 The Future of Research, Inc., Abington, MA, USA

The authors have addressed my concerns. I appreciated the additional references and explanations to some of the points previously raised, including better contextualizing of this work in prior literature, as well as the comparisons between the use and effectiveness of the IDP between postdocs and PhD students. I do think additional studies on this topic will be helpful in order to appropriately train various populations of researchers. 

The edits to the figures indicated (Figure 2 and Supplementary File 3) are also very helpful to clarify the analyses made in particular for the Likert scale data. I would have been curious to see how race, ethnicity, U.S. citizenship, and other variables in Supplementary File 3 affect the responses to the IDP process, but that may not be possible with this sample size. Overall, I think these edits significantly improved the publication.

Richard McGee

1 Feinberg School of Medicine, Faculty Affairs, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

I feel the authors have done a good job of addressing my concerns and questions.

Jonathan S. Wiest

1 National Cancer Institute (NCI) , Rockville, MD, USA

Chanelle Case Borden

2 National Cancer Institute (NCI), Rockville, MD, USA

Thank the authors for their revisions, the clarity of the article has increased.  We have some additional thoughts regarding our initial review:

• Our first point was clarified. Thank you.
• However, the source of the 38.4% is still unclear. The author’s now make clear they are only including the 99 people who completed IDPs. However, 41 people (out of the total 183 people) say that it is useful, which would be 41%. The corrected heading in Supplemental Figure 3 now states the percentage, but does not include the N.
• We still wonder if the IDP effectiveness is clearly stated/defined. The data (e.g. the numbers) are clearer, however, the definition of effectiveness could be clearer. The questions that respondents are asked are about “helpfulness,” and effectiveness is inferred. We agree with Reviewer 2, in that the authors should provide additional context from the literature regarding this aspect. My recommendation would be to further parse out the two issues: 1) effectiveness alone (e.g. career preparation) and 2) effectiveness and mentor relationships.

We have read this submission. We believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Nathan Vanderford

University of Kentucky, USA

Dear Drs. Wiest and Case Borden,

Thank you for this new review.

To clarify your second point, the 38.4% was derived from only those respondents that completed an IDP (N = 99) AND indicated that it was helpful to their career development (N = 38); 38/99 = 38.4%.

As for your third point, as stated in the response to other reviewers’ comments, some of our survey questions were ambiguous, thus making the interpretation a bit difficult. Additionally, other than the Hobin et al. article from 2014 and our recent work on the use and effectiveness of the IDP in graduate students, we are unaware of other literature that specifically addresses the use and effectiveness of the IDP. Given that this in an understudied area, it is difficult to put our work into additional context. Importantly, however, we believe that the lessons learned (positive and negative) from this study will be informative to future work in this area.

Referee response for version 1

As noted by Review 1, the manuscript is well written and easy to follow. However, I would agree with both of the other reviews that problems arise from both the survey questions and decisions on method of analysis. The first 3 questions about completing an IDP don’t really lead to a clean number of how many people do and do not complete one. A person could answer no to being required to complete an IDP but could be doing it voluntarily.  And the issue of doing it at all vs. doing it annually makes the numbers even more ambiguous and difficult to sort out.  An additional challenge comes from the 5 choices for questions 1-3 when they are really only yes/no situations. It is hard to imagine what could lead a person to be neutral on these 3 questions.

I would also agree with the other reviewers that there is no rational for combing neutral responses with negative responses. This will skew the interpretation to a negative side without any evidence the respondent meant it to.  This is one reason surveys often don’t provide the neutral point as the data are very difficult to interpret. At least, as reviewer 2 points out, including neutral as a distinct option would allow readers to reach their own conclusions.

I also agree that % responses to questions 4 and 5 should be based only on those who actually complete the IDP as others really don’t have any basis for judgement. But as noted above and by other reviewers, this number of those who completed it is illusive from the question designs.

RE: Figure 2, as pointed out by the other reviewers, it really does not reveal effectiveness of the IDP.  At most it displays associations between some of the questions. I also would raise a concern with the 2 questions about mentors: “My PI/advisor provides real mentorship” and “My PI/advisor provides ample support”. Both of these are very ambiguous – e.g. is the intent to separate ‘real’ mentorship from some other form of mentorship? And what kind of ‘support’ – financial, psychosocial, professional? This level of ambiguity adds to concerns for including neutral responses with the disagree categories because neutral could easily reflect not knowing what the questions are asking for.

Dear Dr. McGee,

We thank you for your review, which has guided our revisions. We respond to your major comments below.

In retrospect, we agree with your comments regarding our survey questions related to discerning a number and percentage of respondents who completed an IDP. Looking back, we could have asked a simple yes/no question(s). That said, what we have done in our analysis is to use the unique responses to questions 2 and 3 within our survey (please refer to the survey instrument within Supplemental File 4) to arrive at the number and percentage of respondents that completed an IDP. Out of the 112 respondents that agreed to both survey questions 2 and 3, 13 agreed to both questions and these respondents were subtracted from the total to obtain the number and percentage of  total respondents who completed an IDP (112 – 13 = 99; 99/183 = 54.1%). While not as clear-cut as a simple yes/no question, we are confident that this approach allows us to discern the number/percentage of our respondents who completed an IDP.

We also agree with you and several other reviewers regarding the analysis of the Likert data. We have now split out the neutral responses as an independent category and we have updated the text, data, figures, and files accordingly.

We apologize for the lack of clarity regarding the analysis of variables that associate with IDP effectiveness with respect to analyzing only those respondents that completed an IDP. In fact, this is how we designed the analysis and we have clarified this in the text.

Figure 2 does indeed show variables that correlate with IDP effectiveness. We measured IDP effectiveness by asking respondents the question “I Find the IDP Process Helpful to my Career Development” and then we used this as an outcome variable to understand if variables such as mentorship associate with IDP effectiveness. Again, we have clarified this in the new version of the article.

We agree that there are levels of ambiguity in some of our questions. This was, in some cases, by design. In hindsight, however, we could have clarified some of the questions. That said, we believe that the lessons learned from our study design (including the survey design) and our data/findings will be informative to future studies that look to better understand the use and effectiveness of the IDP.

Thank you again for your critique. We believe that your comments and those of the other reviewers have improved our work. We look forward to your next review.

This article summarizes data from a subgroup of individuals surveyed about their use of an Individual Development Plan and other factors. Data on the effectiveness and usefulness of the IDP is important to justify policies that require postdoctoral scholars and PhD students to complete an IDP. The findings are interesting and concisely presented. The authors appropriately acknowledge several limitations to this survey. Overall, this manuscript adds important data to a field that is very difficult to quantify, given the variability in the IDP across institutions and training programs. I do have some questions and suggestions to strengthen this manuscript:

•  As noted by other reviewers, the separation of the Likert scale data into “agree” and “disagree” categories, with “neutral” included in the “disagree” category, has the potential to skew results towards the “disagree” category.  It would be helpful to analyze the data with neutral responses listed as a separate category. 
• The survey population demographics as reported in Supplementary File 2 show that the population of respondents was 80.7% white. How do the demographics of the survey population reflect the national postdoc population demographics? The numbers in some categories are likely too small to analyze in a statistically meaningful way, but it would be interesting to determine whether different demographic groups (race, gender, etc) had similar responses regarding the usefulness of the IDP and/or mentoring relationships. 
•  I agree with other reviewers that this paper has relatively minimal introduction and discussion to place it in the context of other work. The issues faced by postdocs are not identical to those faced by PhD students, and there are multiple recent publications discussing the problems facing postdocs (for example, The Postdoc Experience Revisited, National Academies Press 2014 1 ; Alberts et al, PNAS 2014 2 ). The data in this manuscript that show that only 22.4% of survey respondents felt that the IDP process was helpful to career development suggest that this process may not be an effective strategy for improving the postdoctoral experience and outcomes.

Dear Dr. Walton,

Thank you for your review of our article. We have responded to your major concerns one-by-one below.

As mentioned in several of the other responses to reviewers’ comments, we have reanalyzed our data using the neutral responses as a separate category. All the text, data, figures, and files have been updated accordingly.

We did collect data on the race and ethnicity of our respondents and we observed no significant differences between the groups regarding their response to whether they found the IDP helpful to their career development. We agree that our sample size may be too low to definitively draw any hard conclusions in this regard, however. It will be interesting to re-visit this question with a much larger sample size. One could envision differences given what is known about minority populations and the training and career outcome pipelines. Understanding these differences is critical in order to develop interventions that can fit the needs of specific populations.

We have added a bit of additional text and literature to further contextualize our work. Of note, however, this article type has a 1,000 word limit and thus there is limited space to house a comprehensive literature review on all the related trainee career development topics. As such, we have focused on discussing the pertinent IDP literature.

Thank you again for your time and review. We look forward to your second review.

General comments:

This publication addresses the very important topic of use and effectiveness of the individual development plan (IDP) for trainees. This is not a trivial topic to address and I commend the authors for this analysis in the context of current literature. I also appreciated the valuable insights on how the effectiveness of the tool is associated with positive mentoring, pointing out the need for strong relationships with advisors that can affect career trajectories for graduate students and postdocs.

General considerations:

On the background side, not being terribly familiar with the already existing literature on this topic, I would recommend a bit more description of prior studies that could frame this work, and its novelty in the context of existing literature. However, I recognize that it’s also possible literature on the effectiveness of the IDP may be limited, in particular given the abstract nature of this concept. Without having read more background, but judging from the information presented in the introduction, my immediate impression is that prior studies looked at PhD students whereas this work examines postdoctoral researchers. Moreover, the authors mentioned that this was a multi-institutional analysis, which leaves me wondering whether the novelty of this work is looking at a different population (postdocs vs. graduate students) or whether it is related to the number or type of institutions that prior studies hadn’t examined in this context.

On the technical side, the abstract mentions that the authors looked at data from 183 postdocs, although from the methods section it appears that both graduate students and postdocs were examined for a period of March to June 2016. Given that a study of 663 PhD students was previously performed as referenced in the introduction, it would be helpful to see an articulation of the novelty that this current study brings over previous work. It would also be beneficial to clarify whether both populations were included in all the analyses in this publication (in particular figure 2, which appears to refer to PhD students, whereas figure 1 refers to postdocs), and to expand more on the similarities and differences between the effectiveness of the IDP on these two populations. While this is mentioned in the discussion section, if both graduate students and postdocs were analyzed more in-depth in these studies (also taking into account other aspects of the data in this publication), it would make for an interesting comparison as to whether or not the IDP has more of an effect on the career trajectories of one group or another. And while positive mentoring is required for both populations, postdocs may already be well on their way towards a more obvious career path than PhD students are. While the authors state similar trends in these topics, it would be helpful to take this analysis a step further and determine how IDP effectiveness affects career choices for these groups.

In terms of data analysis, the authors state that they grouped together the agree/strongly agree, and neutral/disagree/strongly disagree responses. I wondered why this is the case, perhaps it could be a low sample size that may not enable meaningful conclusions. However, in order to gain a fully comprehensive picture of the issue at hand, I would recommend displaying and analyzing data from each of these categories separately. I believe that for such a topic that is difficult to quantify, it will be important to dissect the prevalence of each of these responses. Examining the various categories (availability of programs, attendance and usefulness) in Supplementary Data 2 could be utilized for a more thorough analysis of this topic. While I wonder how usefulness can be assessed in a practical sense, it was also disheartening to see the percentage of respondents who indicated that they do not attend or did not find available programs helpful. Perhaps this is an area that should be further explored in terms of which programs would likely be helpful for trainees to have. It would also be interesting to dissect further the correlation between the usefulness of the IDP and subsequent career paths chosen. For example, did individuals who found the IDP helpful end up in the top career path predicted by the IDP, and are they currently satisfied in their position? If so, this might indicate that the IDP was useful in helping them achieve desired career goals. The IDP could also open them up to career paths they hadn’t considered before, which would demonstrate the added value of this tool for training and career development.

I appreciated the data transparency in this publication (for example in Dataset 1, Supplementary Data 4). Given the wealth of information and number of questions asks, further analyses of these existing data looking at the effect of other variables on IDP effectiveness would provide a thorough analysis of how we might improve the IDP process based on barriers faced by particular groups. I would also suggest detailing the data analysis and quantification procedure used in this publication (as opposed to referencing prior publications with the information), in order to clarify how percentages in the results were calculated.

I also wonder whether it’s possible to examine other variables together to make predictions that would enrich this publication in the future. For example, how do factors such as race, ethnicity, U.S. citizenship, and others, affect the responses to the IDP process (Supplementary Data 3). While these may not have been the primary objectives of the authors, this type of analysis would add another layer of complexity to whether the IDP is useful to various groups, whose career decisions may also be affected by additional factors. This publication does contain a large amount of raw data that I think could be utilized for a more thorough analysis of how various factors contribute to the effectiveness of the IDP. However, given the data is self-reported and there may be a limited number of responses in each of these categories, it may be difficult to assess the effect of such variables with the current dataset.

Feedback on results:

It was somewhat disheartening to see the percentage of postdocs who had completed the IDP without discussing it with their advisor (Figure 1), and the percentage of those that had honest conversations with their advisors was also not terribly high. These factors point to barriers towards positive mentoring relationships in academe, as well as obstacles to career development for trainees. They could affect the ability of trainees to follow desired career paths, or having to prepare for transitioning into these careers without their advisors knowing, especially if the advisor does not approve of their non-academic career choice. This fundamentally points to systemic flaws in academe and how the enterprise needs to change in order to better support trainees who are using the IDP as a guide to explore career options. Importantly, this also requires advisors to point trainees in the right direction, and be a sounding board during career transitions. I also wonder whether there is a connection between the lack of discussions with the advisor and their ability to have honest conversations (Figure 1), as it appears that this could be a layered response (i.e. they were either having or not having these conversations, and if they were, how honest did the trainees feel they could be with their advisors in terms of desired career options?). I think drawing a connection between these two variables could be valuable to investigate in terms of the barriers affecting the ability of trainees to pursue various career paths, and assess the usefulness of the IDP process for these particular careers.

Figure 2 somewhat addresses this concern, and it was valuable to see that positive mentoring and having honest conversations with advisors can influence the responses of trainees on IDP effectiveness. There is a lot of really valuable information in this figure in terms of how we can improve faculty training to be more supportive of the career choices of their trainees, so that they feel valued and prepared for taking on other careers besides academia. Given the importance of these factors, it would also be interesting in the future to look at how positive relationships with advisors affect other aspects of training and career preparation for trainees. While factors such as the advisor being an asset to their career, providing ample support and positively impacting their emotional and mental well-being, among others variables, are likely very difficult to assess, I believe these are critical investigations that should be pursued further and more in-depth to better understand how to train the next generation of researchers. Along the lines of these ideas, putting these findings into a larger context would be really helpful in discussing how to better equip faculty to help trainees be successful in their desired careers.

Additional recommendations:

It was interesting to learn about the comparison between IDP use and effectiveness for PhD students and postdocs, as detailed in the discussion section. I was surprised to see that postdocs weren’t required to complete the IDP to the same extent that PhD students were, did not discuss the results of completed IDPs with their advisor as much, and found the IDP less helpful for their career development. This observation that merits further investigation, as to whether the lack of usefulness of the IDP for postdocs was due to their inability to discuss it with their advisors, or whether other factors were also involved. I would also be curious to know more about why there is a lesser requirement for postdocs to complete the IDP, and whether reversing this trend would result in a greater percentage of postdocs actually pursuing desired career paths as opposed to traditional academic routes.

In terms of comparing data from PhD students and postdocs, I wonder whether these surveys and subsequent analyses were performed on both populations at the same time (during March to June 2016 as described in the methods) or whether the data discussed here on PhD students came from a previous publication. This analysis could also provide insights into whether we should target certain populations more in terms of IDP assessments, and which populations within academe the IDP is likely to be more useful for in terms of career exploration. For a more extensive analysis, it would also be interesting to compare all of the aspects in Figure 2 between PhDs and postdocs, in order to determine the effect of mentoring relationships on career trajectories of trainees at various stages in their careers.

I appreciated that the authors pointed out limitations of the study in the discussion section, including as it relates to institutional variability. Indeed, Supplementary File 1 indicates that there are very few individuals at the institutions shown in the dataset, and many are at missing institutions. I imagine there is also quite a variability between these institutions in terms of size, number of postdocs, and the type of career development opportunities available that could supplement the IDP findings for trainees. These variables could influence how trainees rate the usefulness of the IDP, in terms of whether additional resources exist for them to further explore careers that were indicated as a good fit from the IDP. For example, it is possible that a limited knowledge on available career options, either due to the lack of resources or the inability of their advisor to help (in addition to not being able to find another suitable mentor to assist with career exploration), trainees may rate the usefulness of the IDP as lower than those with more external information available.

Increasing the sample size of respondents from each institution would also provide a clearer picture of how institutional environments affect career trajectories for trainees. In addition, incorporating other variables into the evaluation of institutions would enable various types of comparisons to be made about IDP effectiveness by trainees from diverse backgrounds, or those in institutions of a certain size or geographical area. These are also factors that could affect their career development - for example a larger city might offer opportunities to interact with other postdocs and take advantage of multi-institutional career development opportunities, which trainees in other geographical areas may not have access to.

Broader picture comments:

I agree with the authors that faculty should receive mentorship training and it would be helpful to see further elaboration by the authors on how this could be achieved. For example, mentorship training for faculty could include manuals with both internal and external resources and contacts from various career paths that trainees might want to pursue, thus enabling them to better train their postdocs for appropriate careers. There is also currently the barrier of trainees not being able to have honest conversations with advisors about their career options, therefore faculty attitudes need to change in order to allow postdocs to pursue non-academic careers.

I also agree that a better career development infrastructure is needed, and that this would be a massive undertaking. Incorporating the findings from this publication, however, into current literature on these topics (and efforts made by others to reform career training in universities) would be a helpful beginning to understanding how such an infrastructure could be developed. Implementing the IDP as a mandatory training for postdocs at the bench as part of their annual assessment may already be happening at some universities, however we should also keep in mind that IDPs are really only the beginning of the career development process - while it is the responsibility of trainees to utilize their IDP results for further career exploration, an infrastructure that supports this process is imperative to their success. This infrastructure I envision could be internal to the university, or there could be an external entity developing resources for several universities to utilize for helping trainees explore career options. As part of this work, the authors could also consider developing a rubric to measure IDP effectiveness as it relates to their ability to achieve career goals outlined in the IDP. I would also be curious to see a rubric for assessing other factors that can influence this effectiveness (such as those in Figure 2) and trying to understand more about particular elements that go into each of these factors.   

Overall, this is a well written manuscript tackling an issue that is difficult to quantify but very important to study from the context of training the next generation of scientists. I believe that more of an in-depth literature overview, further analysis of the existing data and collection of additional data, and a more extensive discussion of the recommendations for change around faculty training to support postdocs, would greatly strengthen the manuscript in the future. I believe these findings are a valuable foundational start to these questions, conducting further investigations on this topic can provide more in-depth understanding of the potential that the IDP could have for training graduate students and postdocs for being successful in their chosen careers.

Dear Dr. Bankston,

Thank you for your very extensive report. We have responded to your major critiques/comments below.

We have added a bit more text and references to better contextualize our work.

We apologize for the confusion over the study population. In this work, we report only on data obtained from postdoctoral trainees. Our previous report was focused on IDP use and effectiveness in PhD students. These data were collected at the same time, but we choose to analyze the postdoctoral trainee and PhD student data separately.

As mentioned in several of the responses to other reviewers’ comments, we have now broken out the neutral responses to our Likert scale questions and we now present these data separately. All the applicable text, data, figures and supplemental files have been updated accordingly.

Much of your additional comments focus on additional data analysis and comparisons of the postdoctoral trainee and PhD student data. We agree that your suggestions are very important and you have posed very interesting and essential questions. We, however, feel that your suggestions are out of scope for the current study. This study was submitted as a short Research Note (which has a 1,000 word limit). These article types are meant to convey findings that can be described in a short report. One of our goals of this work was to obtain preliminary findings that can inform other work on the use and effectiveness of the IDP. Additional IDP use and effectiveness data that should be collected with a revised survey instrument that is informed by our work will allow for such additional analyses in the future. 

Thank you for your time and comprehensive report. We hope that you will favorably consider our revisions in light of our changes that address your major critiques and those of the other reviewers. We look forward to reading your next review.

The authors report on the usage of IDPs by postdoctoral scholars, which is both a timely and fundamental topic within the broader graduate and postdoctoral professional development community. This work extends beyond the authors’ recently published article on IDP usage among doctoral students 1  to showcase how the instrument is currently being used by postdocs. The aforementioned manuscript on doctoral IDP usage extensively discusses policy and other issues surrounding IDPs, while this manuscript is lean on discussion. It would therefore benefit from including prior literature on correlates of success associated with postdocs who have written plans—which would have the added benefit of placing this work into a broader context (for example, see: Davis 2009 2 ).

There are a number of points that should be addressed, and they are outlined as follows:

• The survey instrument asks questions on a 5-point Likert scale of strongly agree, agree, neutral (neither agree nor disagree), disagree, & strongly disagree. However, when analyzing the data, the authors report percentages either as ‘does not agree’ (also reported as ‘disagree’) or ‘agree’ - with ‘strongly disagree, disagree & neutral’ all grouped together as a ‘does not agree’ response. It seems that lumping “neutral (neither agree nor disagree)” into the ‘does not agree’ category would skew results (both in this manuscript and the manuscript on doctoral IDP usage) towards ‘does not agree.’ It is recommended that the authors reanalyze the data and report the ‘neutral’ responses as a third category in order to more accurately reflect intended answers/percentages.
• I agree with reviewer 1 that it is unclear how the authors calculated that 54% completed an IDP; like reviewer 1, I also calculated that 61% completed an IDP either with or without their PI. Similarly, I also agree with reviewer 1 that it is unclear where the 38.4% value came from (percent of respondents that completed an IDP who found the tool helpful). Furthermore, in figure 1, a value of 22.4% of all respondents (whether they complete an IDP or not) is listed as saying the IDP process is helpful to their career development. Since “22.4%” also includes those who never completed an IDP, reporting it in this manner seems to bias perceptions of the tool as unhelpful.
• Aside from the unclear derivation of percentages discussed in point #2, the questions in the survey instrument do not seem to allow confident discernment of who actually completed an IDP. For example, respondents who disagree with the question “I complete an IDP annually with my PI/advisor” could have actually completed an IDP with their PI at the beginning of their postdoc and/or possibly in year 3 of their postdoc—how much weight were respondents giving to the word ‘annually’? Another question reads: “I complete an IDP but I do not discuss it with my PI/advisor” - could respondents complete two different IDPs - one with and one without their PI (and thus agree to both the former and latter questions)? 
• The authors assert that the usefulness of an IDP has decreased since 2014, specifically comparing their results to that in (Hobin  et al.  2014 3 ). However, in the (Hobin  et al.  2014) paper, an IDP’s overall value is reported either as ‘not helpful’ ‘neutral’ or ‘helpful’. It seems that the results in this manuscript could be compared more accurately with the (Hobin  et al.  2014) data by showing the ‘neutral’ responses, rather than lumping them with ‘does not agree’ (see point 1 above). Additionally, it would be helpful to point out the limitations of comparing these two studies (ex: address key differences between the two survey instruments regarding how the IDP questions were asked (and how this might bias responses), address potential respondent audience differences, etc.). 
• Like reviewer 1, I also feel that there are limited questions that address what one might consider IDP ‘effectiveness.’ The manuscript would thus be strengthened by discussing IDP indicators that have been previously reported in the literature (such as measures outlined by (Hobin  et al.  2014) - ex: the value of an IDP in helping with self-assessment, helping identify career paths, helping identify skills to strengthen, etc.). Furthermore, (Davis 2009 2 ) reports an in-depth analysis of results from a Sigma Xi Postdoc Survey - identifying many positive correlates of success associated with postdocs who develop a written plan at the outset of their careers (ex: higher publication rate, grant submission rate, better supervisor relationships, etc.). Since the main point of this manuscript is to discuss the use and effectiveness of IDPs among postdocs, it would benefit from elaborating upon such postdoc-specific contextual literature - as well as other literature that documents the general benefits of goal-setting, which is a primary function of IDPs (Locke  et al.  2002 4 ).
• (Minor) The authors indicate that “additional research is needed,” and it would thus be beneficial to clarify the research questions that should be addressed. For example, it seems that it would be useful to determine the effects of various parameters on IDP effectiveness such as: 1)  when in training an IDP is completed; 2) inclusion/ exclusion of IDP components (such as self-assessment, career exploration, skill-building, goal-setting, etc.); 3) prior experience with/completion of an IDP as a PhD student; 4) completing an IDP of their own accord versus doing so because it is required; 5) receiving training on how to create/implement an IDP; 6)  using a specific IDP instrument (ex: myIDP) versus an institutionally-developed IDP, etc..
• (Minor) As an additional point - since ‘IDP effectiveness’ is subjective as the authors point out, perhaps future studies should address better-defining these parameters so that common IDP evaluation methods can be adopted within the broader community. It would also be especially helpful to ascertain what IDP tools are being used, and how they are being implemented so that standard ‘correlates of effectiveness’ could be tied to specific IDP instruments (or components) and the manner in which they are employed.

Dear Dr. Collins,

Thank you for your review. Your comments and critique have been very helpful in guiding our revisions. We respond to your major points below.  

We appreciate your comments and concerns regarding our decision to combine the neutral Likert scale responses with the disagree and strongly disagree responses. As such, we have now split these responses out and present three categories (agree, neutral, and disagree) in our analysis. The applicable dataset, figures, supplemental files, and text have been revised accordingly.

As mentioned in our response to Drs. Wiest and Case Borden, we sincerely apologize for the confusion over our reporting of the percent respondents to several questions. In particular, we analyzed the unique responses to questions 2 and 3 in our survey (please refer to the survey instrument within Supplemental File 4) to arrive at both the number and the percentage of respondents that had completed an IDP. Out of the 112 respondents that agreed to both survey questions 2 and 3, 13 agreed to both questions and these respondents were subtracted from the total to obtain the number and percentage of  total respondents who completed an IDP (112 – 13 = 99; 99/183 = 54.1%). Supplemental File 2 reports on the data from all respondents while the univariate association analysis shown in Supplemental File 3 reports on the data only from the 99 unique respondents that reported completing an IDP. We have clarified this in the new version of the article. It is important to note that the frequency data in Supplemental File 2 is not additive because of the 13 respondents who agreed to both questions 2 and 3.

In retrospect, we agree that our questions can make it difficult to discern which respondents uniquely completed an IDP. In hindsight, we could have asked a simple yes/no question about whether trainees had completed an IDP. That said, we are confident that our method of combining and de-duplicating the responses to questions 2 and 3 allow us to determine which of our respondents have completed an IDP.

The new analysis of our Likert scale data allows us to more clearly and directly compare our results to the 2014 Hobin et al. data. Additionally, we have also specified in our limitations section that care should be taken in making such comparisons because of the analysis of different populations (e.g., although both populations were postdocs, there could be institutional differences, etc.) and different study designs.

We have added a bit of additional text and references to better contextualize our work, to further clarify some limitations of the study, and to better define future research questions. Of note, however, this article was submitted as a short Research Note article type which has a 1,000 word limit and thus space is limited regarding adding a comprehensive literature review related to PhD trainee career development. We have thus focused on the IDP-related literature.

Thank you again for your review. We look forward to your second review in light of our revisions. We feel that your comments and that of the other reviewers have strengthened the article.  

In this study, the authors seek to determine the effectiveness of utilizing an IDP during the training stage of a biomedical career. Using survey data from a larger online study of overall health and well-being, 183 trainees responded to questions regarding the IDP using the Likert scale. While 45.4% of the respondents were required to complete an IDP, in total, 54.1% completed an IDP (with or without their mentor’s support).  Only of third of those who completed the IDP, however, found the tool useful for career development. Most notably, the authors found positive correlation between positive mentoring and the effectiveness of utilizing an IDP. 

Overall, this is a well written manuscript addressing an important topic in the training community. However, there are several points that this reviewer found to be confusing.

First, the authors state that 54.1% of respondents completed an IDP, however, based on the data in Figure 1 and Supplementary File 2, 112 respondents (61%) of respondents completed an IDP.  Further, in Figure 2, the authors are basing their conclusions on 99 respondents.  While this is 54% of the 183 respondents, it is unclear why the total of 99 was used as opposed to the 112. 

Second, the authors state that 38.4% of respondents who completed an IDP found the tool to be useful to their career development and reference Supplementary File 3. Yet, upon closer inspection, a question about IDP usefulness is missing from that document altogether. Thus, it is unclear where that percentage was derived.  The data in Supplemental File 2 shows that 22.4% of the total population found the tool effective, however, that is reflective of the total population, and not those who completed the IDP. Taking those findings into consideration, the percentage of those who utilized the IDP and found it effective is 36.6%.

Lastly, it is unclear how Figure 2 is an analysis of IDP effectiveness. To the authors credit, it is noted that effectiveness is subjective and the IDP structure can be a confounding factor. However, the questions in Figure 2 are more indicative of mentor effectiveness, and not that of the IDP. It is important to note that the respondents who have positive relationships with their mentors seem to be better prepared, but only half of those find the IDP effective.

Thank you for your review. Your critique has been very helpful as we have revised the article. Below we address the major issues you raised.

We apologize for the confusion regarding the percent of respondents that completed an IDP. We analyzed the unique responses to questions 2 and 3 in our survey (please refer to the survey instrument within Supplemental File 4) to arrive at both the number and the percentage of respondents that had completed an IDP. Out of the 112 respondents that agreed to both survey questions 2 and 3, 13 agreed to both questions and these respondents were subtracted from the total to obtain the number and percentage of total respondents who completed an IDP (112 – 13 = 99; 99/183 = 54.1%). Supplemental File 2 reports on the data from all respondents while the univariate association analysis shown in Supplemental File 3 reports on the data only from the 99 unique respondents that reported completing an IDP. We have clarified this in the new version of the article.   

We likewise apologize for the oversight of not listing the percentage (38.4%) of respondents that had used the IDP and found it useful to their career development in Supplemental File 3. We now include this data in the top portion of the table found in Supplemental File 3. It is important to note that this percentage (38.4%) is based only on those respondents that had completed an IDP (again based on unique respondents to questions 2 and 3 in the survey). The frequency data presented in Supplemental File 2 is not additive because of the 13 respondents who agreed to both questions 2 and 3. We have clarified this in the new version of the article. 

Figure 2 does show a set of two category-level variables that are associated with IDP effectiveness. The asterisks in particular point to the significant differences in the proportions of the outcome (IDP effectiveness) among the levels of a given variable using the Chi-square test of proportions. We measured the outcome, IDP effectiveness, by asking respondents the question “I Find the IDP Process Helpful to my Career Development” Again, we have clarified this in the new version of the article.

In closing, we have revised the article to address your comments as well as those of the other reviewers. We hope that you will favorably review the revised version of the article in light of our changes. Thank you again for your comments as we strongly feel that they have strengthened our work. We look forward to reading your next review.

How to Create a Personal Development Plan: 3 Examples

For successful change, it is vital that the client remains engaged, recognizing and identifying with the goals captured inside and outside sessions. A personal development plan (PDP) creates a focus for development while offering a guide for life and future success (Starr, 2021).

This article introduces and explores the value of personal development plans, offering tools, worksheets, and approaches to boost self-reflection and self-improvement.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Goal Achievement Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients create actionable goals and master techniques to create lasting behavior change.

This Article Contains

What is personal development 7 theories, coaching in personal development and growth, how to create a personal development plan, 3 examples of personal development plans, defining goals and objectives: 10 tips and tools, fostering personal development skills, 3 inspiring books to read on the topic, resources from positivepsychology.com, a take-home message, frequently asked questions.

Personal development is a fundamental concept in psychology and encompasses the lifelong process of self-improvement, self-awareness, and personal growth. Crucial to coaching and counseling, it aims to enhance various aspects of clients’ lives, including their emotional wellbeing, relationships, careers, and overall happiness (Cox, 2018; Starr, 2021).

Several psychological models underpin and support transformation. Together, they help us understand personal development in our clients and the mechanisms and approaches available to make positive life changes (Cox, 2018; Passmore, 2021).

The following psychological theories and frameworks underpin and influence the approach a mental health professional adopts.

1. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

As a proponent of the humanistic or person-centered approach to helping people, Abraham Maslow (1970) suggested that individuals have a hierarchy of needs. Simply put, they begin with basic physiological and safety needs and progress through psychological and self-fulfillment needs.

Personal development is often found in or recognized by the pursuit of higher-level needs, such as self-esteem and self-actualization (Cox, 2018).

2. Erikson’s psychosocial development

Erik Erikson (1963) mapped out a series of eight psychosocial development stages that individuals go through across their lifespan.

Each one involves challenges and crises that once successfully navigated, contribute to personal growth and identity development.

3. Piaget’s cognitive development

The biologist and epistemologist Jean Piaget (1959) focused on cognitive development in children and how they construct their understanding of the world.

We can draw on insights from Piaget’s stages of cognitive development, including intellectual growth and adaptability, to inform our own and others’ personal development (Illeris, 2018).

4. Bandura’s social cognitive theory

Albert Bandura’s (1977) theory highlights the role of social learning and self-efficacy in personal development. It emphasizes that individuals can learn and grow through observation, imitation, and belief in their ability to effect change.

5. Self-determination theory

Ryan and Deci’s (2018) motivational self-determination theory recognizes the importance of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in personal development.

Their approach suggests that individuals are more likely to experience growth and wellbeing when such basic psychological needs are met.

6. Positive psychology

Positive psychology , developed by Martin Seligman (2011) and others, focuses on strengths, wellbeing, and the pursuit of happiness.

Seligman’s PERMA model offers a framework for personal development that emphasizes identifying and using our strengths while cultivating positive emotions and experiences (Lomas et al., 2014).

7. Cognitive-Behavioral Theory (CBT)

Developed by Aaron Beck (Beck & Haigh, 2014) and Albert Ellis (2000), CBT explores the relationship between thoughts, emotions, and behavior.

As such, the theory provides practical techniques for personal development, helping individuals identify and challenge negative thought patterns and behaviors (Beck, 2011).

Theories like the seven mentioned above offer valuable insights into many of the psychological processes underlying personal development. They provide a sound foundation for coaches and counselors to support their clients and help them better understand themselves, their motivations, and the paths they can take to foster positive change in their lives (Cox, 2018).

The client–coach relationship is significant to successful growth and goal achievement.

Typically, the coach will focus on the following (Cox, 2018):

• Actualizing tendency This supports a “universal human motivation resulting in growth, development and autonomy of the individual” (Cox, 2018, p. 53).
• Building a relationship facilitating change Trust clients to find their own way while displaying empathy, congruence, and unconditional positive regard . The coach’s “outward responses consistently match their inner feelings towards a client,” and they display a warm acceptance that they are being how they need to be (Passmore, 2021, p. 162).
• Adopting a positive psychological stance Recognize that the client has the potential and wish to become fully functioning (Cox, 2018).

Effective coaching for personal growth involves adopting and committing to a series of beliefs that remind the coach that the “coachee is responsible for the results they create” (Starr, 2021, p. 18) and help them recognize when they may be avoiding this idea.

The following principles are, therefore, helpful for coaching personal development and growth (Starr, 2021).

• Stay committed to supporting the client. While initially strong, you may experience factors that reduce your sense of support for the individual’s challenges.
• Coach nonjudgmentally. Our job is not to adopt a stance based on personal beliefs or judgment of others, but to help our clients form connections between behavior and results.
• Maintain integrity, openness, and trust. The client must feel safe in your company and freely able to express themselves.
• Responsibility does not equal blame. Clients who take on blame rather than responsibility will likely feel worse about something without acknowledging their influence on the situation.
• The client can achieve better results. The client is always capable of doing and achieving more, especially in relation to their goals.
• Focus on clients’ thoughts and experiences. Collaborative coaching is about supporting the growth and development of the client, getting them to where they want to go.
• Clients can arrive at perfect solutions. “As a coach, you win when someone else does” (Starr, 2021, p. 34). The solution needs to be the client’s, not yours.
• Coach as an equal partnership. Explore the way forward together collaboratively rather than from a parental or advisory perspective.

Creating a supportive and nonjudgmental environment helps clients explore their thoughts, feelings, and goals, creating an environment for personal development and flourishing (Passmore, 2021).

Download 3 Free Goals Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients create actionable goals and master techniques for lasting behavior change.

Download 3 Free Goals Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

• Email Address *
• Your Expertise * Your expertise Therapy Coaching Education Counseling Business Healthcare Other
• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

A personal development plan is a powerful document “to create mutual clarity of the aims and focus of a coaching assignment” (Starr, 2021, p. 291). While it is valuable during coaching, it can also capture a client’s way forward once sessions have ended.

Crucially, it should have the following characteristics (Starr, 2021):

• Short and succinct
• Providing a quick reference or point of discussion
• Current and fresh, regularly revised and updated

Key elements of a personal development plan include the following (Starr, 2021):

• Area of development This is the general skill or competence to be worked on.
• Development objectives or goals What does the client want to do? Examples might include reducing stress levels, improving diet, or managing work–life balance .
• Behaviors to develop These comprise what the client will probably do more of when meeting their objectives, for example, practicing better coping mechanisms, eating more healthily, and better managing their day.
• Actions to create progress What must the client do to action their objectives? For example, arrange a date to meet with their manager, sign up for a fitness class, or meet with a nutritionist.
• Date to complete or review the objective Capture the dates for completing actions, meeting objectives, and checking progress.

Check out Lindsey Cooper’s excellent video for helpful guidance on action planning within personal development.

We can write and complete personal development plans in many ways. Ultimately, they should meet the needs of the client and leave them with a sense of connection to and ownership of their journey ahead (Starr, 2021).

• Personal Development Plan – Areas of Development In this PDP , we draw on guidance from Starr (2021) to capture development opportunities and the behaviors and actions needed to achieve them.
• Personal Development Plan – Opportunities for Development This template combines short- and long-term goal setting with a self-assessment of strengths, weaknesses, and development opportunities.
• Personal Development Plan – Ideal Self In this PDP template , we focus on our vision of how our ideal self looks and setting goals to get there.

“The setting of a goal becomes the catalyst that drives the remainder of the coaching conversation.”

Passmore, 2021, p. 80

Defining goals and objectives is crucial to many coaching conversations and is usually seen as essential for personal development.

Check out this video on how you can design your life with your personal goals in mind.

The following coaching templates are helpful, containing a series of questions to complete Whitmore’s (2009) GROW model :

• G stands for Goal : Where do you want to be?
• R stands for Reality : Where are you right now with this goal?
• O stands for Options : What are some options for reaching your goal?
• W stands for Way forward : What is your first step forward?

Goal setting creates both direction and motivation for clients to work toward achieving something and meeting their objectives (Passmore, 2021).

The SMART goal-setting framework is another popular tool inside coaching and elsewhere.

S = Specific M = Measurable A = Attainable/ or Agreed upon R = Realistic T = Timely – allowing enough time for achievement

The SMART+ Goals Worksheet contains a series of prompts and spaces for answers to define goals and capture the steps toward achieving them.

We can summarize the five principles of goal setting (Passmore, 2021) as follows:

• Goals must be clear and not open to interpretation.
• Goals should be stretching yet achievable.
• Clients must buy in to the goal from the outset.
• Feedback is essential to keep the client on track.
• Goals should be relatively straightforward. We can break down complex ones into manageable subgoals.

The following insightful articles are also helpful for setting and working toward goals.

• What Is Goal Setting and How to Do it Well
• The Science & Psychology of Goal-Setting 101

1. People skills

Improving how we work with others benefits confidence, and with other’s support, we are more likely to achieve our objectives and goals. The following people skills can all be improved upon:

• Developing rapport
• Assertiveness and negotiation
• Giving and receiving constructive criticism

2. Managing tasks and problem-solving

Inevitably, we encounter challenges on our path to development and growth. Managing our activities and time and solving issues as they surface are paramount.

Here are a few guidelines to help you manage:

• Organize time and tasks effectively.
• Learn fundamental problem-solving strategies.
• Select and apply problem-solving strategies to tackle more complex tasks and challenges.
• Develop planning skills, including identifying priorities, setting achievable targets, and finding practical solutions.
• Acquire skills relevant to project management.
• Familiarize yourself with concepts such as performance indicators and benchmarking.
• Conduct self-audits to assess and enhance your personal competitiveness.

3. Cultivate confidence in your creative abilities

Confidence energizes our performance. Knowing we can perform creatively encourages us to develop novel solutions and be motivated to transform.

Consider the following:

• Understand the fundamentals of how the mind works to enhance your thinking skills.
• Explore a variety of activities to sharpen your creative thinking.
• Embrace the belief that creativity is not limited to artists and performers but is crucial for problem-solving and task completion.
• Learn to ignite the spark of creativity that helps generate innovative ideas when needed.
• Apply creative thinking techniques to enhance your problem-solving and task completion abilities.
• Recognize the role of creative thinking in finding the right ideas at the right time.

To aid you in building your confidence, we have a whole category of articles focused on Optimism and Mindset . Be sure to browse it for confidence-building inspiration.

With new techniques and technology, our understanding of the human brain continues to evolve. Identifying the vital elements involved in learning and connecting with others offers deep insights into how we function and develop as social beings. We handpicked a small but unique selection of books we believe you will enjoy.

1. The Coaching Manual: The Definitive Guide to the Process, Principles and Skills of Personal Coaching – Julie Starr

This insightful book explores and explains the coaching journey from start to finish.

Starr’s book offers a range of free resources and gives clear guidance to support new and existing coaches in providing practical help to their clients.

Find the book on Amazon .

2. The Big Leap: Conquer Your Hidden Fear and Take Life to the Next Level – Gay Hendricks

Delving into the “zone of genius” and the “zone of excellence,” Hendricks examines personal growth and our path to personal success.

This valuable book explores how we eliminate the barriers to reaching our goals that arise from false beliefs and fears.

3. The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You’re Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are – Brené Brown

Brown, a leading expert on shame, vulnerability, and authenticity, examines how we can engage with the world from a place of worthiness.

Use this book to learn how to build courage and compassion and realize the behaviors, skills, and mindset that lead to personal development.

We have many resources available for fostering personal development and supporting client transformation and growth.

Our free resources include:

• Goal Planning and Achievement Tracker This is a valuable worksheet for capturing and reflecting on weekly goals while tracking emotions that surface.
• Adopt a Growth Mindset Successful change is often accompanied by replacing a fixed mindset with a growth one .
• FIRST Framework Questions Understanding a client’s developmental stage can help offer the most appropriate support for a career change.

More extensive versions of the following tools are available with a subscription to the Positive Psychology Toolkit© , but they are described briefly below:

• Backward Goal Planning

Setting goals can build confidence and the skills for ongoing personal development.

Backward goal planning helps focus on the end goal, prevent procrastination, and decrease stress by ensuring we have enough time to complete each task.

Try out the following four simple steps:

• Step one – Identify and visualize your end goal.
• Step two – Reflect on and capture the steps required to reach the goal.
• Step three – Focus on each step one by one.
• Step four – Take action and record progress.
• Boosting Motivation by Celebrating Micro Successes

Celebrating the small successes on our journey toward our goals is motivating and confidence building.

Practice the following:

• Step one – Reflect momentarily on the goal you are working toward.
• Step two – Consider each action being taken to reach that goal.
• Step three – Record the completion of each action as a success.
• Step four – Choose how to celebrate each success.

If you’re looking for more science-based ways to help others reach their goals, check out this collection of 17 validated motivation & goal achievement tools for practitioners. Use them to help others turn their dreams into reality by applying the latest science-based behavioral change techniques.

17 Tools To Increase Motivation and Goal Achievement

These 17 Motivation & Goal Achievement Exercises [PDF] contain all you need to help others set meaningful goals, increase self-drive, and experience greater accomplishment and life satisfaction.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

Personal development has a rich and long history. It is underpinned by various psychological theories and remains a vital aspect of creating fulfilling lives inside and outside coaching and counseling.

For many of us, self-improvement, self-awareness, and personal growth are vital aspects of who we are. Coaching can provide a vehicle to help clients along their journey, supporting their sense of autonomy and confidence and highlighting their potential (Cox, 2018).

Working with clients, therefore, requires an open, honest, and supportive relationship. The coach or counselor must believe the client can achieve better results and view them nonjudgmentally as equal partners.

Personal development plans become essential to that relationship and the overall coaching process. They capture areas for development, skills and behaviors required, and goals and objectives to work toward.

Use this article to recognize theoretical elements from psychology that underpin the process and use the skills, guidance, and worksheets to support personal development in clients, helping them remove obstacles along the way.

Ultimately, personal development is a lifelong process that boosts wellbeing and flourishing and creates a richer, more engaging environment for the individual and those around them.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Goal Achievement Exercises for free .

Personal development is vital, as it enables individuals to enhance various aspects of their lives, including emotional wellbeing, relationships, careers, and overall happiness.

It promotes self-awareness, self-improvement, and personal growth, helping individuals reach their full potential and lead fulfilling lives (Passmore, 2021; Starr, 2021).

Personal development is the journey we take to improve ourselves through conscious habits and activities and focusing on the goals that are important to us.

Personal development goals are specific objectives individuals set to improve themselves and their lives. Goals can encompass various areas, such as emotional intelligence, skill development, health, and career advancement, providing direction and motivation for personal growth (Cox, 2018; Starr, 2021).

A personal development plan typically comprises defining the area of development, setting development objectives, identifying behaviors to develop, planning actions for progress, and establishing completion dates. These five stages help individuals clarify their goals and track their progress (Starr, 2021).

• Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . Prentice-Hall.
• Beck, A. T., & Haigh, E. P. (2014). Advances in cognitive therapy and therapy: The generic cognitive model. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology , 10 , 1–24.
• Beck, J. S. (2011). Cognitive behavior therapy: Basics and beyond . Guilford Press.
• Cottrell, S. (2015). Skills for success: Personal development and employability . Bloomsbury Academic.
• Cox, E. (2018). The complete handbook of coaching . SAGE.
• Ellis, A. (2000). Can rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT) be effectively used with people who have devout beliefs in God and religion? Professional Psychology-Research and Practice , 31 (1), 29–33.
• Erikson, E. H. (1963). Youth: Change and challenge . Basic Books.
• Illeris, K. (2018). An overview of the history of learning theory. European Journal of Education , 53 (1), 86–101.
• Lomas, T., Hefferon, K., & Ivtzan, I. (2014). Applied positive psychology: Integrated positive practice . SAGE.
• Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personalit y (2nd ed.). Harper & Row.
• Passmore, J. (Ed.). (2021). The coaches’ handbook: The complete practitioner guide for professional coaches . Routledge.
• Piaget, J. (1959): The Psychology of intelligence . Routledge.
• Rose, C. (2018). The personal development group: The students’ guide . Routledge.
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2018). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness . Guilford Press.
• Seligman, M. E. (2011). Authentic happiness using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment . Nicholas Brealey.
• Starr, J. (2021). The coaching manual: The definitive guide to the process, principles and skills of personal coaching . Harlow: Pearson Education.
• Whitmore, J. (2009). Coaching for performance . Nicholas Brealey.

Share this article:

Article feedback

Let us know your thoughts cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Personal Development Goals: Helping Your Clients Succeed

In the realm of personal development, individuals often seek to enhance various aspects of their lives, striving for growth, fulfillment, and self-improvement. As coaches and [...]

How to Perform Somatic Coaching: 9 Best Exercises

Our bodies are truly amazing and hold a wellspring of wisdom which, when tapped into, can provide tremendous benefits. Somatic coaching acknowledges the intricate connection [...]

Training in Lifestyle Coaching: 8 Best Certifications and Courses

What makes the Wizard of Oz storyline so compelling? Maybe it’s that we relate to Dorothy’s struggle and her feelings of being stuck, lost, and [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (48)
• Coaching & Application (57)
• Compassion (26)
• Counseling (51)
• Emotional Intelligence (24)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (21)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (20)
• Mindfulness (45)
• Motivation & Goals (45)
• Optimism & Mindset (34)
• Positive CBT (28)
• Positive Communication (20)
• Positive Education (47)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (17)
• Positive Parenting (3)
• Positive Psychology (33)
• Positive Workplace (37)
• Productivity (16)
• Relationships (46)
• Resilience & Coping (35)
• Self Awareness (21)
• Self Esteem (37)
• Strengths & Virtues (31)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (34)
• Theory & Books (46)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (64)

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Disability assessment
• Assessment for capacity to work
• Assessment of functional capability
• Browse content in Fitness for work
• Civil service, central government, and education establishments
• Construction industry
• Emergency Medical Services
• Fire and rescue service
• Healthcare workers
• Hyperbaric medicine
• Military - Other
• Military - Fitness for Work
• Military - Mental Health
• Oil and gas industry
• Police service
• Rail and Roads
• Remote medicine
• Telecommunications industry
• The disabled worker
• The older worker
• The young worker
• Travel medicine
• Women at work
• Browse content in Framework for practice
• Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and associated regulations
• Health information and reporting
• Ill health retirement
• Questionnaire Reviews
• Browse content in Occupational Medicine
• Blood borne viruses and other immune disorders
• Dermatological disorders
• Endocrine disorders
• Gastrointestinal and liver disorders
• Gynaecology
• Haematological disorders
• Mental health
• Neurological disorders
• Occupational cancers
• Opthalmology
• Renal and urological disorders
• Respiratory Disorders
• Rheumatological disorders
• Browse content in Rehabilitation
• Chronic disease
• Mental health rehabilitation
• Motivation for work
• Physical health rehabilitation
• Browse content in Workplace hazard and risk
• Biological/occupational infections
• Dusts and particles
• Occupational stress
• Post-traumatic stress
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Themed and Special Issues
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Books for Review
• Become a Reviewer
• About Occupational Medicine
• About the Society of Occupational Medicine
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Permissions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

• < Previous

Writing a Personal Development Plan

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Nerys Williams, Writing a Personal Development Plan, Occupational Medicine , Volume 73, Issue 6, August 2023, Page 381, https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqad037

• Permissions Icon Permissions

A personal development plan (PDP) is a valuable tool that helps individuals identify their career goals, acquire new skills and knowledge and improve their performance.

It is a stepped process involving setting goals to identify what you want to improve and what you hope to achieve, identifying strengths and weaknesses through self-assessment, seeking out opportunities for personal growth through courses, conferences, workshops and online resources and then creating a timeline to achieve the plan.

You may well need support and guidance from mentors and/or colleagues. Contacts within professional networks and organizations such as the Society of Occupational Medicine can also help.

To be successful you will need to stay organized, keep track of progress and note your achievements and challenges. The PDP plan is a living document that should be updated and revised as you grow and evolve as a medical practitioner. Staying committed to the plan can be difficult in the face of work and social pressures but is essential if you are to derive maximum benefit.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Contact SOM
• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1471-8405
• Print ISSN 0962-7480
• Copyright © 2024 Society of Occupational Medicine
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• BOOK REVIEW
• 29 March 2024

The great rewiring: is social media really behind an epidemic of teenage mental illness?

• Candice L. Odgers 0

Candice L. Odgers is the associate dean for research and a professor of psychological science and informatics at the University of California, Irvine. She also co-leads international networks on child development for both the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research in Toronto and the Jacobs Foundation based in Zurich, Switzerland.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Social-media platforms aren’t always social. Credit: Getty

The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness Jonathan Haidt Allen Lane (2024)

Two things need to be said after reading The Anxious Generation . First, this book is going to sell a lot of copies, because Jonathan Haidt is telling a scary story about children’s development that many parents are primed to believe. Second, the book’s repeated suggestion that digital technologies are rewiring our children’s brains and causing an epidemic of mental illness is not supported by science. Worse, the bold proposal that social media is to blame might distract us from effectively responding to the real causes of the current mental-health crisis in young people.

Haidt asserts that the great rewiring of children’s brains has taken place by “designing a firehose of addictive content that entered through kids’ eyes and ears”. And that “by displacing physical play and in-person socializing, these companies have rewired childhood and changed human development on an almost unimaginable scale”. Such serious claims require serious evidence.

Collection: Promoting youth mental health

Haidt supplies graphs throughout the book showing that digital-technology use and adolescent mental-health problems are rising together. On the first day of the graduate statistics class I teach, I draw similar lines on a board that seem to connect two disparate phenomena, and ask the students what they think is happening. Within minutes, the students usually begin telling elaborate stories about how the two phenomena are related, even describing how one could cause the other. The plots presented throughout this book will be useful in teaching my students the fundamentals of causal inference, and how to avoid making up stories by simply looking at trend lines.

Hundreds of researchers, myself included, have searched for the kind of large effects suggested by Haidt. Our efforts have produced a mix of no, small and mixed associations. Most data are correlative. When associations over time are found, they suggest not that social-media use predicts or causes depression, but that young people who already have mental-health problems use such platforms more often or in different ways from their healthy peers 1 .

These are not just our data or my opinion. Several meta-analyses and systematic reviews converge on the same message 2 – 5 . An analysis done in 72 countries shows no consistent or measurable associations between well-being and the roll-out of social media globally 6 . Moreover, findings from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study, the largest long-term study of adolescent brain development in the United States, has found no evidence of drastic changes associated with digital-technology use 7 . Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University, is a gifted storyteller, but his tale is currently one searching for evidence.

Of course, our current understanding is incomplete, and more research is always needed. As a psychologist who has studied children’s and adolescents’ mental health for the past 20 years and tracked their well-being and digital-technology use, I appreciate the frustration and desire for simple answers. As a parent of adolescents, I would also like to identify a simple source for the sadness and pain that this generation is reporting.

A complex problem

There are, unfortunately, no simple answers. The onset and development of mental disorders, such as anxiety and depression, are driven by a complex set of genetic and environmental factors. Suicide rates among people in most age groups have been increasing steadily for the past 20 years in the United States. Researchers cite access to guns, exposure to violence, structural discrimination and racism, sexism and sexual abuse, the opioid epidemic, economic hardship and social isolation as leading contributors 8 .

How social media affects teen mental health: a missing link

The current generation of adolescents was raised in the aftermath of the great recession of 2008. Haidt suggests that the resulting deprivation cannot be a factor, because unemployment has gone down. But analyses of the differential impacts of economic shocks have shown that families in the bottom 20% of the income distribution continue to experience harm 9 . In the United States, close to one in six children live below the poverty line while also growing up at the time of an opioid crisis, school shootings and increasing unrest because of racial and sexual discrimination and violence.

The good news is that more young people are talking openly about their symptoms and mental-health struggles than ever before. The bad news is that insufficient services are available to address their needs. In the United States, there is, on average, one school psychologist for every 1,119 students 10 .

Haidt’s work on emotion, culture and morality has been influential; and, in fairness, he admits that he is no specialist in clinical psychology, child development or media studies. In previous books, he has used the analogy of an elephant and its rider to argue how our gut reactions (the elephant) can drag along our rational minds (the rider). Subsequent research has shown how easy it is to pick out evidence to support our initial gut reactions to an issue. That we should question assumptions that we think are true carefully is a lesson from Haidt’s own work. Everyone used to ‘know’ that the world was flat. The falsification of previous assumptions by testing them against data can prevent us from being the rider dragged along by the elephant.

A generation in crisis

Two things can be independently true about social media. First, that there is no evidence that using these platforms is rewiring children’s brains or driving an epidemic of mental illness. Second, that considerable reforms to these platforms are required, given how much time young people spend on them. Many of Haidt’s solutions for parents, adolescents, educators and big technology firms are reasonable, including stricter content-moderation policies and requiring companies to take user age into account when designing platforms and algorithms. Others, such as age-based restrictions and bans on mobile devices, are unlikely to be effective in practice — or worse, could backfire given what we know about adolescent behaviour.

A third truth is that we have a generation in crisis and in desperate need of the best of what science and evidence-based solutions can offer. Unfortunately, our time is being spent telling stories that are unsupported by research and that do little to support young people who need, and deserve, more.

Nature 628 , 29-30 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00902-2

Heffer, T., Good, M., Daly, O., MacDonell, E. & Willoughby, T. Clin. Psychol. Sci. 7 , 462–470 (2019).

Article   Google Scholar  

Hancock, J., Liu, S. X., Luo, M. & Mieczkowski, H. Preprint at SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4053961 (2022).

Odgers, C. L. & Jensen, M. R. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 61 , 336–348 (2020).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Orben, A. Soc . Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 55 , 407–414 (2020).

Valkenburg, P. M., Meier, A. & Beyens, I. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 44 , 58–68 (2022).

Vuorre, M. & Przybylski, A. K. R. Sci. Open Sci. 10 , 221451 (2023).

Miller, J., Mills, K. L., Vuorre, M., Orben, A. & Przybylski, A. K. Cortex 169 , 290–308 (2023).

Martínez-Alés, G., Jiang, T., Keyes, K. M. & Gradus, J. L. Annu. Rev. Publ. Health 43 , 99–116 (2022).

Danziger, S. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 650 , 6–24 (2013).

US Department of Education. State Nonfiscal Public Elementary/Secondary Education Survey 2022–2023 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2024).

Google Scholar  

Download references

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Related Articles

• Public health

Use fines from EU social-media act to fund research on adolescent mental health

Correspondence 09 APR 24

AI-fuelled election campaigns are here — where are the rules?

World View 09 APR 24

Why loneliness is bad for your health

News Feature 03 APR 24

Circulating myeloid-derived MMP8 in stress susceptibility and depression

Article 07 FEB 24

Only 0.5% of neuroscience studies look at women’s health. Here’s how to change that

World View 21 NOV 23

Bird flu outbreak in US cows: why scientists are concerned

News Explainer 08 APR 24

Adopt universal standards for study adaptation to boost health, education and social-science research

Correspondence 02 APR 24

Abortion-pill challenge provokes doubt from US Supreme Court

News 26 MAR 24

PhD position (all genders) in AI for biomedical data analysis

PhD position (all genders) in AI for biomedical data analysis Part time  | Temporary | Arbeitsort: Hamburg-Eppendorf UKE_Zentrum für Molekulare Ne...

Hamburg (DE)

Personalwerk GmbH

Postdoctoral fellow in structure determination of membrane proteins using cryo-EM

The Institute of Biomedicine is involved in both research and education. In both of these areas, we focus on fundamental knowledge of the living ce...

Gothenburg (Stad), Västra Götaland (SE)

University of Gothenburg

Postdoctoral Associate- Endometriosis

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics

Located in the beautiful coastal city of Dalian, surrounded by mountains and sea, DICP seeks all talents from around the globe.

Dalian, Liaoning, China

The Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics (DICP)

Postdoctoral Research Associate

Qualifications: PhD degree in chemistry, radiochemistry, or nuclear medicine technology with at least 3 years of PET radiochemistry work experience i

Charlottesville, Virginia

University of Virginia Health

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies