22  Professional Development

22.1 Mentoring Philosophy

We believe in individualized mentoring that supports each person’s unique career goals. Effective mentoring requires:

  • Regular, open communication between mentees and mentors
  • Mutual respect and trust
  • Clear expectations and goals
  • Constructive feedback
  • Support for both research and career development

22.2 Individual Development Plans

All graduate students and postdocs should maintain an Individual Development Plan (IDP) that outlines:

  • Short-term and long-term career goals
  • Skills to develop
  • Training needs and opportunities
  • Timeline and milestones
  • Progress toward goals

Update your IDP at least annually and discuss it with your PI. Useful resources:

22.3 Navigating the Hidden Curriculum

The “hidden curriculum” refers to the unspoken norms, unwritten expectations, and cultural practices in graduate school and academic research that are rarely taught in formal coursework but are critical for long-term success and well-being. Demystifying these implicit rules ensures equitable access to academic opportunities for scholars from all backgrounds.

22.3.1 Managing Up and Mentoring Relationships

Mentorship is a collaborative partnership. Taking active ownership of your mentoring relationships helps ensure you receive the guidance and feedback you need:

  • Set clear meeting agendas: Send a brief bulleted agenda and updated materials at least 24 hours before 1-on-1 meetings.
  • Clarify priorities and timelines: Agree on concrete milestones, deadlines, and expectations for feedback turnarounds.
  • Build a mentoring team: Seek guidance from multiple mentors, including thesis committee members, peer mentors, senior graduate students, and external collaborators. No single mentor can meet all training, professional, and personal needs.

22.3.2 Normalizing Setbacks and Imposter Feelings

Graduate training involves tackling open-ended scientific problems where methods fail, experiments yield inconclusive results, and manuscripts face rejection:

  • Imposter feelings are common: Experiencing self-doubt or feeling underqualified is a widely shared experience in high-rigor research environments, especially during early transitions. It reflects the challenging nature of scientific discovery, not personal inadequacy.
  • Analytical iterations are normal: Bugs, refactored data pipelines, and revisions are standard components of the scientific process.
  • Establish healthy boundaries: Sustainable productivity requires rest, structured time off, and hobbies outside academia. Seek out campus health and counseling resources when facing persistent stress.

22.3.3 Demystifying Publishing and Peer Review

Navigating scientific publication requires understanding the review lifecycle:

  • Rejection is a normal part of publishing: In academic publishing, manuscripts frequently undergo multiple rounds of submission; rejection provides an opportunity to refine arguments and submit to a better-matched venue.
  • Approaching reviewer feedback: Read peer reviews, step back for a day to process feedback, and draft systematic, point-by-point response letters using the guidance in Section 24.2.
  • Authorship conversations: Initiate discussions regarding authorship order and contribution roles early in every project and revisit them regularly.

22.3.4 Strategic Networking and Visibility

Building professional connections expands research opportunities and career horizons:

  • Conferences as networking venues: Prepare a clear 60-second summary of your research question, key methods, and scientific impact.
  • Engage with speakers: Introduce yourself after departmental seminars or during poster sessions to ask focused questions about their work.
  • Peer networks: Cultivate strong relationships with cohort members and lab peers; colleagues at your career stage will become future collaborators, reviewers, and lifelong allies.

22.4 Presentations and Conferences

We encourage lab members to present their work at conferences and seminars:

  • Discuss conference opportunities with PIs early
  • Submit abstracts with PI approval
  • Practice presentations in lab meeting before the conference
  • Prioritize clear visuals over text-dense slides following our Show, Don’t Tell principle
  • Funding for conferences depends on availability and should be discussed in advance

22.4.1 Guidelines for Slide Decks

When preparing slide presentations for lab meetings, conferences, qualifying exams, or thesis defenses, follow these practical guidelines:

  • Always include slide numbers: Slide numbers are essential for receiving constructive feedback. During question-and-answer periods or practice feedback sessions, collaborators and audience members need to refer back to specific slides quickly (e.g., “On slide 14, how was that variable defined?”) without fumbling through visual descriptions or guessing where a topic occurred.
  • Complete, record, and review practice runs: Before any significant presentation, rehearse the complete talk out loud, record the practice run (using screen recording software, a webcam, or your phone), and review the recording. Watching your own practice run provides invaluable, objective feedback on pacing, timing, verbal filler habits, transition clarity, and whether slide text and figures remain legible when viewed on screen. Both students and faculty benefit substantially from this practice.
  • One primary takeaway per slide: Limit the cognitive load of each slide. If a slide presents multiple distinct findings or complex arguments, split them across sequential slides so the audience can focus on each point.
  • Prioritize visual evidence: Audiences cannot read dense paragraphs while simultaneously listening to a speaker. Favor clean charts, diagrams, and annotated figures over text-heavy bulleted lists.
  • Ensure high contrast and readability: Use large, legible fonts and high-contrast color palettes. Verify that axis labels, legends, and annotations remain easily readable from the back of a large room or on low-resolution projector displays.

22.4.2 Presentation and Poster Resources

22.5 Scientific Figures

Creating clear, effective figures is essential for communicating research findings:

  • Label x-axis and y-axis clearly
  • Use panel labels when including multiple subplots
  • Include sufficient tick marks and labels
  • Use appropriate font sizes (readable but not distracting)
  • Use colorblind-friendly palettes (see ColorBrewer or iwanthue)
  • Define colors, shapes, and line types in legends
  • Minimize abbreviations in labels and legends
  • Use transparency to show overlapping data
  • Show measures of precision (e.g., 95% confidence intervals)

Resources:

22.6 Grant Writing

  • Graduate students and postdocs are encouraged to apply for fellowships (e.g., NIH F31, NSF GRFP, K awards)
  • PIs will support fellowship applications with feedback, letters of support, and mentoring
  • Start planning fellowship applications well in advance of deadlines (typically 3-6 months)
  • Attend grant writing workshops and seek feedback from multiple sources

Resources:

22.7 PhD Dissertation Requirements

Understanding what constitutes a sufficient PhD dissertation is crucial for setting realistic expectations and timelines. The dissertation represents an important milestone, but it doesn’t need to be your magnum opus.

22.7.1 Review Previous Dissertations

Before setting your dissertation goals, read previous dissertations from students in your program. This helps you:

  • Understand the typical scope and depth expected
  • See different approaches to structure and presentation
  • Calibrate your expectations based on successful examples
  • Identify common patterns and standards in your field

Most universities maintain electronic dissertation repositories, making it easy to access recent examples from your program.

22.7.2 Publication Requirements

Three first-author papers typically suffice for a dissertation in public health and biomedical sciences. If academic peers in reputable journals have approved your work through peer review, this demonstrates that your research meets professional standards. Your dissertation committee should recognize this external validation.

The specific publication requirements may vary by program and institution, so consult your program’s guidelines and discuss expectations with your committee early. However, three substantial first-author publications generally demonstrate:

  • Independent research capability
  • Ability to communicate findings effectively
  • Contribution to the scientific literature
  • Readiness for an academic or research career

22.7.3 External Validation and Fast-Tracking

If you have a job offer waiting, you can usually get fast-tracked through the dissertation process. The reasoning is straightforward: your work has been externally validated as worthwhile by prospective employers.

Since most post-PhD positions offer better compensation than graduate stipends, it’s difficult to justify prolonging your graduation when you’ve already demonstrated professional competence. This applies whether the job offer is in academia, industry, government, or nonprofit sectors.

22.7.4 Historical Context: The Masterpiece Tradition

The dissertation (or thesis), a requirement for earning a PhD, is a spiritual successor to an apprentice’s masterpiece in craft guilds. Historically, a masterpiece was the piece of work that demonstrated an apprentice had achieved sufficient skill to join the guild as a master craftsperson. It was not meant to be the best work they would ever produce—it was meant to prove they were ready to work independently.

Similarly, your dissertation should demonstrate that you’re ready to conduct independent research. It’s your first professional-level work, not your career highlight. This perspective helps set appropriate expectations:

  • The dissertation proves you can conduct rigorous research
  • It doesn’t need to solve every problem in your field
  • It doesn’t need to be flawless
  • It doesn’t need to be all-encompassing
  • It just needs to constitute incremental progress in your field

22.7.5 Setting Realistic Expectations

Many PhD students struggle with perfectionism or “scope creep” in their dissertations. Remember:

  • Done is better than perfect when it comes to dissertations
  • You’ll have your entire career to refine and expand on these ideas
  • The goal is to finish and move forward, not to write the definitive work on your topic
  • Your committee wants to see you succeed and graduate

Focus on making a solid, incremental contribution to knowledge in your field. That’s what a dissertation is meant to be—no more, no less.

22.7.6 Resources

Dissertation writing tools:

  • quarto-thesis - Quarto extension for creating masters or PhD theses with professional LaTeX formatting

22.8 Teaching and Outreach

Teaching and outreach are valuable professional development opportunities:

  • Graduate students are encouraged to gain teaching experience
  • We support science communication and outreach activities
  • Discuss opportunities with PIs

The UC Davis DataLab offers various workshops and learning materials that can support your teaching and professional development. Their workshop index provides a comprehensive catalog of available resources.

22.9 Networking

Building a professional network is important for your career:

  • Attend seminars and departmental events
  • Connect with researchers in your field
  • Join professional societies
  • Use professional social media platforms to share research and engage with the scientific community