<\/p>\n Individual development plans or IDPs\u2014multi-part worksheets that help junior researchers asses their skills and map out possible career paths\u2014are often touted as valuable training tools. The US National Institutes of Health (NIH), for example, \u201cstrongly encourages\u201d IDPs for all graduate students and postdoctoral researchers funded through the agency, and many US institutions have made them mandatory.<\/p>\n Despite all of those endorsements, the actual reach and effectiveness of IDPs are largely unknown. A yet-to-be peer-reviewed survey of 663 PhD students from around the United States published in F1000Research<\/em><\/a> provides new evidence that IDPs often fail to live up to their promise. \u201cThe IDP has been pushed hard over the last several years,\u201d says lead author Nathan Vanderford, a career development researcher at the University of Kentucky in Lexington. \u201cBut in many cases they are used incorrectly or not used at all.\u201d<\/p>\n In the survey, 54% of respondents said that their institution formally requires them to complete an IDP, and 34% said it was helpful for their career development. \u201cGiven how hard IDPs have been pushed, I would have expected those rates to be higher,\u201d Vanderford says.<\/p>\n Respondents who completed their IDP with input from their adviser were far more likely than those who didn\u2019t to say that the process was helpful (56% vs. 20%, respectively). IDPs work best when they\u2019re backed by guidance from an adviser, career counselor or another ally, Vanderford says.<\/p>\n Philip Clifford, a kinesiologist and associate dean of research at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who has advocated for IDPs since the early 2000s, agrees that the tools aren\u2019t being used to their full potential. \u201cIDPs haven\u2019t been put together in an effective way at universities,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n In Clifford\u2019s view, the NIH and other institutions should do more to standardize and clarify the use of IDPs. For one thing, he notes that some institutions have dropped key parts of the worksheets, including sections that require exploration of career options. Also, he says, there\u2019s a lack of of guidance about when the IDPs should be completed. \u201cHaving first-year graduate students fill out an IDP is an exercise in futility,\u201d he says. \u201cThey don\u2019t even know where the library is.\u201d Ideally, he says, institutions should require students to wait until they\u2019ve gone through about two years of training before completing an IDP.<\/p>\n In a statement, the NIH Office of Extramural Research called the paper by Vanderford et al. an \u201cinformative evaluation of IDPs\u201d and said that it \u201clooks forward to additional studies of the use of IDPs and the role they play in helping students and postdocs articulate and accomplish their desired career goals.\u201d<\/p>\n Chris Woolston is a freelance writer in Billings, Montana.<\/em><\/p>\n Suggested reading<\/em>:<\/p>\n Career development: A plan for action<\/a><\/p>\n Career planning: Question time<\/a><\/p>\n Career planning: The next five years<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Individual development plans or IDPs\u2014multi-part worksheets that help junior researchers asses their skills and map out possible career paths\u2014are often touted as valuable training tools. The US National Institutes of Health (NIH), for example, \u201cstrongly encourages\u201d IDPs for all graduate students and postdoctoral researchers funded through the agency, and many US institutions have made them mandatory. Read more<\/a> Continue reading ![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/naturejobs\/files\/2018\/02\/blogging-3094201_1920.jpg\" "\\"blogging-3094201_1920\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\n