Data From: Lighting pathways to success in STEM: A virtual Lab Meeting Program (LaMP) mutually benefits mentees and host labs

Developing robust professional networks can help shape the trajectories of early career scientists. Yet, historical inequities in STEM fields make access to these networks highly variable across academic programs, and senior academics often have little time for mentoring. Here, we illustrate the success of a Virtual Lab Meeting Program (LaMP). In this program, we matched students (“Mentees”) with a more experienced researcher (“Mentors”) from a research group. The Mentees then attended the Mentors’ lab meetings during the academic year with two lab meetings specifically dedicated to the Mentee’s professional development. Survey results indicate that Mentees expanded their knowledge of the hidden curriculum as well as their professional network, while only requiring a few extra hours of their Mentor’s time over eight months. In addition, host labs benefitted from Mentees sharing new perspectives and knowledge in lab meetings. The diversity of the Mentees was significantly higher than the Mentors, suggesting that the program increased the participation of traditionally underrepresented groups. Finally, we found that providing a stipend was very important to many mentees. We conclude that Virtual Lab Meeting Programs can be an inclusive and cost-effective way to foster trainee development and increase diversity within STEM fields with little additional time commitment.

Methods
Running the Virtual Lab Meeting Training Program
The first three months of the program require dedicated time for recruiting and matching Mentees and Mentors (for a summary of program timelines, see Figure 2). One month prior to the start of the academic year, we began to advertise the program by sharing a link to our webpage with potential mentors and mentees (https://rcn-ecs.github.io/VLMTP/; Figure 2). Then, we recruited mentors through a list of personal invitations, listservs, and members of the Evolution in Changing Seas RCN. We completed the process of recruiting 30-40 mentors approximately two weeks after the academic year started (Figure 2). Mentors were required to agree with a document that outlined expectations and best practices for including their Mentee in lab meetings (see Supplemental Materials).

After mentors were recruited, we began the process of recruiting student Mentees. We generated an email contact list to contact as many participants as possible across a diverse group of scientific societies and institutions. The contact list consisted of scientific societies or diversity lists (e.g. Society for Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics & Native Americans in Science, Diversify Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Black Women in Ecology Evolution and Marine Science, American Geophysical Union BRIDGE, Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography Multicultural program, Ecology Society of America SEEDs program, Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders in Geosciences), and a list of 608 professors teaching courses in biology, ecology, or evolution at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities. In addition, we advertised to the RCN-ECS listserv and asked colleagues to distribute the information among peers.

To apply, Mentees submitted a 300-word statement that described their current research interests and/or experiences related to the themes under the Evolution in Changing Seas RCN, future career interests, how interactions with a host lab would help to advance their careers and/or support their professional development, and a description of how their participation in this program would help to increase diversity (broadly defined) within the network. They also (i) answered questions about their time zone, (ii) listed their top three choices for mentors, (iii) selected two keywords that described their research interests from a list, (iv) submitted a CV or resume, and (v) optionally answered demographic questions.

Approximately six weeks into the academic year, we closed applications for mentees and started pairing them with mentors. Matching was made by two members of the RCN diversity committee based on the Mentee’s academic interests, who they listed as their top three choices for a Mentor, and time zone alignment, taking into account how many Mentees could be assigned to a single Mentor (i.e. usually 1-2 Mentees per lab group). Due to high request rates for well-known Mentors, sometimes we were unable to match a Mentee with one of their top three choices. In the few cases where Mentees did not get their top choices, pairings were made based on affinity between Mentors’ and Mentees’ research interests. By the second month of the academic year, we had completed the process of pairing mentees with Mentors. Pairs were introduced to each other by email and reminded of the program guidelines and expectations (Supp Doc: Example Email).

Over the course of the academic year, Mentees attended lab meetings on an independent basis. At the end of the academic year, we distributed stipends to students for their participation in the program. To obtain a stipend, students had to provide a letter from their Mentor that stated the student had completed the program requirements.

Mentee and Mentor Surveys
At the end of the academic year in 2022, we distributed surveys to Mentees and another survey to Mentors who had participated in the program (for complete surveys, see Supplemental Documents). Both surveys included optional questions on demographic information, year(s) of participation, activities that were part of lab meetings, potential for future collaborations, a Likert scale on how they ranked the program from 1 to 10, and open-ended feedback (Table 1, left column). We also had an open-ended question where participants were encouraged to leave constructive feedback. 

The Mentee survey included unique Likert scale questions on whether the program helped them extend their professional network, advance their expertise in subject matter, and how important the stipend was to completing the program. We also asked Mentees what kind of interactions most helped to advance their professional development, what knowledge they gained during the program, and whether they planned to continue interactions with the host lab (Table 1, middle column). 

The Mentor survey included questions on the number of Mentees hosted, professional development activities discussed in lab meetings, Mentee contributions to lab meetings, how much time mentors invested in the program, whether Mentees attended lab meetings beyond the program requirements, how many people attended their lab meetings, whether Mentees had 1:1 interactions with other lab members, and Likert questions on whether they agreed with statements regarding continued interactions and benefits of having the Mentee join lab meetings (Table 1, right column).

IRB Review
Our surveys were reviewed by the Institutional Review Board at Northeastern University (IRB #: 22-03-33) and were considered exempt (DHHS Review Category: EXEMPT, CATEGORY #2 Revised Common Rule 45CFR46.104(d)(2)(iii)).