Pharmacy students' perceived willingness and ability to negotiate for paid co-operative education positions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Evidence of a gender wage gap has been identified across many professions, with some evidence in pharmacy. Negotiation is one potential strategy to address this gap and it is underutilized, especially among women. No studies to date have examined pharmacy student perceptions of negotiation when applying for co-operative education positions - a potential sign of willingness to negotiate for entry-level positions upon graduation. Objectives: To examine pharmacy students' comfort with and ability to engage employers in negotiation over wage and other work-related considerations for mandatory and paid co-operative education work terms at the University of Waterloo (Waterloo, Ontario, Canada). Methods: Two focus groups, one for female and one for male students, were performed with students who had completed at least one co-operative education placement. Focus groups aimed to elucidate students perceived ability to negotiate with potential employers, to identify strategies that educators can employ to better support students through the hiring and negotiation process, and to elicit student perceptions on the gender wage gap in pharmacy. Focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, and data were coded inductively by two independent reviewers, employing thematic analysis. Results: Three major and two minor themes were identified: Preservation of the relationship; Power differential and perceived ability to negotiate; Institutional support and training; Negative experience with negotiation and wage gaps; and the presence of a gendered approach to negotiation. Pharmacy students rarely engage in negotiation during co-operative hiring processes at the University of Waterloo, with some female students expressing hesitation to negotiate due to concerns about being perceived as "bossy". Students of both genders felt poorly equipped to engage in negotiation with a potential employer, and lacked confidence in initiating such a conversation. Conclusions: Students identified a number of factors which influence their ability and desire to negotiate wages during co-op placement, including the requirements and logistics of placements, the perceived power imbalance between students and potential employers, and a concern that any wage negotiation may overshadow the value placed by students on the opportunities to provide patient care. Educators can play a role in equipping students, especially female students, with tools to enter into conversations on wages with potential employers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".