In each cluster was assigned a random number. Sampling within each cluster was prioritized based on two secondary criteria: disciplinary field (in the order of geoscience, physics, chemistry, and biology) and an individual’s random number (from lowest to highest). We selected six individuals with whom we conducted pilot interviews. Because the pilot interview protocol functioned as expected and yielded valuable data similar to later interviews, we included these pilot interviewees in our final sample. After the pilot order Relugolix Interviews were conducted, we invited 44 additional people to participate in our study who were distributed across the six clusters. Of those, 38 responded indicating their willingness to be interviewed (86 response rate). Six back-up individuals were similarly selected to replace the six individuals who did not initially respond, bringing our U0126 chemical information sample size to 50 individuals (including pilots). During the process, internal checks were conducted to ensure that the random sample was balanced across the six clusters. Participants received a 250 honorarium as compensation upon completion of their interview. This study was approved by California State University Los Angeles Institutional Review Board. Subjects provided written informed consent prior to participation following a procedure approved by the aforementioned institutional review board.Data collectionUsing the contact information provided, subjects were scheduled for 60-minute telephone interviews that were completed between July and September 2013. To orient each participant to the study, we shared, via email, our research goals, the categories of questions that would frame their interview, the identities of the researchers who would conduct the interview, and assurances of confidentiality and protection SART.S23506 of identity. If a research team member hadPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0150914 March 8,3 /Fostering Change in Undergraduate Science Educationextensive familiarity with a participant, they did not conduct that specific interview, so that participants would not assume that the interviewers had prior knowledge of their professional experiences. The interviews were audio-recorded, conducted by two interviewers, and fully transcribed. Although one interviewer took a more active role and asked the majority of questions, a second interviewer was present to ensure consistency in the interview protocol and to provide a back-up recording. During the interview, participants were addressed using their actual name, but during transcription and analysis, pseudonyms replaced actual names and disciplines, and institution names were redacted to protect the identities of our participants. Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured jmir.6472 interview protocol that included an informational preamble followed by seven main questions centered on: 1) the nature of their current position, 2) their identity or non-identity as an SFES, 3) the motivations for the creation of their current position, 4) their perceptions of their professional impact and influence 5) the effectiveness of their training, 6) their job satisfaction, and 7) their viewpoints regarding the SFES phenomenon in general (see S1 File for entire interview protocol).Data analysesWhile our interviews produced rich and broad descriptions of the professional experiences of 50 individual SFES, here we present evidence and insights only about SFES perceptions of their professional impact upon their institution. This was specifi.In each cluster was assigned a random number. Sampling within each cluster was prioritized based on two secondary criteria: disciplinary field (in the order of geoscience, physics, chemistry, and biology) and an individual’s random number (from lowest to highest). We selected six individuals with whom we conducted pilot interviews. Because the pilot interview protocol functioned as expected and yielded valuable data similar to later interviews, we included these pilot interviewees in our final sample. After the pilot interviews were conducted, we invited 44 additional people to participate in our study who were distributed across the six clusters. Of those, 38 responded indicating their willingness to be interviewed (86 response rate). Six back-up individuals were similarly selected to replace the six individuals who did not initially respond, bringing our sample size to 50 individuals (including pilots). During the process, internal checks were conducted to ensure that the random sample was balanced across the six clusters. Participants received a 250 honorarium as compensation upon completion of their interview. This study was approved by California State University Los Angeles Institutional Review Board. Subjects provided written informed consent prior to participation following a procedure approved by the aforementioned institutional review board.Data collectionUsing the contact information provided, subjects were scheduled for 60-minute telephone interviews that were completed between July and September 2013. To orient each participant to the study, we shared, via email, our research goals, the categories of questions that would frame their interview, the identities of the researchers who would conduct the interview, and assurances of confidentiality and protection SART.S23506 of identity. If a research team member hadPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0150914 March 8,3 /Fostering Change in Undergraduate Science Educationextensive familiarity with a participant, they did not conduct that specific interview, so that participants would not assume that the interviewers had prior knowledge of their professional experiences. The interviews were audio-recorded, conducted by two interviewers, and fully transcribed. Although one interviewer took a more active role and asked the majority of questions, a second interviewer was present to ensure consistency in the interview protocol and to provide a back-up recording. During the interview, participants were addressed using their actual name, but during transcription and analysis, pseudonyms replaced actual names and disciplines, and institution names were redacted to protect the identities of our participants. Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured jmir.6472 interview protocol that included an informational preamble followed by seven main questions centered on: 1) the nature of their current position, 2) their identity or non-identity as an SFES, 3) the motivations for the creation of their current position, 4) their perceptions of their professional impact and influence 5) the effectiveness of their training, 6) their job satisfaction, and 7) their viewpoints regarding the SFES phenomenon in general (see S1 File for entire interview protocol).Data analysesWhile our interviews produced rich and broad descriptions of the professional experiences of 50 individual SFES, here we present evidence and insights only about SFES perceptions of their professional impact upon their institution. This was specifi.