Last week was National Postdoc Appreciation Week, an annual event organized by the National Postdoctoral Association (NPA) to raise awareness for the work postdocs do and encourage the institutions they work at to show their appreciation. 

As someone who was a postdoctoral scholar and now works as an administrator to support postdocs, I know the value they provide to their institutions. However, many people - including those working at our institutions - either don't understand what a postdoc is or the impact they make through their research, mentorship, and teaching efforts.

The NPA has launched a whole campaign to try to better articulate that while postdocs perform important research and scholarship, they are also human beings like anyone else - mothers, fathers, leaders, volunteers, immigrants, and innovators. If you are a postdoc, I encourage you to share your story as part of the What's a Postdoc? initiative. 

The definition of a postdoctoral scholar (postdoc) by the NPA reads:
"An individual who has received a doctoral degree (or equivalent) and is engaged in a temporary and defined period of mentored advanced training to enhance professional skills and research independence needed to pursue his or her chosen career path."

The major task associated with postdoctoral scholars is helping lead and drive forward research and scholarly work at their institutions. And these institutions can range from universities and academic medical centers to national or government labs and corporations. My experience lies in supporting postdocs at universities which is what I will touch on in the rest of this piece. However, there is important emerging research that pursuing postdocs outside academic institutions does not necessarily preclude one from pursuing a faculty career. Perhaps a topic for a future post.  

​I ran climate surveys on our postdoctoral population at North Carolina State University in 2020 and 2021 as well as at Virginia Tech in 2022. In these surveys we asked how postdocs spend their time and the distribution of their work devoted to the tasks below were remarkably consistent across survey years and institutions.  

As you can see in the figure above, postdocs spend a nearly equivalent amount of their time performing research or scholarship related to their personal interests/goals and those of their supervisor(s) and that these efforts take up ~60% of their total work hours each week. It is great to see postdocs are working on their "own" research/scholarship efforts as a key point of the postdoctoral position is to develop as an independent researcher and scholar.

​Writing takes up another large portion of postdocs' time (~16%) with manuscript writing being the largest area of focus outside research/scholarship. Finally, mentoring junior colleagues (7%) and teaching (6%) were tasks most postdocs reported doing as part of their roles, although there was large variation in the distribution of effort on these tasks based on the disciplinary background of the postdoc. 

Clearly, then, postdocs do report focusing largely on research/scholarship but are also doing work beyond that, including mentoring others. There is data to emphasize that postdocs play a critical role in the development of research skills in Ph.D. students working in their groups. The authors of the PNAS study that investigated postdoc mentoring of graduate students discussed a "cascading mentorship model" where faculty supervisors' mentoring of postdocs allows for postdocs to then mentor their more junior colleagues. So, postdocs are both mentoring and are being mentored. 

Given many postdocs also seek to move into future careers where they will need to mentor others, increasing the development of effective mentoring skills in this population is critical. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's report and online guide on the Science of Effective Mentoring in STEMM is a great place to start. 

Many readers may wonder what is the purpose of a postdoc? How is it different from graduate school? These are good questions. Traditionally, a postdoctoral position was seen as a type of apprenticeship where aspiring faculty members (especially in the sciences and engineering fields) would be mentored by a more senior faculty member as they worked to develop the various skills (experimental design, analysis, manuscript and grant writing, people and project management, etc...) needed to become an "independent researcher". To achieve a faculty position at many research-intensive institutions a postdoctoral position is becoming essential. And data demonstrate that completing a postdoc improves scholarly productivity and positively contributes to securing a tenure-track faculty appointment. However, one can have too much postdoctoral training and experience diminishing returns from extended postdoc positions. 

Many postdocs do not ultimately land faculty positions and move on to a variety of careers, post-postdoc. Additionally, while postdocs are at their institutions, they contribute importantly in a variety of ways from mentoring students (as discussed previously) to teaching and assisting in the management of their research groups. Perhaps their most important contribution to their institutions, however, is driving research and innovation forward. 

Innovative programs that promote start-up company creation led by postdocs are gaining steam including those at Cornell University's main campus and Cornell Tech in New York City; University of Memphis; University of Washington in Seattle; Carnegie Mellon University; Duke University's Department of Biomedical Engineering; and now Virginia Tech. Postdocs are uniquely situated to help lead the commercialization efforts of new technologies emerging out of university research groups. It will be exciting to see in the years to come how these programs perform in allowing postdocs to spearhead the creation of start-up companies from universities' intellectual property. ​

While many anecdotes and assumptions exist suggesting postdocs are critical drivers of research and innovation at their institutions, I have found surprisingly little analysis of this topic. 

So, I set out to do a crude analysis myself. 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) publishes a wealth of information on research expenditures and snapshots of the graduate student and postdoctoral scholar population at institutions across the United States. Specifically for this analysis, I leveraged data from the Fall 2020 NSF Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering (most recent data available) and NSF Higher Education Research and Development (HERD) Survey data from fiscal year 2020 (released in December 2021 and the most recent data available). So, we will be comparing research expenditures from the HERD Survey (both overall and federally-funded) to postdoctorate and graduate student population size in 2020. 

Caveats: NSF data on population counts are self-reported and institutions are left to determine the best process for counting their graduate student and postdoc population. Postdoc population counts can be quite variable (see this blog post from Gary McDowell for more on that). 
In addition, I removed three institutional data points as they vastly skewed the postdoc data in particular: Johns Hopkins (1,723 postdocs in 2020), Harvard (5,787 postdocs), and Stanford (2,446 postdocs) all had postdoc populations >2.5 standard deviations of the mean postdoc count of all reporting institutions in 2020 (mean postdoc count: 260, Std Dev: 520). In addition, Johns Hopkins research expenditures are nearly double that of the next largest institution (University of Michigan), making its data an outlier on both metrics - postdoc counts and research expenditures. With those outliers removed we are left with 200 institutions who reported postdoc counts in 2020. 

Let's look at the correlation between the number of postdocs at an institution and its overall research expenditures in 2020.

An R-squared value of 0.81 demonstrates a very strong correlation between the number of postdocs at an institution and its overall research expenditures in a given year. The R-squared value between postdoc counts and federally-funded research expenditures was 0.75. As a reminder correlation does not equal causation but clearly there is a strong association between research expenditures and number of postdocs at an institution. 

Plotting the same 200 institution's fulltime Ph.D. student populations against research expenditures we see a strong but weaker correlation. 

The R-squared value between number of Ph.D. students and federally-funded research expenditures was 0.59.
​
The trendline equations for the relationships plotted above can be used to "measure" how research expenditures associate with either the number of postdocs or Ph.D. students.
​REMINDER: This is an overly simplistic interpretation of the data as there are many factors we aren't looking at here but for sake of argument, let's run the math.

For the postdoc vs research expenditure trendline: y=1038.4x + 81898
Where x=postdoc number & y=research expenditure (in $1000).
If x=1; y=82,936.4
So, based on these overly simplified (and not to be taken literally) data, 1 postdoc equates to $82,936,400 in research expenditures & 1,000 postdocs to $1,120,298,000 or $1.12 billion in research expenditures. 

If we do the same math for Ph.D. students, 1 Ph.D. student equates to $48,629,790 in research expenditures & 1,000 Ph.D. students to $331,137,000 or $330 million in research expenditures. 

So, while this is a very crude analysis, hopefully it emphasizes the very strong relationship between postdocs and research "output" (ie, expenditures of funds on research) at institutions AND that this relationship is stronger than for Ph.D. students who also lead research will making progress towards their degree. 

While research expenditures are perhaps not the best metrics of "output" from postdocs or Ph.D. students, it is available data we have. Long term, we must do a better job of understanding the impact of graduate students and postdocs on not only research/scholarship and innovation but the teaching and outreach mission of many of institutions.

​I discussed the need to better measure the impact of postdocs in a prior blog post from 2020 and there is still much to do in that regard. 

Postdoctoral scholars do a lot. Clearly they play a large role in research output at their institutions but are also critical mentors for many working in research groups and universities and other academically-focused research organizations.

While it is difficult to fully capture the impact postdocs make, those of us who work in this space know it is large and often underappreciated. We must do better to measure and report on postdoc impact moving forward. Why? Because if institutions don't find a better way to understand postdoc impact, they will not invest in supporting them. This in turn, will make the postdoc path less desirable. In fact, that is already happening, with many faculty reporting difficulties in recruiting postdocs. Granted, some institutions - St. Jude Children's Research Hospital and the Van Andel Institute in particular - are working hard to increase compensation for their postdocs but systemic barriers (grant budgets, organizational classification of postdocs as non-employees, etc...) make it challenging for compensation and benefits to be increased for many postdocs. Add these challenges to the opportunity cost in pursuing a postdoc and one should not be surprised to see Ph.D.s pursuing different paths post-degree.

It is my belief that we must think of creative ways to reimagine the postdoc experience to make it a more holistic training experience that sets those who pursue it up for success. The innovation postdoc fellowship programs I mentioned earlier are one example but I think a variety of creative solutions could be proposed. To begin with, though, we must all do better in collecting and reporting on data that allows us to advocate for postdocs and the critical roles they play at our institutions and beyond.

For Further Reading
From the Blog

• ​Measuring Postdoc Impact​
• Reimagining the Postdoc Experience
• Factors That Affect Career Choice and Diversity in Science
• Ph.D. Recipients' Employment Trends: Insights from National Science Foundation (NSF) Data
• Ph.D. Employment Trends: Insights from NSF Survey of Doctorate Recipients 

Papers and Programs of Potential Interest
United States National Postdoc Survey results and the interaction of gender, career choice and mentor impact

Career choices of underrepresented and female postdocs in the biomedical sciences

Surveying the experience of postdocs in the United States before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

​A startup postdoc program as a channel for university technology transfer: the case of the Runway Startup Postdoc Program at the Jacobs Technion–Cornell Institute at Cornell Tech

​Postdocs to Innovators program (consortium of European universities and partners)

Virginia Tech Presidential Postdoctoral Fellowship Program

What is a postdoc? What is it for?

This question is a persistent one for many working within and outside academia. 
Working in this space, we often label postdoctoral scholars as trainees and employees, which is a tricky line to walk.

Freshly removed from their Ph.D. training, many postdocs struggle with defining themselves. Breaking out of the mindset of student to budding professional is not easy. As institutions, we should reflect on how the postdoctoral experience is value-add from graduate school training. How do we ensure postdocs are learning and growing and not simply "doing work" related to a faculty member's research? The answers to these questions are important as the higher education sector struggles with recruiting and retaining talent in a tight labor market. 

A recent piece in Science highlights that many faculty members have struggled recruiting postdoctoral researchers over the past year or so, which is most likely related to a strong job market and reconsideration of life priorities as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also may indicate that Ph.D. students are more carefully considering what role a postdoctoral position plays in their overall career trajectory. I think individuals more carefully considering whether a postdoctoral position is necessary for their career development and growth is a good thing. Also, institutions could do more to illuminate the value of postdoc training by reimagining what it can be.  

It is important to remember that  both graduate students and postdoctoral researchers contribute cutting edge knowledge and discoveries that drive innovation to improve our world. Furthermore, postdoctoral researchers are more able to devote time and effort to research and discovery given they no longer have course or degree requirements to meet. But are we allowing them to fully realize their potential in our current model?

It is my opinion that our institutions must ensure postdoctoral scholars not only have the tools and resources to do amazing research and scholarship at their institutions but are developed as full people and community members. We should work to assist postdocs in discovering how their skills, interests, and values can be put to use to serve their campuses and local communities and, ultimately, the world. 

Part of the reason postdocs are overlooked on their campus is that they are often isolated from the larger institutional community as they perform intensive research and scholarship. There was a time when devotion to the development of this deep expertise in a scholarly area was sufficient to ensure success in an academic career. Those times are over. Team science and scholarship are essential for academics to thrive in the 21st Century and postdocs who develop these skills will be more effective faculty researchers.

In addition, a singular devotion to research and scholastic productivity can lead to a situation where a postdoctoral researcher ties their worth to their work. This dynamic stresses the mental health and wellbeing of some of our most well educated and trained researchers and can lead them to abandoning promising careers. One way to improve this situation is to provide outlets for postdocs to contribute to causes beyond their research and scholarship. Volunteering in their local postdoctoral association, the National Postdoctoral Association, and local community provides a variety of benefits including:

• Allowing them to hone key transferable skills including communication, teamwork, project planning, and management 
• Facilitating social interactions and community building
• Allowing for postdocs to contribute meaningfully to something bigger than themselves

​Postdocs can (and do) provide value to their campus community beyond their research endeavors. We should work to aid institutions in better integrating postdocs into many of their teaching and innovation efforts including:

• Provide mentoring training to postdocs to allow them to more effectively mentor undergraduate and graduate students in their research groups
  • Mentoring training will also prepare postdocs to effectively lead and manage teams in their post-postdoc careers (faculty or otherwise)
• Encourage opportunities for postdocs to build and practice pedagogical and teaching skills
  • Provide access to teaching and pedagogical training to postdocs which could then allow them to contribute to campus needs in a variety of ways:
    • Postdocs could serve in a guest lecture pool that a university maintains to give them small teaching experiences
    • Encourage postdocs to lead workshops and trainings on techniques and tools they are experts in to their campus communities 
      • See NC State’s Peer Scholars Program as an example
      • Ideally, some form of financial compensation would be available for the above work
• Provide postdocs access to information and training in intellectual property, technology transfer and commercialization, and entrepreneurship to encourage and empower them to shepherd key innovative research taking place in our universities and research centers to ultimately produce products and services that can benefit society

While a traditional postdoctoral position had the goal of preparing Ph.D.s for faculty positions, they could also morph in the 21st Century to serve as a bridge between academic training and careers beyond faculty.

• Many companies require the highly technical skills that Ph.D.s have developed in their training
• However, acclimating Ph.D.s to the world of corporate work and the language and procedures of business is a challenge
• Why couldn’t the postdoc also serve as a way for companies to access Ph.D. talent without necessarily committing them to a permanent position?
  • Companies can test-drive candidates while giving them access to useful experiences that diversify their resumes through collaborative internship opportunities
• In addition, there may be a place for postdocs to serve as a nexus between academic research and commercialization opportunities
  • A large bottleneck in the commercialization of academic research is that the principal investigators responsible for leading research groups often do not have the time to devote to liaising with potential companies to explore licensing their technology
    • Postdocs could serve as a useful intermediary between academic research and companies to help ensure a greater number of innovative research developments can be translated into real-world solutions
    • In the process, postdocs gain a greater understanding of the language of the business world, intellectual property, and technology commercialization 

One big issue that would emerge from a reimagining of the postdoctoral experience is how to apportion postdocs’ time devoted to research and scholarly efforts, especially those supported on a faculty member’s research grant (as the majority of postdocs are), versus the additional activities describe above.

While the United States government’s Office of Management and Budget has issued guidance on the “dual role” of student and postdoctoral researchers emphasizing that graduate students and postdocs supported on federal grants are both trainees and employees and expected to be actively engaged in their training and career development, nowhere is an expected distribution of time devoted to training and career development versus research work and activities specified. There is still a sense from many faculty whose research grants support postdocs that they are paying postdocs to do the work and not engage in “extracurricular” activities and that those should occur outside “business hours”. International postdocs whose visas are tied to their research roles may be especially reluctant to allocate time to career and professional development activities if their faculty supervisor does not encourage their engagement in them. The concerns of faculty could be minimized if they aren’t paying a postdoc when they are engaging in activities outside their research and scholarly responsibilities.      

Thus, steps may need to be taken by institutions to effectively distribute resources and funds to support the proposed broader set of postdoc activities mentioned above. I think it is in our best interest to do so. Universities will need to think hard about investing in postdoc compensation, perhaps covering 20-25% of a postdoc’s costs with the rest coming from faculty member’s research grants and funds. It would also be reasonable to assume that if an institution is investing resources in supporting postdocs’ salaries to allow them to engage in a wider range of professional development activities that they would come to see postdocs as an asset to the institution. As a result, perhaps a greater effort would be made to provide a more comprehensive set of resources for postdocs who the university is now, literally, invested in. Institutions with skin in the game might also begin to reflect on the purpose of postdocs, resulting in a needed discussion on whether training is indeed occurring in some roles or whether they would be better classified as research staff.

​The concept of research staff tracks for Ph.D.s within universities is beyond the scope of this post but could be a means of retaining skilled talent who don’t necessarily want the responsibilities of a principal investigator or lab leader at a university. And while universities and other postdoctoral training institutions often balk at "investing" in a population who will ultimately leave (as the position is meant to be a temporary one), they could benefit from postdoctoral scholars more engaged in service to the university through teaching, outreach, and commercialization efforts. This setup could be a win-win for postdocs with a desire to learn new skills and obtain diverse work experiences and institutions experiencing staffing shortages.   

​In closing, it is my personal belief that the path forward is to ensure the postdoctoral period is a time of broad training for Ph.D. researchers. If we can equip them with both technical, scholarly, and transferable skills, they will be able to make an impact in the world. Furthermore, providing postdocs the opportunity to engage with their campus community through service will enrich their experience and lives. In addition, this model may provide needed personnel relief for universities that have struggled over the past few years retaining talent. While postdocs receive valuable experiences in teaching, technology commercialization, or project management, our universities benefit from their work in these areas. Pathways for skilled researchers to remain at universities in professionalized research (or staff) tracks may also be appropriate to retain talented postdocs with a desire to stay at an institution but not become tenure-track faculty. 

Only by being open to a new way of doing things in postdoctoral training and career development can we truly move institutions forward and, in the process, provide a means for them to leverage Ph.D. talent in ways that enhance their research, teaching, service, and outreach missions. 

I have written about weighing the value of pursuing a postdoc after completing your Ph.D. in a previous blog post. And while that post focuses on my own personal experience and opinion, I wanted to use this space to emphasize more practical advice on how to network your way to postdoc opportunities and consider the training environment in the lab/group/institution to make the most of your postdoctoral experience.

I am often asked by Ph.D. students how they should search for postdoc positions and make the most of them. Recently, I gave a presentation on the topic to a graduate class at North Carolina State University. I am sharing it here for those of you debating should you do a postdoc, how to find a good postdoc environment, and how to make the most of this training period.

The United State's National Science Foundation (NSF) collects a wealth of data on individuals who received their doctorate degrees from US universities. Back in April, they released their most recent batch of data from their 2019 Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR). The SDR provides demographic, education, and career history information from all individuals with a research doctoral degree in a science, engineering, or health (SEH) field from a university in the United States. As the SDR seeks to capture the full scope of US SEH Ph.D. employment, it surveys anyone with a Ph.D. in SEH fields from a US university regardless of year of graduation: some SDR respondents received their Ph.D.s a few years ago and some 20+  years ago. This is different from the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) which surveys new US Ph.D. recipients and whose data I shared in an earlier blog post. Here, I will delve into some of the trends observed in the 2019 SDR data to give those with a Ph.D. in a SEH field more insights into employment possibilities after they receive their degree.  

Across all doctorate recipients surveyed in the 2019 SDR, the US states with the largest proportion of science, engineering, or health Ph.D.s employed in them included the District of Columbia (technically not a state but represented in the state-level data; ~2.5% of the population are SEH Ph.D.s), Massachusetts (0.8%), and Maryland (0.6%). The median percent of any state's population consisting of employed SEH Ph.D.s was 0.2%. While DC, Massachusetts, and Maryland remained the top states employing biological, agricultural, and environmental life science Ph.D.s, others with high proportions of bio science Ph.D. employment included Vermont, Montana, Connecticut, North Carolina, Nebraska, California, & Washington state. Note that as these are calculated as proportion of a state's 2019 population, states with relatively low population counts (Vermont, Montana, & Nebraska) have many less Ph.D. scientists employed in them than larger states. For example, according to the 2019 SDR, there are 32,900 biological, agricultural, and environmental life science Ph.D.s employed in California (with a population of 39.5 million in 2019) while Vermont has 600 (among a population of ~600,000). 

Top 10 states for employing computer science Ph.D.s: DC, Washington, Massachusetts, California, Maryland, New York, Utah, Virginia, Oregon, New Jersey

Top 10 states for employing physical science Ph.D.s: DC, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon, Connecticut, California, New Jersey 
And many of these states are also top employers of engineering Ph.D.s.

Given these data you may have more luck pursuing Ph.D.-level employment in certain areas of the country over others. 

Across all SEH Ph.D.s surveyed in 2019, ~3.3% of those employed worked as a postdoc. However, the percent of employment represented by postdocs varied by field of doctorate with ~6.1% of biological, agricultural, and environmental life science Ph.D.s employed as postdocs while ~1% of computer science Ph.D.s were employed as postdocs. The percentage of engineering Ph.D.s employed as postdocs was ~2%.

Given a postdoctoral position is by definition temporary, one would expect the percent of all employed SEH Ph.D.s in a postdoc would be rather low. While the general proportion of Ph.D.s employed in postdocs is relatively low, some of the trends in postdoctoral employment are concerning. 

​Unfortunately, many postdocs have been in their positions longer than the 5 year post-Ph.D. guidance outlined by The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's The Postdoctoral Experience Revisited report released in 2014 (see press release). According to the 2019 SDR data, 19% of all science postdocs were >5 years from the date of their Ph.D. being awarded and this percentage was slightly higher (21.3%) for biological, agricultural, and environmental life sciences postdocs. So, as many as 1 in 5 postdocs employed in the US are 5+ years past receiving their terminal degree.

In addition, over the past 10 years a larger proportion of the US postdoctoral population is being filled by those 5+ years post-Ph.D. In the 2010 SDR data, only 13.1% of all science postdocs and 14.9% of bio, ag, and environ life science postdocs were >5 years from their Ph.D. being awarded. And while the 2019 data is off the peak of >25% of postdocs >5 years from their Ph.D. seen in 2015, the proportion of Ph.D.s employed as postdocs >5 years from their terminal degree is still ~45% higher in 2019 than 2010. 

So, while improvements have been made around limiting long postdoctoral training periods, more needs to be done to assist these individuals in transitioning into more permanent positions either within or outside academia. 

Across all science ("all science" refers to all SEH fields surveyed except engineering and health) Ph.D.s surveyed in the 2019 SDR, ~48% work for and educational institution while ~30% are employed by a for-profit company and ~8% work for either the federal or state government. The distribution of sectors employing Ph.D.s in 2019 differed markedly by the field of the individual's doctorate degree with employment by educational institutions quite high for the social sciences (~67% of employed Ph.D.s) and for-profit companies being the largest sectors employing computer & information science (~54%) and engineering Ph.D.s (~58%).

While educational institutions are the top employers of social science Ph.D.s, they employ ~47% of those with Ph.D.s in the biological, agricultural, and environmental sciences. The proportion of engineering and chemistry Ph.D.s employed by educational institutions is even less with for-profit companies employing 50%+ of Ph.D.s from these fields. 

These data suggest certain sectors of employment may be more available to particular Ph.D. fields than others. It is difficult, however, to disentangle whether engineering and chemistry Ph.D. skills, for example, are more valued by for-profit companies than those in the social sciences or whether there is a greater openness to pursuing non-academic careers in these areas. It is possible there are things to learn from specific departments and programs who place Ph.D.s into diverse career areas that could be modeled by others. Certainly, providing diverse career pathways for Ph.D.s is critical as the "traditional" path of obtaining faculty positions becomes less available in many fields. 

Among the ~108,000 respondents to the NSF SDR 2019 survey who reported being employed at educational institutions in the US, 44.5% were tenured or on the tenure track <10 years since receiving their doctorate degree. This percentage jumped to 69.1% in those 10+ years from degree award. However, there were noticeable differences by degree field in the percentage of Ph.D.s employed at educational institutions who were tenured faculty or on the tenure-track <10 years from their Ph.D. with ~25% in this category among the biological, agricultural, and environmental life sciences to 60%+ for computer and information sciences and social sciences Ph.D.s. 

One might speculate that looking at these data for those <10 years from their Ph.D. points to a potential bottleneck to obtaining faculty positions among certain fields. Also, the length of postdoctoral positions and/or use of more contingent positions (lecturer, research associate) in educational institutions could be higher in some fields than others. The SDR data can offer some insights as the proportion of postdocs who are 5+ years from obtaining their Ph.D. is higher in the life sciences fields which also had the lowest proportion of Ph.D.s employed at educational institutions in tenured or tenure-track faculty positions (plotted in green in the graph below and above, respectively). 

While certainly the life sciences have the highest percentage of Ph.D.s employed as postdocs 5+ years from their Ph.D. and the lowest percentage of those <10 years from Ph.D. in tenure-track or tenured faculty roles, there is not perfect correspondence between lengthy postdocs and percentage of early-career Ph.D.s employed as tenured or tenure-track faculty. This could be for a myriad of reasons as the SDR data is not perfect. Remember, it only surveys individuals who earned their Ph.D.s in the United States. Thus, fields where a high percentage of workers obtain their Ph.D. outside the US are going to have less respondent representation in this survey.

For instance, we know that many postdoctoral scholars in the United States are international, who either obtained their Ph.D. in the US and continued in postdoctoral training via various visa types or who received their Ph.D. outside the US before doing a postdoc in the US. The 2019 SDR shows that ~54% of US Ph.D.s employed as postdocs are US citizens and other data from NSF shows ~49% of postdocs in the US were born oversees. In some fields including computer science and engineering, NSF estimates 55-60% of Ph.D.s working in those areas in the United States are foreign-born. Thus, the various employment trends shared so far can be affected by various limitations to employment for those individuals requiring visa sponsorship by their employer, the frequency of which may differ by Ph.D. field and the proportion of international students and scholars working in that area in the United States. I discussed some of the challenges around being an international scholar in the US (including visa restrictions) in an earlier series of blog posts.    

​Regardless of how international scholar dynamics may affect these data, it is clear from the 2019 SDR data that there are vast differences in the proportion of "early career" Ph.D.s in tenure-track or tenured faculty positions based on their degree field. ​

Much has been made of the decline in faculty positions available to Ph.D.s over recent years. The SDR data allows us to partially look at this trend by asking how the percentage of Ph.D. recipients employed at 4-year educational institutions has changed over the years. Here, I decided to look at the SDR data from 2010 and compare it to 2019.

Over the past 9 years the percentage of tenured faculty who are less than 10 years from the Ph.D. in most science fields has declined by 25-30%. The decline is less steep for tenure-track faculty in the life and physical/earth sciences. Furthermore, the proportion of engineering Ph.D.s <10 years from degree employed at educational institutions in tenure-track positions has actually increased from 2010 to 2019 based on the SDR data. Even in the engineering group, though, securing tenure by 10 years post degree has become less common, presumably as the need and/or length of postdoctoral positions have increased.  

The 2021 SDR data collection is currently underway and I will be very curious to see how these data look post-COVID. Will the percentages of early career Ph.D.s able to enter the faculty ranks fall even further? Only time will tell. 

As mentioned earlier, the prevalence of Ph.D. labor in the US who are supported on temporary visas is quite high. Many international students come to the US for their graduate training and seek employment in the country after finishing their degrees. The SDR data reports out median salaries for Ph.D. holders by citizenship status, which is plotted below by doctoral degree field. 

It is clear from these data that median salaries are lower, in aggregate, for temporary visa (J1, H1-B) holders in virtually all Ph.D. fields except mathematics & statistics AND social sciences. US permanent residents' median salaries also tend to be lower but not in all fields. In fact, in computer & information sciences and mathematics & statistics permanent residents earn slightly more than US citizens. 

It is difficult to speculate too much on these data but one potential reason for lower median salaries for temporary visa holders in particular could be the result of many of these individuals working at US universities where the visiting scholar (J1) visa category is commonly used when an individual is working as a postdoctoral scholar or some other contingent, non-tenure track position (research associate). When a temporary visa holder is employed by a company, however, they require H-1B sponsorship which is subject to a "prevailing wage" which should prevent these individuals' salaries being below "market" rate, at least in theory. The largest sponsors of H-1Bs in the US are typically companies working in the computer & information sciences or data analytics where Ph.D.s in the areas of computer science, math, and statistics would be in high demand. So, the increased salaries for temporary visa holders in those fields could be driven by who is employing the doctorate recipients (technology companies paying high wages).  

Beyond who employs Ph.D.s what work they do can drastically affect their level of compensation. As seen in the graph below, Ph.D. recipients whose primary work activity is teaching have lower median salaries than those in research & development (R&D) roles or focused more on professional services, administration, management, or sales. Clearly these data are also colored by who is employing Ph.D.s as teaching roles are almost entirely within universities whereas R&D roles could be at companies, universities, government agencies, or other employers. 

Note, however, that SDR data show the percentage of Ph.D.s whose primary work activity is teaching is ~10-15% of science and engineering Ph.D. recipients (see table, below). And there has been relatively little change in the percentages of Ph.D. recipients reporting their primary work role as teaching over the past few years. The general distribution of primary work roles for science and engineering Ph.D.s from 2017 to 2019 has remained relatively stable. And, as has been discussed in a previous post, the fact that greater than a third of science and engineering Ph.D.s report their primary work role as falling in areas outside research and development or teaching emphasizes the fact that there are many positions in administration, communications, management, and more that fall outside of the main boxes of teaching and research available to Ph.D. holders. I will be interested to see whether these distributions of work roles shift post-pandemic in the 2021 SDR data. Will there be less teaching roles? More R&D, especially in the life sciences? Or will the "something else" category continue to grow as Ph.D.s pursue more diverse career pathways?

The previous two salary graphs plot median salaries for all US Ph.D. recipients who completed the 2019 SDR. So, there are individuals in those data who are 20+ years from receiving their Ph.D.s and those who graduated only a few years ago. NSF also reports data by Ph.D. field filtered by years since doctorate which shows that the median salaries 5 years or less from being the Ph.D. awarded tend to hover around the $80,000 level though it is higher in some fields (most notably computer & information sciences). Median salaries are less different across Ph.D. science and engineering fields the further from the doctorate one looks. 

This final graph nicely illustrates the value Ph.D.s provide to their employers. One could speculate that as individuals with Ph.D. skills including critical thinking, problem solving, and knowledge synthesis also gain work experience post-Ph.D. employers value them more. Fifteen years from receiving their doctorate the median salary for all science & engineering Ph.D.s is $100,000+ and many are making well over that amount. Ph.D. training provides a valuable skillset when coupled with practical experience and knowledge of how to apply those skills through working with diverse employers. Perhaps training programs can do a better job of providing some of the practical skills valued by a variety of employers during graduate school to help aid Ph.D.s' transitions to employment after their degree? 

The NSF SDR data is an essential tool to help science and engineering graduate students, postdocs, and those who support them understand how the landscape of employment continues to evolve over time. Information on employment sectors and median salary data can also be helpful as recent Ph.D. recipients plot out the next step in their careers and understand their worth. 

There are certainly glaring issues that are evident in the NSF data as well. The fact that many Ph.D. recipients <10 years from their degree employed at educational institutions are not in tenure-track faculty or tenured faculty roles speaks to the erosion of the faculty career path for many. 

Furthermore, the proliferation of postdoctoral positions and other contingent roles is a problem. And while the number of those who received their Ph.D.s from US institutions officially employed in extended postdoctoral positions (5+ years post-Ph.D.) may be diminishing, we have less data on how many of these individuals have been captured by other job titles (such as research associate) when they "age-out" of the postdoc which may similarly lack pathways to permanent, well-compensated employment.

Certainly there are many unanswered questions in understanding the evolution of the Ph.D. workforce but NSF data provides critical insights which, when collected over time, allows for us to begin to observe changes in various employment metrics.

​I encourage you to explore the data for yourself at the links below.

Marcus Lambert, Ph.D., Associate Vice President for Research Strategy and Operations at SUNY Downstate Medical Center, and his colleagues have been interested in understanding factors that affect whether biomedical postdoctoral scholars pursue career paths as faculty, particularly at research-intensive institutions. They have published two studies on the topic over the past few years:

• ​Career choices of underrepresented and female postdocs in the biomedical sciences
• Postdocs’ advice on pursuing a research career in academia: A qualitative analysis of free-text survey responses

​Below I summarize some of the insights from these studies as well as thoughts shared by Lambert when he visited NC State in Fall 2020 to discuss his work with our graduate students, postdocs, and faculty. 

The Problem
Training and mentorship often do not align with careers available for Ph.D.s and postdocs.

Academia has traditionally viewed graduate education and postdoctoral training as preparation for a faculty career. However, estimates of the number of PhDs who enter tenure-track faculty positions range from 8 percent for life science Ph.D.s within 5 years of graduation to 20 percent for biomedical postdocs. 

Thus, our training programs must reimagine the pipeline to address the needs of a changing scientific workforce, particularly as they relate to diversity.

Lack of Diversity in Faculty: A Leaky Pipeline
Perhaps one of the more striking datapoints Dr. Lambert presented during his talk is that while the percent of underrepresented minorities earning bachelors, Ph.D.s, and entering postdocs in the biological sciences has risen over the last 20 years, their representation in full professor roles has not increased since 2001. 

Data have shown that underrepresented groups including women and certain racial/ethnic groups are less interested in a faculty career at research-intensive institutions than well-represented male researchers. 

Surveying Postdocs to Understand Their Career Choices
Dr. Lambert presented data he and his colleagues collected from postdoctoral scholars regarding their motivations for academic research careers. This research group was specifically interested in understanding what factors motivate postdocs to persist in academia. In total over 1,200 postdocs from 50 universities were surveyed. 

What were the results?
Nearly 50% of respondents reported a faculty career at a research-intensive institution as their top choice.

• Interest in a faculty career wains around year 2-3 of the postdoc, representing a potentially critical time for mentorship and career support to be provided.
• Those reporting that self-worth and career mentorship were large determinants in their career choice were more likely to indicate an interest in a research-intensive faculty career.
• Conversely, those rating financial security as a key determinant of their career choice were more likely to pursue non-faculty careers.

The Importance of Outcome Expectations & Research Self-Efficacy in Determining Faculty Career Choice
Two key metrics, outcome expectations and research self-efficacy, were higher among those interested in pursuing a faculty career versus those who chose career paths outside academia. 

• Outcome expectations: expectancy (will my effort lead to high performance), instrumentality (will performance lead to desirable outcomes), & valence (do I find the outcomes desirable) lead to a motivational force to pursue an academic research career
• Research self-efficacy: belief in one's own ability to succeed at research-related tasks (publish, secure grants, mentor students, develop novel & successful research ideas)

Female postdocs rated themselves lower in research self-efficacy and had lower outcome expectations than male postdocs. Self-worth, the sense of one's own value or worth as a person, was also a strong factor in determining career choice. In fact, the strongest predictors of underrepresented minority postdocs indicating an interest in pursuing a research-intensive faculty career were positive self-worth and high research self-efficacy. Similarly, the best predictor for women indicating an intention of pursuing an academic research position was positive self-worth. 

Research self-efficacy is associated with higher rates of first author publications, particularly for female and underrepresented postdocs. Thus, programs that increase research self-efficacy could have positive impacts on supporting postdocs and their overall research productivity.

Underrepresented Postdocs Desire More Specialized Training
Underrepresented postdocs were more likely to indicate a desire for more specialized training to assist them in pursuing a faculty career including:

• A transitioning to research independence course
• A scientific teaching course
• Fellowships and grants to support investigators like them
• Training in the application of basic science principles to community-based settings

Qualitive Insights - Advice for Pursuing an Academic Research Career
These results, just released in PLOS One, focused on investigating advice postdocs would give others pursuing academic research careers.

Specifically, the authors investigated text responses to the question:
"What advice would you give someone thinking about an academic research career?”

Data from 994 postdocs were analyzed for common themes and sentiments among a diverse sample (56% US Citizens; 62% female; 13% underrepresented minorities). 

A theme that continued to emerge in the qualitative data was the role "passion" plays in pursuing an academic research career. In fact, the authors organized many of the postdocs' responses about academic research into the concept of it being a lifestyle where one's research work and life are often one in the same.

With that in mind, other common advice centered around the need for those considering an academic career to engage in self reflection to determine if an academic research lifestyle was congruent with their values, life priorities, and personal and professional needs. Are they willing to commit long hours and much effort into academic training with no guarantee they will land a faculty position that this training traditionally prepares them for?

Pros and Cons of Postdoctoral Work
Other concepts that emerged from the postdocs' responses were that while the challenges of working as a postdoc are many (low pay, demanding workload, unanticipated setbacks, & a competitive funding and research climate), the positives in a postdoc position are scientific creativity, academic freedom, the ability to travel, and building problem solving skills.   

Luck Plays a Part in "Success"
Many of the postdoc respondents mentioned that luck can play a significant role in the success of experiments, publications, funding, and job opportunities. Thus, ensuring your self-worth is not defined by "success" in your research work is essential to maintaining your mental health and wellbeing. You only have so much control of the various outcomes that are traditionally associated with academic success but you can control how central academic success is to your life.

On a side note, I routinely encourage graduate students and postdocs to get involved in things outside the lab/work as you need other outlets to feel accomplished and successful, which can help guard against allowing research or academic success to fully define you as a person. 

Need for More Postdoc Support & Resources
Several responses to the advice for prospective academic researchers prompt emphasized the importance of strong mentorship and support while conducting postdoctoral training. Many recommended those interested in pursuing an academic research career to be proactive in researching and choosing the best work environment to complete postdoctoral training. In addition, the importance of finding multiple mentors, beyond your primary faculty supervisor, building a community of support, and asking for help are critical to success in your postdoc and beyond.

Realizing there are multiple career paths available to those with Ph.D.s and postdoctoral training and being proactive in researching your post-postdoc career options can also bolster postdocs' confidence in their futures and lessen the feeling that they must "win" the faculty lottery to be considered a "success".

Take-Home Points from Dr. Lambert's Research

• Self-worth, career mentorship, and financial security were all strong predictors of intending to pursue an academic research career (or not)
• The likelihood of underrepresented postdocs persisting in academia increases most with self-worth
• Female postdocs are slightly discouraged by lifestyle when deciding whether to pursue an academic research career
• Those postdocs most comfortable with choosing an academic research career cited the following as important factors:
  • adequate support with family and childcare
    
  • financial stability
    
  • geographical flexibility
    

These findings offer ideas about how to best support postdocs wanting to pursue faculty careers. A critical component is ensuring adequate support in the form of compensation, mentoring, training, and other resources to allow postdocs to pursue these careers with great confidence in their own abilities. 

Advice to Current Postdocs
To make the most of your postdoc, Dr. Lambert recommends:

• Be strategic about your mentorship team
• Recognize that a career in academic research is a lifestyle which may or may not be suitable for you
  • Thus, reflect on you motivation to pursue a faculty career
• Prepare for multiple career paths
• Assess your readiness & preparedness at each stage
  • For two excellent resources around readiness for a faculty career, see:
    • The Academic Career Readiness Assessment (ACRA)
      • More about the ACRA's methodology, published in CBE Life Sciences Education
    • Survey-based analysis of the academic job market (paper in eLife)
• Strengthen your research & writing skills
• Network

For further reading...
Explore more posts related to the academic career search in the Academic Packways section of the NC State Graduate School's ImPACKful blog.