The Merriam-Webster Dictionary has several definitions for the word "society" but I think this one is a pretty good starting place:
"a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests."

An alternative definition of society "an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another" also seems appropriate for this post. ​

We are all embedded within and participants in a variety of societal systems that affect us everyday. These range from economic systems (Capitalism, Socialism, Communism) to governing systems (representative democracies, parliamentary democracies, autocracies) and employment sectors (higher education, healthcare, finance). The interesting thing about systems is that while they are ultimately constructed by choices made by people, many individuals don't feel like they have agency within them. It is as if past choices made by others in power or with influence set out the parameters and rules to which we must now operate within. 

There have been growing critiques of many of our modern systems over the past several years including shareholder capitalism. These critiques have come largely from the young who feel the systems of the past aren't serving them well (and they may have valid points there). 

Gallup's World Happiness Report 2024 reveals some striking findings: among those below the age of 30, the United States ranks 62nd and Canada 58th in global happiness while among those age 60 and above, the US ranks 10th and Canada 8th in global happiness. Put another way, older adults in the US & Canada fall in the top 7% of countries in their happiness ratings while youth are in the 40th percentile or lower. This dichotomy between the perception of youth and older adults is also present in other high-income democratic countries including Japan (gap between young and older adults of 37 places), Germany (gap of 26 places), Spain (gap of 26 places), and France (gap of 23 places) and to a lesser degree Australia (gap of 10 places) and the United Kingdom (gap of 12 places). 

One potential explanation for this unhappiness in the young is we are in a time of immense change and uncertainty and this has led to heightened anxiety and depression, most likely enhanced by social media platforms. 

Additionally, it is difficult to argue with the notion that older individuals took advantage of economic cycles that allowed for their wealth and prosperity to grow in most of the capitalistic, democratic, neoliberal world order that emerged post World War II and reached new heights in the 1980s & 1990s. In fact, according to data from the United State's Federal Reserve, US Baby Boomers and older adults now hold more wealth than the rest of the population (those aged 55+ hold ~69% of US wealth compared with ~9% of wealth held by those under age 40). The rise of globalism as a potential driver of the disconnect between happiness amongst older adults and youth may be best seen in the Gallup World Happiness Report's data from China (a large beneficiary of globalization during the 1990s and early 2000s) where the gap in happiness is on par with the US and Canada (gap of 49 places) with Chinese youth in the 55th percentile (just ahead of Libya) while older Chinese are in the top 25% of countries (just behind Spain) for happiness. The rise of the Chinese Gen Z trend of "lying flat" epitomizes the fact that this youth discontent ​is not limited to democracies but perhaps a wider trend of modern society. 

The data are clear that youth disillusionment is on the rise across the globe and in 2021 the World Economic Forum went as far as to name it one of the top global risks. The report defines youth disillusionment as "youth disengagement and lack of confidence and/or trust with existing economic, political, and societal structures at a global scale" and that the consequence of its rise is "negatively impacting social stability, individual well-being, and economic productivity".

What one defines as "youth" is somewhat subjective but a global study found that Millennials, the generation born between 1981 and 1996 - with some now entering their 40s, are the most dissatisfied with democracy and more dissatisfied than Generation X or Baby Boomers were at the same age. The work also found a generation gap in satisfaction with democracy where on average Baby Boomers were more satisfied than Generation X who were more satisfied than Millennials. The report referenced above did not look at the newest generation to enter the workforce - Generation Z - but data released by Gallup in Fall 2023 suggest their faith in a variety of institutions in the United States is exceedingly low (50% indicate very little trust in Congress, 46% in the Presidency). ​

The lack of confidence in our societal systems and overall disillusionment of younger generations is a big problem. The young people of today are the future workforce of tomorrow, ultimately paying taxes that help keep our countries and their various entitlement programs running. ​

I work in the interesting "system" that is higher education and a research-intensive university, specifically. While many in the general public may believe higher education is more morally pure in its motives than, say, a for-profit corporation, this does not mean these institutions don't possess various hierarchies and power dynamics. ​

One point to remember about most social systems is they are constructed by people, specifically by those who are actively engaged in a common ideal or area of work. So, the system of higher education was created by academics and their choices over many years. These led to a variety of norms and attitudes they may seem to many today as "assumed" or as "the way we have always done things" but often those embedded deep in a social system lack perspective on said system. They only know what they have experienced or learned vicariously through others (mentors or peers). Alternatives to the status quo can be hard to see from within a system. Additionally, most systems provide security and power to incumbents and established entities within them (tenured professors in the case of higher education) and these incumbents thus have many incentives present that make it difficult for them to be for change. 

Why change a system that is working for you? Well, one reason could be that if a system becomes too exploitive or unequal individuals will at a minimum not want to participate in it and in extreme cases decide the only solution is to completely destroy it in its current form (the "burn it all down" approach). Furthermore, unhappy individuals within a system can lead to poorer outcomes for everyone including coworkers, collaborators, and the individuals the system serves (in the case of higher education, undergraduate students). ​

Big challenges face one group in the academy whom I have worked to support the past 5+ years: postdoctoral associates (postdocs). For those unfamiliar, a postdoc is an individual with a doctoral degree (often a Ph.D.) who embarks on a continued period of growth and development (somewhat akin to a residency for those with MD degrees). Traditionally, this period served as an apprenticeship where a newly-minted Ph.D. would work "under" a more senior scholar/researcher to learn the skills required to become an effective faculty member. 

The challenge to the current state of the postdoc is that it is a relatively tenuous position with limited job security, relatively low pay, and little institutional support. Many in academia are concerned that conditions for postdocs are gotten to a point where less recent Ph.D.s pursue them and recent data suggest the number of postdocs is declining in the United States. 

This has led to calls for change including the formation of a working group on Re-envisioning  NIH-supported Postdoctoral Training, who submitted a set of recommendations to the NIH (National Institutes of Health) in December 2023. The National Postdoctoral Association (NPA) also recently released a new set of Recommended Postdoc Policies and Practices at its Annual Conference in mid-March 2024. Both documents call for a range of improvements to postdoc salaries, benefits, training environments, and processes to deal with and respond to problematic environments and working conditions.  

It is great to see these calls for change but institutions will be slow to adapt. 

Many postdocs (and graduate students) have taken matters into their own hands by banding together to pursue the formation of unions to help them more effectively advocate for their interests with institutional leadership. Given most postdocs are in the Millennial generation with Generation Z just now entering postdocs and making up a large portion of the graduate student ranks we might not be surprised by their activism and discontentment, given the points raised earlier from Gallup and the World Economic Forum on youth unhappiness and disillusionment. The topic of graduate student and postdoc unionization a complex one and not something I will get further into here. I will say, though, that certainly improved collective bargaining power can help with making conditions better for a group. The presence of union contracts and procedures could also lead to more adversarial relationships between parties or make academic relationships between students, postdocs, and faculty mentors more transactional and "employment-like" (though some might argue they have been this way anyway). Regardless of where one comes down on the topic of academic unionization, it is hard to argue that the push for it signals a growing discontent in key members of the ecosystem who feel unsupported and underappreciated. We must do better. 

For more on graduate student and postdoc labor movements see:

• Webinar panel hosted by the National Academies Roundtable on Mentorship, Well-being, and Professional Development in January 2024

The panelists shared a variety of readings and resources which I highlight and add to, below:

• Organize the Lab: Theory and Practice
• Postdoc Identity, Jurisdictional Issues, Ideologies, and Unions: Considerations in Organizing Professionals
• Analyzing the Upward Trend in Academic Unionization: Drivers and Influences
• Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy
• An Analysis of Academic Hiring Research and Practice and a Lens for the Future: How Labor Justice Can Make a Better Academy
  

In the end systems can be unjust and hard to change. This does not mean we shouldn't work to make our systems and society better. The challenge will be in convincing enough people that change will lead to improved outcomes for more stakeholders than the status quo. 

While anger at the state of our unequal societies and potentially unjust systems may be warranted, I am not for the "burn it all down" approach. Rather, I think we need to realize that the many individuals we could see as adversarial to our cause are, themselves, products of these systems. Sometimes they would like to see change but have been embedded so long in the status quo that they may be unable to see what could change about the environment. We also need to provide increased oversight and the ability for bad actors to be punished for activities that are clearly exploitative and egregious. ​

Change is hard but needed in higher education and beyond. We must work to restore faith in our societal institutions as they are critical to the functioning of a complex, interdependent nation and world. I surely don't have the answers but believe if enough voices are heard and we commit to collective action to improve our institutions, things can improve. This requires more active involvement in civic life, our communities, government, and non-profit organizations (which can also benefit you professionally while helping others) and doing the hard work that comes with volunteering in these areas, or even taking on causes outside your job description at your employer. And I would argue it requires young people to get more involved in these efforts to make sure their concerns and viewpoints are heard.  

To return to the definitions of society I started this post with: we must work to find common and collective activities and interests amongst diverse groups of stakeholders and generations AND realize that our society endures through cooperation. We each must do our part while also being willing to admit that all actions and approaches may not benefit us directly but that does not mean they aren't what is best for the greater good.  ​

A version of this post originally ran in Inside Higher Ed's Carpe Careers column in October 2023

​Doctoral students nearing the end of their degree program must anticipate transitioning from graduate work—finalizing data analysis, writing and completing a dissertation—to searching for postgraduate opportunities. For many of you, especially those in the sciences, the next step is often an academic postdoctoral position to bolster your skills and research experiences as part of your career and professional advancement.

A previous Carpe Careers post in Inside Higher Ed by Tina Solvik provided expert advice for finding academic postdoctoral positions and what you should consider during the process. We will highlight in this piece additional resources and programs that you may want to leverage for identifying and transitioning into a postdoctoral opportunity, whether your career goal is a faculty position or employment in the for-profit sector or government. While there are several different types of postdoc experiences, you should always concentrate on developing new technical capabilities beyond graduate training; seeking opportunities for more independence in research; and gaining skills in leadership, project and people management, and mentoring. ​

​For many doctoral students nearing the completion of their degree, the question often becomes: to postdoc or not to postdoc…and where? Like all complex questions, the answer is: it depends. To determine what a postdoc would mean for your career, you should consider the costs and benefits of the time spent in such a position as well as explore other possible paths. 

​Here are two ways to begin that reflection process. 
1. Find job advertisements for career positions that are of interest. Do they require postdoc experience? Is it a preferred criterion? If so, then you should probably consider a postdoc. 
2. Seek advice from your network and engage in informational interviews with professionals in positions similar to what you want to obtain to determine if postdoc experience is necessary to get the jobs they have. 

​While few positions outside faculty roles require or prefer postdoctoral experience, leveraging a postdoc to build skills and crystalize your career plans can still be worthwhile.  

Historically, postdoc positions have been mainly available in STEM fields, but they have become more common recently in the humanities and social sciences. The graph below shows the steady growth of recent Ph.D.s in the humanities and arts, education, and psychology and social sciences pursuing a postdoc after graduation. From 2010 to 2022, the number of people seeking a postdoc grew 62 percent in the humanities and arts, 60 percent in education, and 26 percent in psychology and the social sciences. 

That said, one major disadvantage is that postdoctoral training decreases earnings and delays retirement savings, according to a study by Shulamit Kahn and Donna K. Ginther. So, while a postdoc can help you build skills and expand scholarly experiences that help you advance your career, you may pay a short-term financial cost.

​Choosing the proper postdoctoral training environment will be vital to your success. We highly recommend The Postdoc Academy, a free, online series of courses and resources, for anyone planning to transition from graduate work to a postdoc position. Its content focused on succeeding as a postdoc and creating productive conversations with a potential postdoc mentor may be especially relevant. 

​You should consider a variety of environments for your postdoctoral training. Learning about postdoc opportunities is part of networking. So it’s best to reach out to other researchers in the field you’re interested in and anticipate when open postdoc opportunities might occur. Many people who pursue a postdoc are ultimately seeking faculty careers and, as such, working at an academic institution as a postdoc can help you better prepare for succeeding in that space. 

​The vast majority of postdoctoral positions in academia are funded via external grant awards. Therefore, it can be helpful to use tools like NIH Reporter, NSF Awards Search, USDA NIFA Awards Search, and National Endowment for the Humanities to identify faculty working in your area of interest who may also have funding available to support you as a postdoc. While you may be primarily hoping to find faculty members with pending funding to support you in the future, if someone already has funding in an area, it usually a good predictor that more funds may be available. Proactive outreach to faculty who are doing work that interests you can help you explore a potential alignment of a pending grant with the timeline of your postdoc search. 

​The number of opportunities for commercialization or technology transfer postdoc positions at U.S. universities is also growing. Those programs either focus on training Ph.D.s for careers in the technology transfer space or assist in learning how to commercialize technology or other innovations coming from research work. 

If you are in the humanities, consider postdoc opportunities at universities, centers, libraries and institutes—especially if your interests are interdisciplinary and applied. Humanities Ph.D.s can find postdoc opportunities in fields such as digital humanities, public humanities, and science and humanities by searching this academic jobs wiki. These opportunities can give you the chance to work on cutting-edge research and develop new skills in different contexts.

​Keep in mind that you can also find a variety of opportunities to build skills and experiences in a mentored training position in environments other than academic institutions. If you are interested in a more research-focused career path or one where your research deals with applied questions, postdoc positions at U.S. Department of Energy’s National Laboratories and similar organizations could be worth exploring. The platform Zintellect, managed by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, allows you to search for postdoc fellowship positions (and other roles) at multiple national labs and federal agencies. The NRC Research Associateship Programs are another great way to gain postdoc training in a U.S. government research lab or agency. In addition, the American Museum of Natural History, the National Park Foundation, the Smithsonian Institution, and companies like GlaxoSmithKline and the American Association for the Advancement of Science offer a variety of postdoc opportunities in nonacademic contexts.

​As we become a more global society, it’s worth considering positions at academic and research institutions across the world. Collaborating across different contexts and cultures can be an enriching experience as part of your career trajectory. EURAXESS is a comprehensive platform for connecting talented researchers with postdocs and research opportunities in the European Union while also providing a range of online career development resources. The Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions Postdoctoral Fellowship program also supports postdoctoral training in Europe or globally for nationals and residents of European Union member states.

​For foreign scholars considering postdoc opportunities in the United States, it’s important to learn as much as possible about the transition process. Moving to the United States for a postdoc can be a big adjustment. When deciding whether or not to do so, be sure to factor in the cost of living, the climate and the cultural differences. The National Postdoctoral Association provides a range of resources for international scholars, including quick guides to visas and income taxes. It also offers an Onboarding for International Postdocs guide that can be helpful for scholars moving to the U.S. for their postdoc and for the offices at U.S. institutions that support postdocs. 

​In conclusion, whether you decide to pursue a postdoc in academia, industry or government—or forgo one entirely—I hope you approach your post-Ph.D. career with intention. The postdoc training period can help you advance in many career paths that are satisfying and exciting, and that lead to new opportunities in the future. 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) in the United States collects two surveys of doctorate recipients that seek to better illuminate and understand Ph.D. career pathways.

• The Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) is an annual census conducted since 1957 of all individuals receiving a research doctorate from an accredited U.S. institution in a given academic year. The 2021 SED data was released in October 2022 and is currently the most up-to-date data available. Data from the 2022 SED will be released in October 2023.
• The Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR) provides demographic, education, and career history information from individuals with a U.S. research doctoral degree in a science, engineering, or health field. It seeks to capture a snapshot of the doctoral workforce by surveying PhD holders across a range of ages and is administered every two years. The 2021 SDR data was released in January 2023. New SDR data will be collected in 2023 and reported in 2025 most likely. 
  

Given the popularity of my previous blog posts examining the 2019 SDR and 2019 SED data, I thought revisiting these surveys and sharing the most up-to-date insights from them would be helpful to graduate students, postdocs, and those who support them. The data give us a good snapshot of the scientific workforce, hiring trends, and salary data for recent Ph.D.s and more experienced individuals holding a doctoral degree. 

The SED asks recent doctorate recipients each year if they have "post-graduation commitments", which could include employment being secured or a postdoctoral position arranged. We can look at this data by the field of doctorate and over time to observe trends in post-graduation commitments. I pulled data from the past 25 years of the SED (from the 1997 to 2021 data) and plotted the trends in post-graduation commitments by field, below.

These data reveal some interesting patterns. First, and perhaps not surprisingly, the humanities and arts fields have lower post-graduation or postdoc commitments than engineering, science, or the education fields. Math and computer sciences have historically seen the highest level of post-graduation commitments. The average percentage of PhD recipients with post-graduation commitments in 2021 was 70%, unchanged from 2020 data. The yearly low point for this percentage across the 25 years analyzed was in 2014 when across all fields the post-graduation commitment rate was 61.4%. 
​
If we zoom into the past 5 years of SED data we see that for many fields, the percentage of recent Ph.D.s with post-graduation or postdoc commitments has increased from 2017 to 2020 and continued to do so from 2020 to 2021, specifically in the life sciences and physical & earth sciences.

In fact, from 2020 to 2021, the percentage of life science doctorates with definite post-graduation commitments increased by 4.8% while the percentage increase was 2.0% year-over-year for the physical and earth sciences. Other fields showed modest decreases of -1% or -2% in post-graduation commitments from 2020 to 2021. 
​
What I find interesting in these data is there is virtually no sign of the COVID-19 pandemic (that began in Spring 2020 and lasted well into 2021) impacting these numbers. It will be interesting to see the 2022 SED data when it is released in October to see if the pattern of stable or growing post-graduation commitments over the past few years persists. 

The NSF SED also breaks down its data by the survey participants' demographics, including whether they are international students holding temporary visas or United States Citizens or permanent residents (PR).

While historically temporary visa holders have had lower post-graduation commitments than US Citizens or permanent residents (PR), recently, the two groups show similar percentages. The SED data from 2018, 2019, and 2020 showed virtually identical percentages across the two groups with temporary visa holders actually having higher percentages of post-graduation commitments in 2020 (70.1% to 69.8%).  In 2021, temporary visa holders showed a modest drop in percentage of post-graduation commitments to 69.4% vs US Citizens and permanent residents at 70.3%.

What can we take from these data?
​The "gap" in post-graduation commitments between temporary visa holders and US Citizens or permanent residents has narrowed over the past few years. It is important to mention here that the question about post-graduation commitments focuses on commitment within the US. So, it is possible that the closing of a gap between temporary visa holders and US Citizens and permanent residents is due to more temporary visa holders choosing not to remain in the US for employment or postdoctoral training after they complete their Ph.D.

The SED data does not fully support this hypothesis, though, as the percentage of temporary visa holders who reported an intention to stay in the US after their doctorate was 71.3% in 2021, 73% in 2020, 71.2% in 2019, and 72% in 2018. Looking at the two largest groups of international students pursuing their doctorate in the US, those from India have percentage rates intending to stay in the US ranging from 87.1% in 2018 to 86.1% in 2021 with a four year average rate from 2018 to 2021 of 86.8%. Doctoral students from China have seen a decrease in intent to stay from 2020 (80.1%) to 2021 (74.4%) specifically, declining by 7.1% year-over-year. The 2021 rate for Chinese students intending to stay in the US is also below the average of the precious 6 years of SED data (2015 to 2020) of 80.7% while the rate for Indian students has remained relatively stable (average of 86.9% from 2015 to 2020 vs 86.1% in 2021). Geopolitical tensions with China may explain these differences and it will be interesting to see how the data evolves in the years to come. 

Across the US Citizens and permanent residents in the SED data, we can examine trends in post-graduation commitments by race and ethnicity. 

Looking at the 25 year SED data trend by the race or ethnicity of the US Citizens and permanent residents, we observe white (non-Hispanic) doctorate recipients historically have higher levels of post-graduation commitments and that Hispanic, Asian, and Black doctorate recipients showed a steeper decrease in commitments from 2005 to 2015. The dip in all groups from 2005 to approximately 2015 probably reflects the impact of 2008's global financial crisis that affected employment prospects and business investment. 

Zooming in on the past five years of SED data, we can see steady increases in post-grad commitments with relatively sharp rises in those identifying as Black (8.9% increase from 2017 to 2021), Asian (8.2% increase over same period), and Hispanic or Latino (5.9% increase from 2019 to 2021). These rates compare to 4.9% increases in post-grad commitments from 2017 to 2021 and 1.9% from 2019 to 2021 across all US Citizen and permanent residents. These data seem to suggest post-graduation prospects are improving across groups and that the gap between groups has narrowed over the past five years of SED data. 

As the data shared above reports post-graduation commitments plus postdocs, SED also looks at the data by doctorate recipients pursuing postdoctoral positions specifically.

The first insight from the percentage of doctorate recipients pursuing a postdoc is that the postdoc path is much more common in certain fields. Across all fields, the percentage of doctorate recipients pursuing a postdoc in 2021 was 41.3%. In the life sciences, the percent of Ph.D. recipients pursuing postdocs has hovered around 60% to 70% over the past 25 years. Pursuing a postdoc is also quite a common post-Ph.D. path for the physical and earth sciences (~60% historically). In contrast, the percentage of engineering doctorates pursuing a postdoc was 38.5% in 2021 vs 57.9% in the life sciences and 62.2% in the physical and earth sciences. ​

The drop in postdoc commitments in the life sciences could be pandemic related as demand for those with biological/life science expertise may have risen in the for-profit sector. Indeed, the proportion of recent life science Ph.D. recipients employed in the for-profit sector (ie, industry) continues to grow and has overtaken academia as the largest sector of employment (since 2019). The divergence in employment sectors from 2019 to 2021 is particularly striking as growth in employment of recent life science Ph.D.s in industry grew by 15.3% over the three year time period while it declined by 15.3% in the academic sector. The fact that the changes across this time horizon (and visible in the graph below) are near mirror images of one another (increasing and declining at equivalent rates) suggests the possibility that industry is replacing academia as a destination for employment of newly-minted life science Ph.D.s in recent years. 

Across all recent Ph.D. recipients, industry (for-profit companies) is the largest sector of employment of those with definite post-graduation commitments and dominates employment for those in engineering, math & computer sciences, and the physical & earth sciences. Academia is still the largest employment sector for recent Ph.D.s in the psychology & social sciences, education, and humanities & arts. Furthermore, non-profit sector work is more common in the humanities & arts, psychology & social sciences, and life sciences while government employment is more common for those with Ph.D.s in psychology & social sciences, life sciences, and the physical & earth sciences than those with Ph.D.s in other fields.   

We can also observe some interesting historical trends in the employment fields of doctorate recipients over the past 5, 10, and 25 years. From 2017 to 2021, across all fields, the percentage of doctorate recipients with commitments for employment in academia decreased by 22.6%. This trend was -28.9% from 2012 to 2021 and -21.6% from 1997 to 2021. Employment in government over the same time period ranged from 5.5% to 6.9% growth. Growth in for-profit (industry) sector employment of recent doctorate recipients grew by 24.5% from 2017 to 2021, 48.5% from 2012 to 2021, and 61.8% from 1997 to 2021 across all fields and was even higher for those from the life sciences (116.4% growth from 1997 to 2021). Clearly, academia as a destination for recent doctorates is declining with industry as an increasing sector of newly-awarded Ph.D. employment. 

​The data on doctorate recipients pursuing postdocs by citizenship status clearly indicates this path is more commonly pursued by temporary visa holders, undoubtedly due to the fact that working at a nonprofit, academic institution provides a variety of visa pathways available versus the for-profit sector (from those pursuing OPT on their student F1 visas to J1 scholar visa options and H-1B visas that are "uncapped" vs those available in the for-profit sector).

The sharp increase in postdoc pursuit in both US Citizens/PRs and temporary visa holders after 2008 suggests a pivot during and after the great financial crisis of that year which slowed the economy and limited career opportunities in the for-profit and government sectors. Postdoctoral positions were potentially "safe places" to ride out the rough economy. And while the percentage pursuing postdocs dropped relatively steeply for temporary visa holders after 2010, the rates remained elevated for US Citizens and permanent residents from 2011 to 2021 (37.5% pursuing postdocs) and rates during this eleven-year time span were 30% higher than that seen from 1997 to 2007 (28.8% pursuing postdocs).

We also see a bit of sign of the COVID-19 pandemic's impact in the data from 2020 to 2021 where the percentage of US Citizens or permanent residents pursuing postdocs increased by 6.25% year-over-year while the increase was 9.9% for temporary visa holders. It will be interesting to see if the 2022 SED data shows that COVID's impact on this metric subsided or persisted.

There are vast differences in the percentage of US Citizens and permanent resident doctorate recipients pursuing a postdoc by their race/ethnicity. Rates have historically been highest in those identifying as Asian and the rates have climbed steadily for White, Non-Hispanic individuals and those identifying as Hispanic. For Black survey respondents, the percentage of doctorate recipients pursuing postdocs in 2021 stood at 25.4%. This compared to a rate of 39.9% in White, Non-Hispanic; 41.5% in Asian; and 41.4% in Hispanic respondents. 

I will turn to 2021 Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR) data to further explore postdoctoral demographics as well as compare the demographics of recent Ph.D. recipients (data from the SED) to those in postdoctoral positions (data from the SDR). 

In raw numbers, nearly 5,000 of the 27,150 postdocs surveyed across all fields in the 2021 SDR were in their postdoc more than 5 years after receiving their doctorate degree. It is notable that nearly a quarter of those postdocs with doctorates in the life sciences were in postdocs 6 or more years from receiving their degree, a rate (24.5%) nearly twice that seen in the physical sciences (12.6%) and engineering (12.7%). 

Across all individuals 5 or fewer years from their Ph.D., 15.7% (22,200 of 141,750) were employed as postdocs and this percentage rose to 28.5% for the biological, agricultural, and environmental life sciences and 22% for the physical sciences. For those who earned an engineering doctorate within the last 5 years, only 10.5% were employed as postdocs. Across all science doctorates surveyed in the 2021 SDR, 19.7% of postdocs were 5+ years from their Ph.D. and this percentage rose to 24.1% in the biological, agricultural, and environmental life sciences. 

Across all those reporting they were in postdoctoral positions in the 2021 SDR survey (n=27,150), 53.2% were US Citizens while 46.8% were non-Citizens. Of engineering doctorate holders in postdocs surveyed, 70.9% were non-US Citizens. Mathematics and statistics (64.7%) and physical sciences (54.1%) postdocs were also majority comprised of non-US Citizens. In the biological, agricultural, and environmental life sciences 60.8% of postdocs surveyed were US Citizens. The percentage of postdocs who were US Citizens was also high in the social sciences (66.7%), computer and information sciences (66.7%), and psychology (82.4%).  

Across all fields, postdocs are 58.6% male. In engineering, nearly 3/4 of postdocs are male (74.7%) while the ratio is 2/3 for the physical sciences (66.7% male). Over 3/4 of mathematics and statistics doctorates in postdoctoral positions are male (76.5%). Those with doctorates in the biological, agricultural, and environmental life sciences working in postdocs are 53.9% male. ​

Ethnicity of US Postdocs vs Doctorate Recipients
The SED reports on the race and ethnicity of those earning doctorates in the US each year. Looking at the SED from 2001 and 2021, we observe growth in the share of Ph.D.s awarded to those identifying as Asian, Black, and Hispanic or Latino with doubling of Ph.D.s awarded in the later group from 2001 to 2021.

In the SDR data from 2021, 6.3% of those in US postdocs identified as Hispanic/Latino, 3.1% as Black, 41.3% as Asian, and 47.2% as White. ​

If we compare 2021 SED to SDR data we see that while 9% of doctorate recipients were Hispanic/Latino, 6.3% of postdocs identified as such, resulting in a ratio of postdoc/PhD recipients identifying as this ethnic group of 0.7 (the postdoc composition of this group is 30% less than its composition in the PhD recipient group). Calculating a similar metric for other races/ethnicities, we get ratios ranging from 0.4 for Black to 4.3 for Asian (and 0.7 for White). Given the SDR data on postdocs does not breakdown race/ethnicity by US Citizenship status, we can't perfectly map it to the SED data. 

Looking at the SED data more closely, it reports Ph.D. recipient data by race/ethnicity and US citizenship status, showing that in 2021 of those identifying as Asian, 20.7% were also US Citizens or permanent residents and in total 27.9% of all Ph.D. recipients from US universities identified as Asian in 2021. If we use the 27.9% of all doctorate recipients in our ratio of postdoc/PhD recipients for Asians, we get a ratio of 1.5 or nearly double that of While recipients.    ​

What is also obvious in this rather crude analysis of postdoc/PhD recipient population proportion is that Black doctorate recipients are not in postdoctoral appointments at the same rates as White, Hispanic/Latino, or Asian individuals and that Asians appear over-represented in postdoctoral positions relative to other ethnic groups.  ​

The 2021 SED data reports median salaries for doctorate recipients (ie, newly-awarded Ph.D.s) by employment sector and field of degree. Collapsed across all fields, the median salary for a doctorate recipient in 2021 was $90,000 and ranged from $68,000 in academia to $115,000 for industry careers. There was also large divergence by Ph.D. field with computer and information sciences doctorates earning a median of $145,000 across all employment sectors in 2021 vs $55,000 in the humanities. 

Postdoc salary has become a hot topic in recent months and the 2021 SED data also reports median postdoc salaries by Ph.D. field. 

The median salary of a recent computer and information sciences doctorate working not as a postdoc is 123% more than the median postdoc salary for someone from this field. The gap is narrower in other fields but across all fields a position outside a postdoc has a median salary 68% higher than a postdoc median salary.   

The SDR data from 2021 allows us to get a better glimpse at median annual salaries across a range of fields and by seniority of respondents (years since doctorate). 

Across all fields, you can see a clear upward trend in the median annual salaries of doctorate recipients as they become more senior (are further out from receiving their degree). Those with engineering doctorates consistently out-earn most of the other sciences while the computer and information science doctorates (dashed gray line, above), show more volatility in the upward trend of earnings as they move further from receiving their degree. Math and statistics also shows a small dip in earnings trajectory for the 16-20 years from degree group. Given these data are from the 2021 SDR, the time period in which that group earned their degrees was most likely 2001-2005 and could reflect the remnants of the "dot-com bust" of the early 2000s where the NASDAQ-100 (an index of mostly US technology stocks) bottomed in October 2002.

The 2021 SDR also reports median salaries for faculty positions of respondents by field of doctorate and faculty rank (assistant, associate, or full professor).

The SDR data asks respondents to report on their primary work activity across several categories including research & development (R&D); teaching; professional services; & management, sales, or administration. Many recent Ph.D. recipients think that the primary activity they will perform is R&D or teaching but the SDR data show that the percentage of individuals reporting those two activities as their primary work activity has remained flat or declined over the past few years. 

The dotted lines in the graph above reflect the percentage of SDR respondents in 2017, 2019, and 2021 (three most recent surveys as the SDR is collected every two years) who indicated a role other than R&D and teaching as their primary work activity. You can see across three broad Ph.D. fields (life sciences, physical/earth sciences, and engineering) the percentage reporting "other" work as their primary activity has increased. In fact, this percentage of those reporting "other work" is equivalent to those reporting R&D as their primary work activity in engineering and physical/earth sciences and approaching equivalency in the life sciences. In other words, more Ph.D.s are working in roles where their primary activity is something other than research/development and/or teaching. 

What are some of these other primary work activities? 
The 2021 SDR data found 21.3% of life science Ph.D.s's primary work activity is in management, sales, or administration with another 11.2% reporting professional services. Physical/earth sciences Ph.D.s reported a similar level of primary work in management, sales, or administration (21.2%). This percentage was 20.3% for those with engineering Ph.D.s. So, roughly 1 in 5 Ph.D.s in science and engineering work primarily in management, sales, or administration. This finding suggests the importance of Ph.D.s thinking about how they can build transferrable skills like communication, leadership, and project management to help set themselves up for success in these areas. 

While a lot of data were shared in this piece, I have only scratched the surface on the wealth of information available through NSF. You can explore some of their reports on the 2021 SED as well as COVID impacts when comparing 2019 to 2021 SDR data to learn more about trends in the Ph.D. workforce. 

Some key insights (and my thoughts/comments) from the data in this piece include:

• ​Little apparent effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on Ph.D. "post-graduation" commitments suggesting Ph.D. talent is often in demand (though postdoc pursuit may have spiked a bit in some fields as a result of the pandemic). 
• Relative growth in the percentage of recent Ph.D.s with definite post-graduation or postdoc commitments over the last few years (2017 - 2021) - Perhaps institutions are doing a better job connecting grad students with resources and the knowledge to navigate the job market proactively?
• The gap between temporary visa holders and US Citizens and permanent residents with definite post-graduation commitments has narrowed over the past few years (since 2018), this could be the result of more openness from employers to sponsor work visas or more international students not wanting to stay in the US for employment (w/ some early signs of this from Chinese graduate students).
• Gaps in US Citizens or permanent residents with post-graduation commitments from different ethnic and racial groups narrowing over the past few years, which may suggest better access and dissemination of information on the job search process that might have been more implicit in the past (ie, uncovering the hidden curriculum). 
• A decline in the number of individuals pursuing postdoctoral positions in the life sciences and physical & earth sciences over the years but an increase in the percentages of engineering, psychology & social sciences, and education doctorates pursuing postdocs.
  • "Peak postdoc" may have been reached in the life sciences and physical & earth sciences around 2010.
  • Potentially, higher scholarly productivity expectations has resulted in a postdoctoral position becoming more common in other academic fields. 
• Relatively low levels of Black Ph.D. recipients pursuing postdoctoral training.
  • Is the way we hire postdocs (mostly via networking) hurting certain under-represented groups and/or is the academic career path of less interest to these individuals? 
• A sizeable number of individuals are in postdoctoral positions 6+ years after receiving their Ph.D., especially in the life sciences. 
  • While a postdoc is supposed to be a relatively short-term, temporary training position, the data suggest some individuals can be in them many years after their Ph.D. was awarded.  
• The for-profit sector (industry) as the main employment sector of most recent Ph.D.s.
  • Better pay and less perceived job stress may be pushing Ph.D.s to pursue careers outside higher education/academia. 
• Differences in median salaries for Ph.D. recipients working in different sectors of employment. 
  • Data on median salaries across employment sectors as well as for postdoctoral and faculty positions by field of doctorate can be instructive as individuals make decisions on what fields to pursue in graduate school and/or which career path(s) to pursue, post-Ph.D..
• The rise of primary work activities beyond teaching and research & development since 2019, signaling a need for Ph.D.s to develop transferable skills like leadership, project management, & communication.

I thank the NSF for collecting and sharing these data. Leveraging this information and examining longitudinal trends helps empower both prospective and current graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, faculty, and administrators with knowledge of the state of the Ph.D. labor market and evolving scientific workforce. Only through knowing where we are currently at in terms of the demographics of the scientific workforce and the possibilities of what is out there for areas of Ph.D. employment can we chart a path to where we want to go both individually and as a society. 

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.