Foreword

 

In recent decades, postdoctoral appointments immediately following completion of the doctorate and before the start of a full-time professional position have become a de facto requirement for many jobs in academia and industry. The numbers of postdoctoral scientists ("postdocs") on the nation’s campuses have grown substantially, to the point that postdocs now perform a significant fraction of the nation’s scientific research. Yet this great expansion of the postdoctorate has occurred with little planning, scrutiny, or institutional supervision.

While the roles and significance of these appointments for professional advancement can and do vary by discipline, they share a few common elements. Chief among these, in contrast to graduate study, is the general full-time focus on research. Most postdocs have little or no participation in teaching when in an academic setting or management when in an industrial or government setting. A few teaching postdoctoral positions exist, as do some positions in industrial and national laboratories, but these are in a minority.

Driven initially by concerns about employment opportunities, a number of professional, non-profit, and governmental organizations have focused attention on the postdoctorate. Working environments, benefits, demographics, institutional responsibilities, and career preparation at the postdoctoral level have all come under scrutiny. However, no major studies have assessed the added value of postdoctoral work for creating career opportunities or have compared career outcomes of scientists with and without postdoctoral experience. This last issue can be especially important in addressing the goal of diversifying the scientific workforce and leadership with respect to underserved communities, including women, African-Americans, Latinos, American Indians, and persons with disabilities.

Available studies and experience suggest that postdoctoral appointments serve one or more of the following purposes that benefit the postdoc, the supervisor, or both:

  • continuing education leading to new skills or new knowledge;
  • strengthening of scientific credentials through publications and scientific visibility;
  • support for placement in permanent positions;
  • network building with advisors and supervisors and with peers and contemporaries, leading to integration into the profession;
  • provision of research laboratory staffing;
  • productive employment while awaiting desirable full-time positions.

To strengthen and diversify the scientific and technical workforce and leadership in the United States, three broad questions regarding the postdoctorate must be addressed:

  • Are the historical purposes and structures of postdoctoral appointments still adequate?
  • Can the components of the postdoctorate be broadened or modified without diminishing its role as a means of enhancing scientific and technical skills and knowledge?
  • Alternatively, should the notion of the postdoctorate extend beyond its current focus on entry into scientific and technical careers and embrace non-scientific activities?

These questions, bolstered by available studies, lead to an additional set of questions:

  • How is a successful postdoctoral experience defined?
  • Does or can a postdoctoral appointment serve also as a barrier to professional advancement? In particular, does the configuration, support, or practice of the postdoctorate act to discourage United States citizens underrepresented in science?
  • Which laboratories ("gatekeepers") generate the largest numbers of postdoctoral appointees, and why? What factors—e.g., laboratory setting, supervisor, institution—determine the quality of the postdoctoral appointment?
  • Which laboratories serve the most diverse array of postdoctoral scientists, and why? How can diversity be encouraged and enhanced at the postdoctoral level?
  • Can a postdoctoral position afford opportunities to explore alternatives to the single-investigator model for doing research, including collaborations across disciplines and institutions, broader use of shared facilities, and other structures?
  • Can a postdoctoral appointment be broadened to include development or enhancement of other capabilities in addition to those required for research, such as communication, teaching, or management skills?
  • What are the real costs and financial returns of postdoctoral appointments in the short and long term? Do the long-term returns that postdocs afford the advancement of science and science education justify the short-term costs?
  • Are or should postdoctoral appointments be "jobs" or be continuing education? What are the corresponding implications for salaries and benefits for postdocs?
  • Can the enhancement of science and engineering leadership in the United States be addressed in new ways at the postdoctoral level?
  • To what extent do national security issues need to be considered in creating and filling postdoctoral positions? What are the corresponding implications for participation and leadership by the United States in the internationalization and globalization of science?
  • To what extent can or do postdoctoral appointments enhance both short- and long-term employment "flexibility and agility"[1] in a rapidly changing and more professionally diverse marketplace?
  • In addition to research-intensive universities, where the vast majority of postdoctoral appointments exist, can other settings (e.g., industries, national laboratories, non-doctoral colleges and universities) be used more effectively to benefit both the postdoc and the host institution?

On May 11-13, 2003, motivated by these issues, the Division of Chemistry and the Office of Multidisciplinary Activities of the National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsored a workshop in Arlington, Virginia, to examine the past, present, and future of the postdoctorate. Approximately 80 participants with a wide range of backgrounds in industry, education, government, and nonprofit organizations came together to analyze the experiences of postdocs and to explore how those experiences can be enhanced. The group included college and university faculty members and administrators, government officials and analysts, industrial executives, scientists and administrators at national laboratories and other research institutions, leaders of professional organizations, and current postdocs. Through plenary sessions, breakout groups, and informal conversations, workshop participants explored both the idiosyncrasies and common themes of the postdoctoral experience.

The workshop had two major goals:

  • To illuminate the processes, characteristics, and outcomes of the postdoctoral appointment.
  • To identify concepts, opportunities, and priorities for NSF uniquely at the postdoctoral level that will strengthen science, mathematics, and engineering in the United States and the human resources required for maintaining leadership.

Because the workshop was sponsored in part by the Division of Chemistry, its starting point was the postdoctorate in chemistry, and particularly those positions supported by NSF. However, the discussion ranged well beyond chemistry, and the conclusions and suggestions contained in this report have relevance for all postdocs and for all institutions that sponsor or host postdocs.

Issues of terminology arose several times at the workshop. A number of workshop participants expressed their displeasure with the terms "postdoctorate" and "postdoc." The words seem to imply the termination of a period of training, not the initial steps of a young scientist toward research independence. Various alternatives were discussed, such as research fellow or associate, but the workshop participants made no recommendation to replace the terms, and this report continues to use "postdoctorate," "postdoctoral," and "postdoc." Nevertheless, workshop participants felt that continued attention should be directed to the deficiencies of these terms and that widely accepted alternatives should continue to be sought.

NSF has begun to explore new models for the postdoctorate. Under discussion are national "Discovery Corps Fellowships" that could enhance the nation’s research infrastructure and help meet strategic national research needs, "Senior Discovery Corps Fellowships" that could provide an opportunity for midcareer scientists to explore new ways of contributing to the scientific enterprise, and "International Discovery Corps Fellowships" that could strengthen scientific ties between the United States and other countries through exchanges of research personnel. The issues and possible new initiatives described in this report can inform these discussions and help shape innovative programs, not only within the Chemistry Division but also throughout NSF and in other scientific organizations.

The workshop did not seek to achieve consensus on programmatic recommendations, nor was it able to speak to all the underlying questions. Rather, its intent was to identify those aspects of the postdoctorate that are worthy of attention as new programs are considered or existing ones reviewed. Indeed, the workshop represents the beginning of a process, not the end. We are convinced that the ideas contained in this report can inspire a broader discussion of the postdoctorate so that strengths can be enhanced and weaknesses eliminated. Such a discussion could help reinvigorate the postdoctoral experience so that it is meaningful and significant to the postdoc, the supervisor, the host institution, the sponsors, and the nation. We hope that this report will help engage the scientific community in a wide-ranging, in-depth, and searching examination of this vital time in the life of young scientists.

NSF’s strategic vision speaks of investing in "people, ideas, and tools." Through its support of postdocs, the Foundation takes critical steps toward achieving the first two goals and develops the base of expertise needed to achieve the third. In that respect, the postdoctoral experience is at the center of the Foundation’s mission and should be a focus of the Foundation’s attention. This workshop report can help bring to the postdoctorate the attention it needs and deserves.

 

Robert L. Lichter, Merrimack Consultants, LLC
Willie Pearson, Jr., Georgia Institute of Technology
Geraldine L. Richmond, University of Oregon