Executive Summary

 

Numerous observers continue to call attention to ongoing concerns in postdoctoral training in science and engineering. For example, while the number of PhDs who engage in postdoctoral training has been increasing for decades, evidence is emerging that the experience is not meeting the needs and expectations of the postdoctoral scientists (“postdocs”) themselves and is therefore not serving the larger interests of the scientific and engineering enterprise. Many postdocs who have completed their appointments are in their mid-30s, do not have the type of job for which they were being trained, and lack the skills they need to succeed in their scientific careers.

With the encouragement and support of the National Science Foundation (NSF), a workshop with representatives from a wide range of constituencies and institutions involved in postdoctoral training was held on November 15-17, 2004, to discuss how NSF policies and practices can best serve the interests of postdoctoral researchers and of the U.S. scientific and educational enterprise. Participants included postdocs who had received direct NSF fellowship support as well as those who had worked under a principal investigator’s grant; representatives of postdoctoral organizations; NSF-funded principal investigators (PIs) who support postdoctoral researchers with their research grants; coordinators of postdoctoral grant programs; academic administrators, department heads and chairs; and leaders in other sectors that have a stake in postdoctoral training.

Workshop participants addressed a number of fundamental questions about the postdoctorate:

  • Are the historical purposes and structures of postdoctoral appointments still adequate?
  • Can the components of early-career-stage postdoctoral training be broadened or modified without diminishing the role of such training as a means of enhancing scientific and technological skills and knowledge?
  • Should the notion of the postdoctoral training extend beyond its current focus on entry into research careers in science and engineering and offer pathways into a broader array of careers?

They were also asked to consider leadership roles for NSF in addressing these challenges, including:

  • Encouraging new models that enhance the postdoctoral experience while also meeting NSF, PI, and institutional expectations;
  • Allowing sufficient flexibility in guidelines to respond to individual circumstances;
  • Identifying possible unintended consequences or negative outcomes; and
  • Understanding community perspectives of potential NSF policies and procedures regarding postdocs.

The workshop was structured to maximize interaction among the representatives of the various constituencies. To facilitate discussion, all participants received a comprehensive package of background readings in advance of the event. At the beginning of the workshop, the four constituency groups—postdocs, faculty members, university administrators, and representatives of organizations with a stake in postdoctoral training—met separately to discuss their interests. For the remainder of the workshop, participants were assigned to discussion groups that included representatives of all constituencies. Sessions were designed so that discussion groups could meet separately and also exchange perspectives with each of the other groups. All participants met in plenary session on the final day to discuss and merge all the suggestions that had been developed by the discussion groups.

Workshop participants were able to identify several key areas that deserve attention, to explain why they are important, and to articulate goals that NSF can help advance. Although the workshop highlighted areas where NSF might be influential, it did not recommend specific actions. Rather, by identifying the goals to be pursued and the places where NSF has leverage, the workshop developed options for NSF consideration, together with intended and potentially unintended consequences that might follow changes in NSF policies or practices.

 

Major Themes

Several core themes permeated all the discussions:

  • The postdoctoral appointment must be designed to develop the postdoc into an independent professional with all the skills needed to succeed and take leadership in a variety of possible careers.
  • Postdocs have valuable advanced training and deserve compensation and benefits commensurate with that status.
  • The term of a postdoctoral appointment must not be excessive.
  • To build the most talented and creative scientific and engineering workforce and leadership, the Nation must do a better job of recruiting and supporting women, ethnic minorities, and persons with disabilities who are currently underrepresented in the scientific and engineering professions.
  • Certain aspects of the postdoctoral experience are not well documented or understood and require further study.

 

Issues for NSF Consideration

Workshop participants agreed that enough is known about the current state of postdoctoral training to recommend action to improve it in several key areas. A coordinated and sustained endeavor that takes into account the substantial differences that exist across and within disciplines is required. Participants identified the following possible ways NSF can make a difference, while also recognizing that NSF must have flexibility in developing specific changes to current policies and practices:

  • Modify research proposal application and review procedures to make more explicit the expectations of the postdoctoral period, including adequate training and mentoring of the postdoc for an independent career, and overt delineation of the responsibilities of the postdoc, the research advisor, and the institution, including issues of compensation and benefits.
  • Collect more information about what occurs during and after a postdoctoral appointment for the analysis of the outcomes of postdoctoral policies and practices. These results can clarify how the long-term scientific and technological interests of postdocs and the Nation are served, and help create mechanisms that address the transitions from graduate education to the postdoctorate to independent careers.
  • Disseminate information about postdoctoral openings, expectations and models for adequate training, and the array of available funding mechanisms to provide choice and flexibility in postdoctoral training and career path development.
  • Create mechanisms and pathways to broaden postdoctoral opportunities for underserved populations—women, minorities, and people with disabilities. NSF can provide incentives for shaping professional development plans that lead to the professional accomplishment and advancement of the members of these communities.

Workshop participants noted that additional issues remain, such as the status and role of the foreign postdocs who hold the majority of postdoctoral positions in many disciplines. They also acknowledged that many of the workshop’s themes link to graduate education and to early-career professional development issues. As important as these topics are, however, they were not the focus of the workshop: to identify positive ways to ensure that the postdoctorate better meets the needs of today’s new PhDs and of a 21st century scientific, technological, and educational enterprise.