Workshop Structure
Postdoctoral issues have received considerable attention in recent years, and a number of valuable reports have been published. In preparation for this workshop, the organizers assembled a reading list (Appendix A) of key documents in the thematic areas of broadening access to postdoctoral education, facilitating transitions into and out of the postdoctorate, providing mechanisms for enhancing professional development and choices of careers during the postdoctorate, and enhancing standards of professional and personal living. Workshop participants received copies of all documents in advance, so they arrived with knowledge of what had already been done and were ready to move the discussion forward. The workshop’s focus was on determining what actions could be taken to improve the attractiveness and effectiveness of the postdoctorate and to identify where changes in NSF policies and practices could make a difference. Areas of concern included compensation, mentor relationships, career advising, institutional support desirable in such appointments, and appropriate limitations on the duration of postdoctoral appointments, as well as how to increase opportunities for postdocs to develop the necessary skills and experience to be successful in their subsequent careers. The organizers focused on facilitating interaction among the various constituencies so that they could collectively identify areas where NSF can make a difference.
On Monday evening, each of four constituencies—faculty, academic administrators, postdocs, and other stakeholders (industry, government, foundations, and professional associations)—met to share their thoughts on their responsibilities and desires with regard to postdoctoral training.
On Tuesday, each participant was assigned to one of the four thematic areas described above (see the detailed agenda in Appendix B). Each thematic group included representatives of all constituencies. Participants gathered for a plenary session at the end of the morning at which each thematic group presented a summary of its discussion.
On Tuesday afternoon, three 45-minute breakout sessions allowed each thematic group to meet with each of the three other groups. After these interactive sessions, the thematic groups reassembled to revisit and refine their suggestions in response to what they had learned from the other groups. Reporters from each of the thematic groups then gathered to merge their suggestions into a single set of topics.
On Wednesday morning, participants met in plenary session and reviewed the combined suggestions. In this way, they refined their perspectives, clarified their statements, discussed NSF’s possible role in each case, and considered both the positive as well as possible undesirable and unintended effects of the suggested actions.
