Items in cart [0]
| [ Top of Page ] [ Home ] [ Contact Us ] [ Help ] [ The National Academies Home ] | ||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies
ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS
A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, DC
OCR for page R2
ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20418
NOTICE: This volume was produced as part of a project approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. It is a result of work done by the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) as augmented, which has authorized its release to the public. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by COSEPUP and the Report Review Committee.
The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) is a joint committee of the NAS, the NAE, and the IOM. It includes members of the councils of all three bodies.
Financial Support: The development of this report was supported by the National Research Council, the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Sloan Foundation. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute does not assume responsibility for activities supported by the grant, for project results, or for their interpretation.
International Standard Book Number: 0-309-06996-3
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 00-106115
Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers is available from the
National Academy Press,
2101 Constitution Ave., NW, P.O. Box 285, Washington, DC 20055. (1-800-624-6242 or 202/334-3313 in the Washington metropolitan area; Internet http://www.nap.edu). See www.nationalacademies.org/postdocs for further information.
Copyright 2000 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced solely for educational purposes without the written permission of the National Academy of Sciences.
Cover illustration by Leigh Coriale.
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
National Research Council
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
OCR for page R4
ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies
This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R5
ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND PUBLIC POLICY
MAXINE F. SINGER (Chair), President,
Carnegie Institution of Washington
BRUCE M. ALBERTS, * President,
National Academy of Sciences
ENRIQUETA C. BOND, President,
The Burroughs Wellcome Fund
LEWIS BRANSCOMB, Professor Emeritus,
Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
PETER DIAMOND, Institute Professor and Professor of Economics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
GERALD DINNEEN, * Retired Vice President,
Science and Technology, Honeywell, Inc.
MILDRED S. DRESSELHAUS, Institute Professor of Electrical Engineering and Physics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
JAMES J. DUDERSTADT, President Emeritusand University Professor of Science and Engineering,
Millennium Project, University of Michigan
MARYE ANNE FOX, Chancellor,
North Carolina State University
RALPH E. GOMORY, President,
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
RUBY P. HEARN, Senior Vice President,
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
BRIGID L. M. HOGAN, Investigator,
Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and
Hortense B. Ingram Professor,
Department of Cell Biology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
SAMUEL H. PRESTON, Dean,
University of Pennsylvania School of Arts and Sciences
KENNETH I. SHINE, * President,
Institute of Medicine
MORRIS TANENBAUM, Retired Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer,
AT&T
IRVING L. WEISSMAN, Karele and Avice Beekhuis Professor of Cancer Biology and Professor of Pathology,
Stanford University School of Medicine
SHEILA E. WIDNALL, Abby Rockefeller Mauze Professor of Aeronautics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
WILLIAM JULIUS WILSON, Lewis P. and Linda L. Geyser University Professor,
Harvard University
WILLIAM A. WULF, * President,
National Academy of Engineering
Staff
RICHARD E. BISSELL, Executive Director
DEBORAH D. STINE, Associate Director
MARION RAMSEY, Administrative Associate
*
Ex officio member.
OCR for page R6
ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies
PROJECT GUIDANCE GROUP
MILDRED S. DRESSELHAUS, (Chair), Institute Professor of Electrical Engineering and Physics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
PETER DIAMOND, Institute Professor and Professor of Economics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
BRIGID HOGAN, Investigator,
Howard Hughes Medical Institute and
Hortense B. Ingram Professor
Department of Cell Biology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville
SAMUEL H. PRESTON, Dean,
School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
MAXINE SINGER, President,
Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC
IRVING L. WEISSMAN, Karele and Avice Beekhuis Professor of Cancer Biology and Professor of Pathology,
Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
Principal Project Staff
DEBORAH D. STINE, Project Director
JAMES VOYTUK, Senior Program Officer,
Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel
ELIZABETH HART, Research Associate
VIVIAN NOLAN, Research Associate
ELIZABETH SCHARL, National Academies Intern
ALAN ANDERSON, Consultant Science Writer
CHRIS FINDLAY, Editor
REBECCA BURKA, Administrative Associate
KEVIN ROWAN, Project Assistant
OCR for page R7
ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies
Preface
The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) has, for some time, been concerned with the many issues that surround the education and training of scientists and engineers in the United States. Its 1993 report, Science, Technology, and the Federal Government: National Goals for a New Era, emphasized the importance of human resources to the research enterprise. A second report, Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers (1995), urged institutions to offer graduate students expanded educational experiences so that they would be better equipped to choose from among the broad range of careers now open to scientists and engineers. This report led to the development of one guide for students, Careers in Science and Engineering: A Student Planning Guide to Grad School and Beyond (1996), and another for their mentors, Adviser, Teacher, Role Model, Friend: On Being a Mentor to Students in Science and Engineering (1997). In the course of its work on these reports and guides, COSEPUP became increasingly aware of the need to also address the experiences of those who undertake additional research training after completing their doctoral degrees—the postdoctoral scholars, or postdocs. The present report is the result of the committee 's intensive study of the postdoctoral experience. It is concerned largely with the personal and institutional settings of that experience. The core of a postdoc's world, the research effort that is at the center of the hugely successful US scientific and engineering research enterprise, is of course of primary importance, but it is not the subject of this guide.
During the past year, COSEPUP gathered information in meetings with a total of 39 groups of postdocs and advisers at 11 universities, seven national laboratories, and five private research institutes or industrial firms. In addition,
OCR for page R8
ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies
the committee invited more than 100 postdocs, advisers, administrators, and others to a day-long workshop in Washington, DC (see Appendix D); conducted an electronic survey of research institutions (see Appendix C); met with the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) staff; and consulted regularly with a 12-member External Advisory Group selected from institutions across the country. The informed and generous contributions of these groups are in large part responsible for COSEPUP's ability to document the characteristics of the postdoctoral experience. Besides reporting the committee's findings, this report suggests actions that can be taken to enhance the postdoctoral experience.
Although there is substantial variation in the experiences of postdocs from one field of science to another, certain elements are more-or-less common across the entire population. In the last 15 years, the number of postdocs has greatly increased and the nature of their experiences has changed in substantial ways. In some fields (e.g., life sciences), one or more postdoctoral experiences have become virtually mandatory for obtaining a regular position in academia or industry and the median time spent in postdoc positions has increased to 3.5 years. One reason for this is that graduate school programs cannot alone provide the broad range of knowledge and skills required for modern research. Another reason is that an extended postdoc period provides employment when regular positions are scarce compared to the number of students completing graduate degrees. A third reason is that postdocs want to accomplish work of substantial scope and significance in order to improve their chances of obtaining a desirable position.
Postdocs have become essential in many research settings. It is largely they who carry out the sometimes exhilarating, sometimes tedious day-to-day work. Their efforts account for a great deal of the extraordinary productivity of the United States' academic science and engineering enterprise. And yet the institutional status of postdocs, especially in academia, is often poorly defined. Consequently, although most postdocs value highly their experiences and the opportunity to engage in rewarding research without competing responsibilities, many of them are dissatisfied with their situations.
COSEPUP's analysis of the data gathered in this report indicates that the employment conditions for postdocs, especially in universities, need to be significantly improved if the United States is to develop the human capital needed to assure a healthy research enterprise and global leadership in science and technology. In many university settings, postdocs have uncertain status; they are neither faculty, staff, nor students. Consequently, there is often no clear administrative responsibility for assuring their fair compensation, benefits, or job security. Postdocs often receive no clear statement of the terms of their appointment and have no place to go to determine appropriate expectations or redress grievances. Often the sole person to whom they can turn for assistance is the Principal Investigator (PI) who hired them and upon whom they depend not only for support in their
OCR for page R9
ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies
current position but also for help in advancing their careers. Given this dependence, a reluctance to be perceived as a complainer is understandable. In contrast to the postdocs, university graduate students, faculty, and staff function under clearly stated assumptions, including: definition of expectations, rights, and responsibilities, defined pay scales, periodic evaluations, defined benefits, benchmarks for pay increases, and established procedures for consideration of grievances.
Although the stipends of most postdocs derive from grants to their faculty advisers, major granting agencies, such as the NSF or NIH, provide few guidelines on the obligations of advisers or their institutions toward postdocs. Indeed, these agencies were not able to provide COSEPUP with dependable data about the number of postdocs (in their nomenclature, Research Associates) supported by grants, or about their salaries, benefits, or length of service.
There are several unfortunate outcomes of the rapid growth of the US postdoctoral population under these irregular conditions. The range of annual compensation for first-year postdocs spans tens of thousands of dollars per year, depending on field and type of institution. At the lower end of the range—which is typical of the life sciences in academia—the pay is embarrassingly low, especially for postdocs with families, when compared to that received by professionals in other fields at analogous career stages. There is no standard health benefit package for postdocs; some receive no health benefits for themselves, and many have no health coverage for their families.
COSEPUP recognizes that part of the compensation for postdocs is the further education and experience they receive and their freedom from responsibilities other than research. The committee learned that many postdocs do indeed have stimulating and productive research experiences under the supervision of attentive, sympathetic, and thoughtful mentors. However, we also learned about postdocs who are neglected, even exploited inappropriately, while making creative and fundamental contributions to the research projects on which they worked. The need to improve the postdoctoral experience has led some institutions to formulate policies to govern their employment. In other instances, postdocs themselves have formed organizations to promote their common interests. Other indications of serious dissatisfaction are the occasional discussions of unionization and even litigation; though rare, these more confrontational calls for action are at least a sign that reform is needed.
Reform efforts will have to be collaborative. While the postdocs themselves must play a role, the major responsibility for change lies with those who have the most power: the advisers, the research institutions, and the funding organizations. Disciplinary societies can play an important role in catalyzing and supporting the reform efforts, especially because the needed changes vary by field. All these participants will need to confront difficult questions in addition to the challenges already mentioned. For example, if mentors have insufficient grant funds to improve salaries and benefits, should they consider accepting fewer postdocs to allow for larger stipends? Also, what is the optimal length of time to
OCR for page R10
ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies
be spent as a postdoc? Many are tempted to remain in their positions for five or more years because their experience and skill promise exciting breakthroughs and high productivity. Advisers may encourage long stays for the same reason, as well as because senior postdocs are particularly valuable in facilitating the education and training of graduate students and new postdocs. Junior researchers need to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of remaining overly long as postdocs against those associated with alternative opportunities. COSEPUP suggests that postdocs who remain in their positions for more than five years be reclassified as regularly employed researchers. Aside from personal considerations, there may be costs to the research enterprise itself if relatively junior researchers postpone their independence and are unable to apply their energies in the pursuits of their own original ideas.
Excellent postdoctoral experiences for new scientists and engineers are critical to the health and productivity of current and future research. High school, undergraduate, and graduate students need positive messages about scientific and engineering education and research careers if they are to continue pursuing their scientific and engineering interests. There are many marvelous aspects to the present system. It is essential that this highly productive relationship between research and education be continued under optimal conditions.
Maxine Singer
Chair
Committee on Science,
Engineering, and Public Policy
OCR for page R11
ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies
Acknowledgements
Aguidance group consisting of Mildred S. Dresselhaus (Chair), Peter Diamond, Brigid Hogan, Samuel H. Preston, Maxine Singer, and Irving L. Weissman supervised the preparation of the guide.
Valuable feedback was provided by an external advisory group composed of:
Patricia Bresnahan, Molecular Dynamics and recent postdoctoral scholar at the University of California, San Francisco;
Jerry Bryant, Director, United Negro College Fund–Merck Initiative;
Joseph Cerny, Vice Chancellor for Research and Sam Castaneda, Postdoctoral Programs Director, University of California, Berkeley;
Michael Cowan, Office of Student Services, Stanford University;
Susan Duby, Director, Division of Graduate Studies, National Science Foundation;
Jean Labus, Senior Personnel Representative, Postdoctoral Programs, Eli Lilly and Co.;
Trevor Penning, Associate Dean for Postdoctorate Training, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine;
Patricia Roth, Abbott Laboratories and recent postdoctoral scholar;
Walter Schaffer, Research Training Officer, National Research Service Awards Program, National Institutes of Health;
Marion Thurnauer, Director, Chemistry Division, Argonne National Laboratory;
Letitia Yao, Postdoctoral Scholar, University of Minnesota; and
Michael Zigmond, Professor, Department of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh.
OCR for page R16
ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies
Chapter 8 provides a series of principles, action points, and recommendations for enhancing the postdoctoral experience for the benefit of all participants.
Throughout the guide appear boxes highlighting “Best Practices” we have seen among various institutions and organizations. This series of “Best Practices” boxes explores the postdoc-adviser research relationship; their fictional scenarios are based on discussions from our focus groups. In addition, the actual experiences of two recent postdocs are profiled.
Additional boxes summarize highlights of the institutional survey we conducted, as illustrated below (see Box). Note that some questions requested multiple responses. More information on the survey is provided in Appendix C. We encourage institutions to use the guide as a basis for dialog among all the populations it addresses. Discussion of the postdoctoral experience can occur in many settings, including:
Orientation sessions
Career counseling offices
Departmental or school “practice of science” symposia
Job fairs and conventions
Student discussion or support groups
Professional society meetings
Meetings between advisers and graduate students or postdocs
Information interviews
Management meetings (e.g., faculty senate, department, school)
How Many Postdocs Are Currently Serving Appointments at This Organization?
Nearly 18 percent of respondents reported postdoctoral populations of more than 1000. Institutions reported smaller populations as follows:
Fewer than 50
15%
50-100
18%
101-250
21%
251-500
8%
501-750
5%
751-1000
15%
COSEPUP Survey Results
OCR for page R17
ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies
For those developing plans to enhance the postdoctoral experience, COSEPUP has developed a web site—www.nationalacademies.org/postdocs—which includes the full text of this guide, a one-page summary of the guide, and links to the web sites of institutions we suggest provide exemplary “Best Practices.” These best-practice models can be helpful to postdocs, postdoc advisers, institutions, funding organizations, and disciplinary societies as they explore ways to enhance the postdoctoral experience.
OCR for page R18
ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies
This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R19
ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
1
POSTDOCTORAL SCHOLARS IN US INSTITUTIONS
4
Population Growth,
4
A Changing Pattern,
6
The Importance of Postdocs to Research,
10
Postdoctoral Terms,
11
Multiple Postdoctoral Positions,
12
Unmet Expectations,
12
Variations by Field and Sector,
14
Increasing Age,
18
A Debate Over Responsibility,
18
Summary Points,
20
2
FEATURES OF THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE
21
Postdocs in Different Disciplines,
22
Sources of Funding for Postdocs,
26
Postdocs in Different Sectors,
29
Postdocs in Universities,
29
Postdocs in Industry,
30
Postdocs in Government Facilities,
30
Postdocs Abroad,
31
Sub-Populations of Postdocs,
31
Foreign Postdocs,
31
OCR for page R20
ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies
Women Postdocs,
33
Minority Postdocs,
33
Summary Points,
41
3
RIGHTS, OPPORTUNITIES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE POSTDOC
42
Rights of a Postdoc,
42
Clear Terms of Appointment,
42
Higher Compensation,
44
Mentoring,
46
Multiple Mentors,
48
Health Benefits,
48
Support in Planning a Career and Finding a Job,
48
Opportunities of Postdoctoral Experience,
49
Independence,
49
Professional Meetings,
50
Networking,
50
Responsibilities of a Postdoc,
51
Career Development,
51
Communicating,
51
Contributing to the Institution,
51
Planning for Departure,
51
Shaping a Career,
52
Academia, Government, or the Private Sector?
52
Developing Career Skills,
53
Job Hunting,
53
Career Expectations and Reality,
53
Summary Points,
54
4
THE POSTDOC AND THE ADVISER
57
The Adviser as Mentor,
57
Benefits for the Adviser,
57
Benefits for the Postdoc,
58
Responsibilities of the Adviser,
59
First Steps,
59
Selecting a Research Problem,
59
Research Guidance,
60
Advancing the Career,
61
Balancing the Needs of the Program and the Needs of the Postdoc,
62
Mentoring,
62
Flexibility,
62
Communication,
64
OCR for page R21
ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies
Honest Evaluations,
64
Ethical and Proprietary Issues,
65
Resolving Disputes,
65
Finding a Regular Job,
67
Moving On,
67
Summary Points,
69
5
THE POSTDOC AND THE INSTITUTION
70
The Institutional Status of the Postdoc,
70
Variations in Titles,
72
Incorporating the Postdoc into the Institution,
74
Establishing Institutional Policies,
74
Establishing a Postdoctoral Office,
75
Career Guidance,
77
Benefits,
78
Other Responsibilities of the Institution,
79
Mentoring,
79
Mentoring Committees,
80
Ethical Development,
81
Grievances,
81
The Role of the Ombudsperson,
82
Special Needs of Foreign Nationals,
82
Postdoctoral Associations,
83
Stabilizing the Postdoctoral Population,
84
Informing Graduate Students About the Postdoctoral Experience,
86
Summary Points,
87
6
THE POSTDOC AND THE FUNDING ORGANIZATION
88
Levels of Funding,
88
Sources of Funding,
89
Opportunities of Funding Organizations,
90
Broader Impacts,
90
Promoting Best Practices,
91
Funding Temporary Employment,
91
The ‘Perennial Postdoc,'
91
Addressing Some Inequities of Funding,
92
Communicating with Funding Organizations,
92
Promoting Good Mentoring,
92
Summary Points,
94
7
THE POSTDOC AND THE DISCIPLINARY SOCIETIES
95
OCR for page R22
ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies
8
PRINCIPLES, ACTION POINTS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE
97
Principles,
98
Action Points,
99
Recommendations,
100
Postdocs,
100
Advisers,
100
Institutions,
101
Funding Organizations,
104
Disciplinary Societies,
108
Looking Toward the Future,
109
BIBLIOGRAPHY
110
APPENDIX A Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy: Member and Staff Biographical Information
115
APPENDIX B Analysis of Quantitative Data on Postdocs
122
APPENDIX C Results of Survey of Organizations with Postdoctoral Scholars
138
APPENDIX D Summary of Workshop on Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience
159
APPENDIX E Summary of Results from Institutional Focus Groups
175
OCR for page R23
ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies
Figures, Tables, and Boxes
FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1:
Total Number of Postdoctoral Appointments in the Life Sciences, Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, and the Social/Behavioral Sciences, by Sector, 1981-1997,
5
FIGURE 1-2:
Postdoctoral Appointees in Academic Institutions by Broad Fields, 1980-1998,
8
FIGURE 1-3:
Number of Doctorates and the Number Planning Postdoctoral Study, 1975-1998, by Field,
9
FIGURE 1-4:
Postgraduation Plans of Science and Engineering Doctorates at the Time They Received Their Degree, 1998,
10
FIGURE 1-5:
Median Number of Years Spent in Postdoctorate Appointment for Doctorates in the 1989-1991 Year Cohort, by Degree Field and Citizenship at Time of Degree,
11
FIGURE 1-6:
Ratio of the Number of Total Tenured Faculty to the Number of New Doctorates Awarded in 1987 and 1997,
15
FIGURE 1-7:
Reasons for Taking First Postdoctoral Appointment, by Field of Doctorate, 1997,
16
FIGURE 1-8:
Median Salaries in 1997 for Doctorates in the Six-Year PhD Cohort, 1991-1996, by Field, Sector, and Type of Appointment,
17
FIGURE 2-1:
Percentage of New Doctorates Planning Postdoctoral Appointments, by Degree Field in 1998,
23
OCR for page R24
ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies
FIGURE 2-2:
1997 Status of 1995 Postdoctorates, by Selected Science and Engineering Field,
24
FIGURE 2-3:
Median Postdoctoral Salaries by Employment Sector and Field of Doctorate in 1997 for Doctorate in the Six-Year Cohort, 1991-1996,
24
FIGURE 2-4:
Source of Support for Academic Postdoctoral Appointees, by Field, 1998,
27
FIGURE 2-5:
Percentage, by Field, of US Citizens or Permanent Residents with Postdoctoral Appointments in US Institutions, 1988-1998,
32
FIGURE 2-6:
Number of Male and Female Postdoctorates in 1997, by Degree Field, for the 1991 to 1996 Degree Cohort,
34
FIGURE 2-7:
Percentage of Female Doctorates and Postdoctorates in 1997, by Degree Field, for the 1991 to 1996 Degree Cohort,
35
FIGURE 2-8:
Postdoctoral Salaries in 1997 for Doctorates in the 1991-1996 Cohort, by Gender and Broad Field,
36
FIGURE 2-9:
Percentages of Postdoctorates who are Married or Have Children, by PhD Field and Gender, 1997,
38
FIGURE 3-1:
Best Source of Job Advice for Postdoctorates: Biochemistry & Mathematics,
50
FIGURE 5-1:
Primary Concerns of Postdoctorates at Johns Hopkins University,
72
TABLES
TABLE 1-1:
Top 25 Institutions with the Largest Total Number of Postdoctoral Appointments in 1998,
6
TABLE 1-2:
Comparison of Postdoc Median Earnings with Other Populations, 1997-1998,
13
TABLE 2-1:
1997 Employment Characteristics for All Doctorates and 1998 Graduate Enrollments at Doctoral Granting Institutions,
25
TABLE 2-2:
Available Data on US Underrepresented Minority Postdoctoral Scholars, 1997,
39
TABLE 5-1:
Some Differences in Entitlements based on Classification of Postdocs as Students or Employees,
73
OCR for page R25
ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies
BOXES
Best Practices
Postdocs and Family Life,
37
Fellowships for Underrepresented Minority Postdocs,
40
Questions to Ask in Choosing an Adviser,
45
Appointment Letters,
46
Is a ‘Hot Lab' the Best Lab?,
49
Mentoring,
63
The ‘Special Something' that Brings Success,
68
Sample Surveys of Postdoctoral Populations,
71
Creating a Postdoctoral Office,
76
Developing ‘Survival Skills,'
78
Postdoc Handbooks,
79
Postdoctoral Associations,
85
Practice Descriptions
Defining the Postdoctoral Position,
43
Preparing for a Postdoctoral Position,
44
Postdoctoral Stipends,
47
Poor Advising Practices,
66
Profiles
A Successful Postdoctoral Experience,
55
A Difficult Postdoctoral Experience,
56
Best Practice Scenarios
Communicating with the Postdoc,
58
Adding New Research Tools,
59
Learning to Collaborate,
61
Knowing When to Suggest a Change,
62
Turning Research into Manuscripts,
67
COSEPUP Survey Results
Number of Postdocs,
xvi
Determining the Duration of Postdoctoral Appointment,
12
Medical Benefits,
28
Stipend Levels,
48
Postdoc Evaluations,
64
OCR for page R26
ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies
Postdoc Classification,
72
Job Placement Services,
77
Benefits,
80
Grievances,
81
Assistance for Foreign Nationals,
83
Postdoctoral Associations,
84