BACK TO THE FEATURE INDEX
The challenges confronting postdocs and institutions that
produce them are well documented, ranging from classification to
compensation to marketability. At most universities, recent, rapid
growth in the number of postdoctoral fellows was unplanned, and
their status within the university has been poorly
institutionalized. Changes in federal funding patterns and
distributed hiring have created badly regulated positions as well
as extremely variable working conditions. Two labs in the same
building at the same university might employ postdocs under
entirely different conditions and with entirely different results.
University administrations are struggling to develop policies that
catch up to these realities. Much of the controversy has been
framed with questions such as "Is a postdoc a student or an
employee?" These questions, although important, sidestep the
central issue: the quality of the postdoctoral experience.
"Postdocs should be given space to discover their potential
value to a wide array of audiences (and employers), encouragement
to make career choices reflecting their passion and expertise, and
the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in their chosen
profession."
For universities, postdoc population control isn't a practical
alternative, because engines beyond the control of university
administrations drive the numbers. There are, however, some things
that universities can do or at least help with. One very important
thing we can do is to change the way universities, professors,
graduate students, and postdocs themselves think about what it
means to be a postdoc. Furthermore, our conception of what a
postdoc is has implications, in turn, for how universities--and
postdocs--conduct the postdoctoral experience.
In the current climate, the postdoc is widely thought of as a
credential, comparable to a doctoral degree, necessary and
sufficient to assure a rewarding career in science. This
"apprenticeship-certification-entitlement" model is at the core of
the current postdoc controversy. This model must be replaced with a
new one, "discovery-ownership-accountability," in which postdocs
have greater agency in their own intellectual and professional
development. Postdocs should be given space to discover their
potential value to a wide array of audiences (and employers),
encouragement to make career choices reflecting their passion and
expertise, and the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in
their chosen profession. Essentially, postdocs should think of
themselves as intellectual entrepreneurs: scholars with a vision, a
plan to carry out that vision, and the resources to bring it to
fruition. Postdocs must learn to take responsibility for the
development of their own professional potential and marketability.
Principal investigators (PIs) should be encouraged to think of
their postdocs in a similar light--and to help postdocs develop
these skills. University administrators can play an important role
in this transformation of how postdocs are conceived of and
conceive of themselves.
PIs by themselves, however, are unlikely to have the means or
ability to expand the postdoc's opportunities beyond the
immediately available resources of the PI's grant and own career.
Currently, postdocs and Ph.D.s are rigorously educated to be
stewards of their disciplines. Often they are trained for only one
outcome--a career in academic research--with only a narrow range of
professional knowledge and skills and little marketing savvy.
Regrettably, their expertise is likely to be squandered, their
career options needlessly restricted, and their potential for
contributing to society--and having a rewarding
career--substantially reduced.
For this reason, PIs and postdocs should have other resources
upon which to draw. Universities should pursue policies that avoid
the all-or-nothing choice between population control and cavalier
disregard for the grim employment prospects of many postdocs. There
needs to be a middle ground.
One answer lies in providing postdocs and Ph.D. students with
empowering experiences as an integral part of their intellectual
development: to think boldly and imaginatively, to discover the
enormous value of their discipline and to recognize the many
audiences and outlets for their expertise. In addition, postdocs
and Ph.D. students need the skills, resources, and knowledge to
enable them to contribute their expertise in their chosen
venue--whether corporations, government, nonprofits, or education.
These experiences should not be limited to the employer's
laboratory; they can be developed better if they draw upon the
resources of the entire institution.
The Graduate School's Intellectual Entrepreneurship Program (
IE ) at
the University of Texas, Austin, is a good example of this approach
to education. Through courses, workshops, and several other
activities on- and off-campus, IE students learn about
teambuilding, collaboration, communication, ethics, writing,
entrepreneurship, and a wide array of other professional skills.
They are encouraged to ask themselves, "How can I take full
advantage of opportunities to use my expertise in making a
meaningful and lasting difference in my discipline and community?"
IE students view their education as a way to discover and own their
professional identity. Their degree program becomes a catalyst for
creating possibilities rather than a factory for obtaining
credentials entitling them only to a narrow set of predetermined
jobs.
This same approach could be incorporated into the postdoctoral
experience. In addition to serving as apprentices, postdocs should
be offered the same training and opportunities provided doctoral
students in programs such as IE. In this way, the postdoctoral
experience would be more than certification of research readiness
for the first academic job; it would also be a site for exploring
career options and acquiring the resources needed to be successful,
resilient, well-employed professionals.
There are at least two ways to help these changes along. First,
major funding agencies can offer incentives to develop grant
proposals that build opportunities into the Ph.D. and postdoctoral
experience, like the ones discussed above. Funding agencies can
have a major impact if they instruct reviewers to consider
postdoctoral fellows not merely as a means to achieving the
knowledge objectives of the proposal but also as young
professionals whose development has a wider impact on national
capacity. The National Science Foundation, for example, asks
proposal writers to specify the "broader impacts" of their research
program. Expanded preparation of postdoctoral fellows employed by
the grant should be considered a favored approach to meeting this
criterion. Programs and institutions that take entrepreneurial
spirit seriously would more easily procure extramural funding.
Even without such incentives, however, the market itself might
propel these changes. Just as faculty members want to recruit the
best doctoral students, so, too, do PIs seek blue-chip postdocs. As
the process of choosing among graduate schools and postdoctoral
programs becomes increasingly transparent, institutions will
inevitably provide whatever it takes to maintain a competitive
edge. At the University of Texas, the IE Program is an advantage in
recruiting students, reflecting student preferences to locate at
institutions where they can own their education and where
professional development opportunities abound.
Postdocs and Ph.D. students must be active agents, taking
responsibility for and assuming ownership of their education. They
and their educators/employers must perceive them as more than
"worker bees" for carrying out the research agendas of veteran
scholars. If metaphors for describing the postdoctoral experience
change, and if the experience is framed in entrepreneurial terms,
then perhaps questions involving classification and compensation
will be easier to answer. If nothing else, changing these
dimensions will enhance the marketability of postdocs, avoiding the
unpleasant choice between student and postdoctoral population
control or an arrogant disregard for postdocs' employment
prospects.
Richard Cherwitz is Associate Dean of Graduate
Studies and Director of the Intellectual Entrepreneurship Program
(IE) at the University of Texas, Austin.
Teresa Sullivan is Vice President and Dean of
Graduate Studies at the University of Texas, Austin.