Factors that influence the transition of university postdocs to non-academic scientific careers: An exploratory study

Highlights

• Multiple individual, PI, and policy factors may influence a postdoc’s transition to a non-academic scientific career.

• Postdocs may disregard the low likelihood of obtaining an academic job and lack relevant non-academic skills.

• PIs may not possess supportive skills or networks, or they may oppose postdoc efforts to prepare for non-academic careers.

• Universities and federal policy does not generally prioritize non-academic career preparation.

• University non-academic career programs hold promise; federal mentoring requirements could include diverse career goals.

Abstract

While postdoctoral fellowships are viewed as positions that prepare PhD students for academic careers, studies show that most postdocs will not find tenure-track employment within universities. Postdocs consequently pursue non-academic jobs that differ in the degree to which they utilize a postdoc’s scientific training, yet we know little about how this occurs. To help address this gap, this study inductively investigates factors that may influence a postdoc’s transition to a non-academic career. The study uncovers multiple individual, PI, as well as organizational and policy factors, including the lack of relevant skills, absence of support—and in some cases opposition—from their principal investigators, and poor availability of non-academic career preparation opportunities, among others. Viewed collectively, these elements likely hinder a move to non-academic scientific positions and thus have consequences for postdoc career trajectories and, by extension, the utilization of new knowledge. The paper opens the door for future research, theorization, and policy action that might smooth the transition of postdocs into non-academic careers and potentially improve the impact of publicly-funded research.

Introduction

University postdoctoral fellow or scholar positions (hereafter called “postdocs”) have long been acknowledged as critical to the scientific progress of society (e.g. Conti and Liu, 2015). Defined as individuals holding a PhD engaged in a temporary period of mentored research or scholarly training (Lin and Chiu, 2015), postdocs are relatively common among science and engineering PhDs: over 40 percent of PhDs become postdocs within three years of graduating from their respective doctoral programs (National Science Board, 2018).

The postdoc position is generally viewed as preparation for tenure-track academic careers. The position is not only thought to improve a PhDs chances to obtain a tenure-track job (Åkerlind, 2005, 2009; Conti and Liu, 2015; Helbing et al., 1998; Horta, 2009; Melin, 2004; Recotillet, 2007; Su, 2013), it may also be a prerequisite for academic employment in some research fields such as biology (Miller and Feldman, 2015; Nolan et al., 2004). Postdocs have strong preferences for tenure-track academic employment (Åkerlind, 2005) and thus likely possess what Roach and Sauermann (2010) term a heightened “taste for science.” This compares with individuals who lose interest in an academic career over the course of their PhD training (Roach and Sauermann, 2017) or undertake a PhD in preparation for a career in industry (e.g. Mangematin, 2000).

However, most postdocs in the United States will not find employment as tenure-track academic researchers. This statement is based on available data from the National Science Foundation (NSF) 2016 Science Indicators. Fig. 1 illustrates the rapid growth in academic postdoc positions from 4200 in 1973 to approximately 20,200 in 2013. According to Puljak and Sharif (2009), this growth combined with a slow-growth or flat academic labor market means that less than 15 percent of postdocs will find employment as tenure-track faculty. Academic employment also varies by scientific field. Sauermann and Roach (2016) report, for example, that only 10.6 percent of PhDs graduating in the past five years from life and biological science programs are employed in tenure track faculty positions. In short, PhDs and postdocs have faced—for at least 20 years—dwindling job prospects for tenure-track faculty employment, a situation that is unlikely to improve in the near-term (Cyranoski et al., 2011; Fox and Stephan, 2001; Roach and Sauermann, 2010, 2012; Stephan, 2012; Smaglik, 2014).

Postdocs who do not obtain tenure-track academic employment will transition to non-academic careers that vary in the extent to which they utilize a postdoc’s individual scientific capabilities and thus differ in quality and compensation. For example, while not specifically focused on postdocs, Stenard and Sauermann (2016) highlight varying degrees of “educational mismatch” among scientists and engineers, a situation whereby an individual’s job responsibility differs from their training and education. On one hand, a low degree of educational mismatch means scientists and engineers may obtain technical management positions that align with their training and education, therefore offering high pay and responsibility, new challenges, and potential for career growth (Sauermann and Cohen, 2010; Stenard and Sauermann, 2016).

On the other hand, a high degree of educational mismatch among scientists and engineers—that is, a situation where they do not fully utilize their scientific talents—may result in negative outcomes, such as diminished wages, productivity, and satisfaction (Bowlus, 1995; Judge et al., 2001; Tsang and Levin, 1985). Scholars highlight similar negative outcomes among PhDs and postdocs who maintain low-paying non-tenure-track positions, cannot translate their scientific training into careers in industry, or, even worse, find themselves in jobs unrelated to their scientific training (Cyranoski et al., 2011; DeGrande et al., 2014; Hancock and Walsh, 2016; Lee et al., 2010; Mangematin, 2000; NSF, 2016; Salminen-Karlsson and Wallgren, 2008). This situation is not only detrimental to individual postdocs, it represents the underutilization of publicly-funded human capital therefore limiting knowledge-based economic growth (Ács et al., 2009).

While many postdocs transition to non-academic jobs, we know little about factors that influence their transition, especially in the United States; several gaps in the extant literature motivate this investigation. First, relative to research on PhD students and faculty, few studies focus on postdocs (Stephan, 2012). Miller and Feldman (2015), for example, posit that “there has been little empirical investigation of the individual postdoc experience…” (p. 698). When postdoc research exists, it often assumes that postdocs will necessarily take academic jobs (e.g. Su, 2013).

Second, when scholars examine non-academic employment outcomes among scientists-in-training, they focus on PhD students (e.g. Hancock and Walsh, 2016; Mangematin, 2000). While PhD students and postdocs have similar characteristics, critical differences exist between the two positions making it conceptually problematic to draw inferences about postdoc populations based on existing PhD-focused research. In contrast to postdocs, PhD candidates are advanced graduate students who must complete courses, take exams, serve as teaching assistants, and demonstrate their ability to conduct independent research through the dissertation process (Gardner, 2008). Discussed in the next section, when related postdoc research exists, it focuses on postdoc perceptions of career prospects (Puljak and Sharif, 2009), or postdoc career outcomes in other countries, such as Australia (Åkerlind, 2005) and Germany (Fitzenberger and Schulze, 2014).¹

Absent detailed analyses that consider the individual perspectives of postdocs, scholars are left to speculate about, for example, the rationale for why PhDs pursue the postdoc position (Roach and Sauermann, 2017) or the steps required to “improve the transition of postdocs to regular career positions” (National Research Council, 2000, p. 99). Further, systematic empirical research is critical to informing specific policy actions taken by departments, universities, and funding agencies to improve the postdoc experience (National Research Council, 2014).

This paper consequently explores factors that may impact the transition of postdocs in the United States to non-academic employment relative to their own a priori career goals. Given the paucity of related micro-level data, the paper employs an inductive, qualitative approach to identify these factors among a theoretically relevant sample of university postdocs at five Carnegie-classified Research I universities within the United States. Postdocs in the sample represent a variety of disciplines, contexts, and locations, supplemented by interviews with university administrators and industry employers.

An inductive, qualitative approach is appropriate given the paucity of research relating to postdocs, especially factors that may impact their pursuit of non-academic careers. According to Lodico et al. (2010), inductive data collection includes: (1) systematic observation of phenomena under investigation, (2) iterative analyses of patterns and themes emerging from the data, and (3) the development of generalizations of the study population based on these analyses.² Inductivity usually relies on qualitative research methods. Though qualitative research is not intended to produce generalizations of broader populations, it nonetheless provides the conceptual foundation for subsequent quantitative research that can test the external validity of those insights; that is, qualitative research results can be used to generate testable hypotheses.

In so doing, the paper offers several distinct contributions. First, the paper is among the few empirical investigations based on the premise that most postdocs will not obtain tenure-track academic jobs. This premise not only reflects the realities of the academic job market, it is intended to be of use to policymakers seeking to improve career outcomes among postdocs and, by extension, the utilization of publicly-funded human capital. Second, the investigation examines career motivations among university postdocs, mirroring recent research findings among PhD students (Roach and Sauermann, 2017), that show interest in academic employment diminishes over time. Third, the paper finds a myriad of individual, principal investigator (PI), as well as organizational and policy-related factors which, on balance, slow a postdoc’s transition to non-academic employment. Finally, the paper offers implications for research, theory, and policy in hopes that future scholarship will subsequently test and build upon the findings.

The remainder of the paper is outlined as follows. Section 2 reviews factors in the literature that may impact non-academic employment among PhDs and postdocs. Section 3 discusses the methodological approach of the paper. Section 4 provides the career goals of interviewed postdocs and how they have changed, while the fifth section reviews factors that influence the transition of postdocs to non-academic careers as reported by respondents. Section 6 concludes with a discussion of findings as well as implications for research, theory, and policy.