Career Development among American Biomedical Postdocs

Abstract

Recent biomedical workforce policy efforts have centered on enhancing career preparation for trainees, and increasing diversity in the research workforce. Postdoctoral scientists, or postdocs, are among those most directly impacted by such initiatives, yet their career development remains understudied. This study reports results from a 2012 national survey of 1002 American biomedical postdocs. On average, postdocs reported increased knowledge about career options but lower clarity about their career goals relative to PhD entry. The majority of postdocs were offered structured career development at their postdoctoral institutions, but less than one-third received this from their graduate departments. Postdocs from all social backgrounds reported significant declines in interest in faculty careers at research-intensive universities and increased interest in nonresearch careers; however, there were differences in the magnitude and period of training during which these changes occurred across gender and race/ethnicity. Group differences in interest in faculty careers were explained by career interest differences formed during graduate school but not by differences in research productivity, research self-efficacy, or advisor relationships. These findings point to the need for enhanced career development earlier in the training process, and interventions sensitive to distinctive patterns of interest development across social identity groups.

Figure 1.

Career goal clarity, knowledge, and career development among postdocs. (A and B) Postdocs were asked to rate their agreement with statements regarding their (A) clarity about their career goals and (B) knowledge about their potential career options at PhD entry, PhD completion, and currently. Responses were rated on a five-point scale (1, strongly disagree; 3, neither agree nor disagree; and 5, strongly agree). Line charts show the percentage of respondents answering 4 or 5 (i.e., agree or strongly agree). Paired t tests and repeated measures ANOVA were used to compare changes in the level of agreement during graduate training (PhD entry to PhD completion), and over the course of training (PhD entry to currently). Significant differences are shown. See Supplemental Material Tables S4–S6 for full data and statistical analysis underlying A and B. (C–E) Postdocs were asked to rate their level of agreement with statements regarding (C) the extent to which they received structured career development in their graduate department or postdoctoral institution; (D) the extent to which they found equal support for pursuit of academic and nonacademic careers from their graduate advisors, graduate department, or postdoctoral advisor; and (E) the extent to which their graduate and postdoctoral advisors were invested in their career. Responses were rated on a five-point scale (1, strongly disagree; 3, neither agree nor disagree; and 5, strongly agree). Bar charts show the percentage of respondents disagreeing with (black; 1 or 2), neutral about (3; gray), or agreeing with (white; 4 or 5) the statements. See Supplemental Material Table S7 for full data and statistical analysis and underlying C–E.

Figure 2.

Changes in career interest patterns across the course of training, by social identity. Postdocs were asked to rate their of level interest on a five-point scale (1, no interest; 5, strong interest) in (A) a faculty position at a research-intensive university, (B) a faculty position at a teaching intensive university, (C) a research career outside academia (e.g., industry, pharmaceutical, biotech, government, start-up), and (D) a nonresearch career (consulting, policy, science writing, patent law, business, etc.) at PhD entry, PhD completion, and currently. Line graphs show the percentage of respondents from each social group reporting high levels of interest (i.e., 4 or 5). The percentage change in each training segment (i.e., from PhD entry to PhD completion; from PhD completion to postdoc) and the overall change (i.e., from PhD entry to currently) are shown. Statistical significance for changes in interest for each group and during each training segment were determined using paired t tests and repeated measures ANOVA. Full statistical analysis is shown in Supplemental Material Table S8.

Figure 3.

Different senses of social belonging and research self-efficacy reported across social identity. Postdocs were asked to rate their level of agreement with statements regarding their sense of (A) intellectual and (B) social belonging in their (i) graduate school research group, (ii) graduate school department, and (iii) postdoctoral research group. (C) Postdocs were also asked the extent to which they had confidence in their ability as independent researchers (i.e., research self-efficacy). Responses were rated on a five-point scale (1, strongly disagree; 3, neither agree nor disagree; and 5, strongly agree). Bar charts show the percentage of respondents from each social identity groups disagreeing (black; 1 or 2), neutral (3; gray), or agreeing (white; 4 or 5) with the statements. For each question, the responses between social groups were compared using the chi-square test, and the level of significance is shown.