National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: B Analysis of Quantitative Data on Postdocs
Suggested Citation:"C Results of Survey of Organizations with Postdoctoral Scholars." Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering. 2000. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9831.
×
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"C Results of Survey of Organizations with Postdoctoral Scholars." Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering. 2000. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9831.
×
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"C Results of Survey of Organizations with Postdoctoral Scholars." Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering. 2000. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9831.
×
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"C Results of Survey of Organizations with Postdoctoral Scholars." Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering. 2000. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9831.
×
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"C Results of Survey of Organizations with Postdoctoral Scholars." Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering. 2000. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9831.
×
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"C Results of Survey of Organizations with Postdoctoral Scholars." Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering. 2000. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9831.
×
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"C Results of Survey of Organizations with Postdoctoral Scholars." Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering. 2000. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9831.
×
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"C Results of Survey of Organizations with Postdoctoral Scholars." Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering. 2000. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9831.
×
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"C Results of Survey of Organizations with Postdoctoral Scholars." Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering. 2000. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9831.
×
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"C Results of Survey of Organizations with Postdoctoral Scholars." Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering. 2000. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9831.
×
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"C Results of Survey of Organizations with Postdoctoral Scholars." Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering. 2000. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9831.
×
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"C Results of Survey of Organizations with Postdoctoral Scholars." Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering. 2000. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9831.
×
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"C Results of Survey of Organizations with Postdoctoral Scholars." Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering. 2000. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9831.
×
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"C Results of Survey of Organizations with Postdoctoral Scholars." Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering. 2000. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9831.
×
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"C Results of Survey of Organizations with Postdoctoral Scholars." Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering. 2000. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9831.
×
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"C Results of Survey of Organizations with Postdoctoral Scholars." Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering. 2000. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9831.
×
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"C Results of Survey of Organizations with Postdoctoral Scholars." Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering. 2000. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9831.
×
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"C Results of Survey of Organizations with Postdoctoral Scholars." Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering. 2000. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9831.
×
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"C Results of Survey of Organizations with Postdoctoral Scholars." Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering. 2000. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9831.
×
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"C Results of Survey of Organizations with Postdoctoral Scholars." Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering. 2000. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9831.
×
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"C Results of Survey of Organizations with Postdoctoral Scholars." Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering. 2000. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9831.
×
Page 158

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Appendix C Results of Survey of Organizations with Postdoctoral Scholars L ittle information is available regarding the current status of postdocs as to the compensation, benefits, and services they receive from the institutions in which they serve. Therefore, COSEPUP decided to conduct a very limited survey to gain an understanding of the status quo. By doing so, the committee was able to identify what changes needed to be made in order to enhance the postdoctoral experience. COSEPUP decided to survey the top 25 academic institutions (in terms of the largest numbers of postdoctoral scholars) and five each of the following: smaller institutions (in terms of number of postdoctoral scholars), medical schools, historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), industry, research institutions, and government laboratories. The survey was conducted from November 1999 to April 2000. The survey was conducted of 49 organizations who have postdoctoral scholars. Forty of the 49 organizations responded (82 percent response rate). These orga- nizations are listed below: Academic Institutions Arizona State University Columbia University Cornell University Harvard University Indiana University Iowa State University Massachusetts Institute of Technology 138

APPENDIX C 139 Stanford University Tennessee State University The University of Michigan The University of Texas at Austin University of California, Berkeley University of California, Los Angeles University of California, San Diego University of California, San Francisco University of Cincinnati University of Colorado, Boulder University of Minnesota University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill University of Washington University of Wisconsin, Madison Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Washington University Yale University Medical Schools John Hopkins University School of Medicine NYU School of Medicine University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine University of Toronto, Faculty of Medicine Yeshiva University, Albert Einstein College of Medicine Government Los Alamos National Laboratory Environmental Protection Agency (ORD, NCER, ESRD) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) US Army Research Laboratory Industry Eli Lilly and Company Microsoft Corporation Parke-Davis Research Institutes Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center Rowland Institute for Science

140 ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS The remainder of this appendix provides the survey questions asked of the institutions with postdoctoral scholars and their responses to those questions. POSTDOCTORAL SURVEY Given by the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy A Joint Committee of the National Academies Name: Organization Name: Department: Title: City: State, Zip Code: Daytime Phone: Email: Please fill out responses to each question below. If none of the choices are appropriate, please explain your organization’s policy or service in the space provided. If you do not have enough information to answer a question, please mark the Do not know option. __ Please check here if you would like your data to remain confidential. 1. Does your organization provide job placement services for your postdocs? (Select all that apply.) __ Services are available from an assigned individual whose sole responsibility is to work with postdocs (and graduate students). __ Services are available on-site as part of general student/employee services. __ Job placement tends to be the responsibility of the adviser. __ Job placement is the responsibility of the postdoc. __ Job placement is a dual responsibility of the adviser and postdoc. __ Do not know. __ Other, please explain: 2. Does your organization establish minimum and/or maximum stipend levels for postdocs? If yes, please specify dollar value for minimum and/or maximum stipends. If no, why not? __ Yes __ No __ Do not know

APPENDIX C 141 If yes, please specify dollar values in the space provided. If no, why not? Other, please explain: 3. Does your organization provide medical benefits to all postdocs and their dependents? (Select all that apply.) __ The organization pays for medical benefits for all postdocs and their dependents. __ The organization provides medical benefits at full compensation to all postdocs but not their dependents. __ The organization requires that postdoc advisers pay for the medical benefits of their postdocs. __ The organization informs postdocs of medical benefit plans that they and their dependents can enter at own expense (if at a discounted rate, please provide the percent discounted). Discount %: __ The source of the postdoc’s funding determines medical benefit availability. __ No medical benefits are provided by the organization. __ Do not know. __ Other, please explain: 4. How is the postdoc made aware of benefits that are and are not avail- able? (Select all that apply.) __ A formal letter of acceptance is sent prior to arrival to each postdoc by the organization and/or postdoc adviser outlining the organization’s policies on paid-for benefits. __ An orientation meeting or equivalent is given to all entering postdocs discussing benefits. __ It is the responsibility of the adviser to discuss benefit availability with the postdoc. __ No information is formally provided. __ Do not know. __ Other, please explain: 5. Which of the following benefits is provided at full compensation to ALL postdocs, regardless of adviser or funding source? (Select all that apply. If a benefit is offered at a reduced cost to the postdoc, please specify percent discounted.)

142 ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS Dental insurance Discount %: Disability Discount %: Maternity/paternity leave Email/computer accounts Campus housing Discount %: Cost of living salary adjustments Merit increases Child daycare Discount %: Vacation time Sick leave Library Discount %: On-campus parking (or equivalent) Discount %: Retirement (401K, 403B or equivalent) Discount %: Life insurance Discount %: Travel expenses to conferences when the postdoc is presenting Discount %: Travel expenses to conferences when the postdoc is not presenting Discount %: Do not know Other benefits, please specify: A. A. Other Discount %: B. B. Other Discount %: C. C. Other Discount %: 6. Does the organization have staff that deals specifically with the special needs of non-US or foreign national postdocs? __ Yes __ No __ No, handled by postdoc adviser __ Do not know __ Other, please explain: 7. If offered, in what areas do foreign national postdocs receive assistance? (Select all that apply.) __ Visas __ Housing __ Tax advice

APPENDIX C 143 __ Credit references __ Social Security __ Drivers License __ English language or writing classes __ No special services are available __ Do not know __ Other, please explain: 8. Does the organization require performance evaluations throughout a postdoc’s appointment? __ Regular performance evaluations are required. __ Each postdoc is evaluated by an appointed advisory committee that includes individuals beyond their direct advisers. __ Documented progress reviews are performed by the respective adviser at his/her discretion. __ No official performance reviews of any type are required. __ Do not know. __ Other, please explain: 9. How is the duration of a postdoctoral appointment determined? (Select all that apply.) __ Determined prior to postdoc’s arrival. __ Determined by an appointed advisory committee after a formal presentation. __ Determined primarily by the adviser at any time point throughout a post- doc’s appointment. __ Determined primarily by source of funding and/or funding availability. __ Do not know. __ Other mechanism, please explain: 10. Is there a Postdoctoral Association or equivalent on-site? __ A Postdoctoral Association or equivalent is available and run by postdocs themselves. __ A Postdoctoral Association or equivalent is available and run by the institution. __ An Association that serves both doctoral students and postdocs is available. __ No organizations are available for postdocs. [Go to question 12] __ Do not know. [Go to question 12] __ Other, please explain:

144 ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS 11. If your organization has a Postdoctoral Association or equivalent, what are its main functions? (Select all that apply.) __ A conduit for information services such as housing, childcare, visas for international postdocs, and general personal living questions. __ Acts as a liaison between postdoc and the administration. __ Provides appointed representatives to the organization’s administrative councils. __ Provides professional and social activities for postdocs. __ Do not know. __ Other, please explain: 12. Who are the neutral parties responsible at the organization for handling grievances of the postdoc? (Select all that apply.) __ Human Resource staff person __ An ombudsperson __ A dean or department chairperson __ The adviser __ Do not know __ Other, please explain: 13. How are postdocs classified at your organizations? (Select all that apply. For multiple answers, please define the nature of the each appointment classification.) Faculty Description: Student Description: Staff Description: Employee Description: Fellow Description: Associate Description: Trainee Description: Other, please specify: Description: 14. Please indicate how many postdocs are currently serving appointments at this organization? (Please provide the most current information available.) __ Less than 50 __ 50 to 100

APPENDIX C 145 __ 101 to 250 __ 251 to 500 __ 501 to 750 __ 751 to 1000 __ More than 1000 __ Do not know Data from 19 Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Survey Results 1. Does your organization provide job placement services for your post- docs? (Select all that apply.). Responses Number Percent Services are available from an assigned individual whose sole responsibility is to work with postdocs (and graduate students). 7 17.5% Services are available on-site as part of general student/employee services. 13 32.5% Job placement tends to be the responsibility of the adviser. 4 10.0% Job placement is the responsibility of the postdoc. 12 30.0% Job placement is a dual responsibility of the adviser and postdoc. 28 70.0% Do not know 0 0.0% Other 9 22.5% Non-Respondents 0 The “other” responses were consistent with the primary responses, which indicate only moderate job placement activity for postdocs on the part of institu- tions. A few mentioned such resources as career centers, job fairs, job placement

146 ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS web sites, and general student services, and several reported that job placement activities are localized and vary by institutional unit. 2. Does your organization establish minimum and/or maximum stipend levels for postdocs? If yes, please specify dollar value for minimum and/or maximum stipends. If no, why not? Yes 55% (22 responses) No 45% (18 responses) For “yes” responses, the values followed a consistent pattern, which varied by sector. Among universities, minimum levels tended to follow the NIH scale (which begins with a stipend of $26,256); a few were lower. Among the national laboratories and other facilities, most salaries began in the $40,000 to $50,000 range, with lows in the 30s. Maximum government stipends were in the 50s, with a high of $64,750. Some national labs offered “add-on” amounts for “criti- cal skills,” from $2,000-$10,000. In industry, stipends beginning in the 30s were common. For “no” responses, institutions enumerated a range of ambiguities that inhibited the establishment of uniform stipend levels, including the wide variety of job titles and policy differences among departments, schools, or laboratories. Several institutions reported that policies were being prepared. Some institutions reported the use of other, more subjective criteria to set stipend levels, including the “experience/potential of the postdoc” and the “norms of the field.” Many institutions noted that salary levels for postdocs on fellowships or other outside support are not set by the institution. 3. Does your organization provide medical benefits to all postdocs and their dependents? (Select all that apply.) Academic Institutions (N = 30) Responses Number Percent The organization pays for medical benefits for all postdocs and their dependents. 3 10.0% The organization provides medical benefits at full compensation to all postdocs but not their dependents. 3 10.0%

APPENDIX C 147 The organization requires that postdoc advisers pay for the medical benefits of their postdocs. 5 16.7% The organization informs postdocs of medical benefit plans that they and their dependents can enter at own expense. Percent discounted: Group Rate Plan. (one response at 80%) 7 23.3% The source of the postdoc’s funding determines medical benefit availability. 11 36.7% No medical benefits are provided by the organization. 2 6.7% Do not know 0 0.0% Other medical benefits 14 46.7% Non-Respondents 0 Non-Academic Organizations (N = 10) Responses Number Percent The organization pays for medical benefits for all postdocs and their dependents. 5 55.6% The organization provides medical benefits at full compensation to all postdocs but not their dependents. 1 11.1% The organization requires that postdoc advisers pay for the medical benefits of their postdocs. 0 0.0% The organization informs postdocs of medical benefit plans that they and their dependents can enter at own expense. Percent discounted: Group Rate Plan. (one response at 80%) 1 11.1% The source of the postdoc’s funding determines medical benefit availability. 0 0.0% No medical benefits are provided by the organization. 0 0.0% Do not know 0 0.0%

148 ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS Other medical benefits 2 22.2% Non-Respondents 1 Among universities, many reported that they provided medical coverage only for those postdocs considered employees; i.e., those paid from research grants (“equivalent to other research faculty/staff”). By contrast, postdocs on fellowships or other external funding support (which includes many foreign postdocs) were less certain of support. Some could count on coverage from their own grant (e.g., the NRC Associateship provided full coverage); others could not, and had to arrange for coverage on their own (“full-time postdocs required to have benefits by state law, except NIH, who don’t qualify”). Some universities allowed these externally funded postdocs to buy into available group plans. Some universities required coverage for all postdocs, regardless of funding source. This meant that those postdocs not paid by the university or covered independently had to be picked up by the adviser or department (“must be paid by employing department”). Postdocs whose coverage was provided by universities received only indi- vidual plans. Coverage for spouses and dependents was expected to be paid for by the postdoc. Typically, industry and government labs offered postdocs the same medical plans offered to employees, with the majority of the premium paid by the employer. 4. How is the postdoc made aware of benefits that are and are not available? (Select all that apply.) Academic Institutions (N = 30) Responses Number Percent A formal letter of acceptance is sent prior to arrival to each postdoc by the organization and/or postdoc adviser outlining the organization’s policies on paid-for benefits. 10 33.3% An orientation meeting or equivalent is given to all entering postdocs discussing benefits. 10 33.3%

APPENDIX C 149 It is the responsibility of the adviser to discuss benefit availability with the postdoc. 14 46.7% No information is formally provided. 3 7.5% Do not know 0 0.0% Other 13 43.3% Non-Respondents 0 Non-Academic Organizations (N = 10) Responses Number Percent A formal letter of acceptance is sent prior to arrival to each postdoc by the organization and/or postdoc adviser outlining the organization’s policies on paid-for benefits. 6 60.0% An orientation meeting or equivalent is given to all entering postdocs discussing benefits. 7 70.0% It is the responsibility of the adviser to discuss benefit availability with the postdoc. 2 20.0% No information is formally provided. 3 7.5% Do not know 0 0.0% Other 3 30.0% Non-Respondents 0 The “other” responses indicate that some institutions do not have a central- ized mechanism by which to communicate with postdocs about benefits and other institutional matters. Universities described a number of avenues by which postdocs may or may not receive information (“generally receive information from department administrators,” “most send letters,” “responsibility of depart- ment or center, not adviser”). Several had no certain process (“Often business managers take on the responsibility of informing postdocs”). Some were in the process of including benefits information in a formal acceptance letter.

150 ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS 5. Which of the following benefits is provided at full compensation to ALL postdocs, regardless of adviser or funding source? (Select all that apply. If a benefit is offered at a reduced cost to the postdoc, please specify percent discounted.) Academic Institutions (N = 30) Responses Number Percent Dental insurance 8 27.6% Disability 8 27.6% Maternity/paternity leave 9 31.0% Email/computer accounts 26 89.7% Campus housing 4 13.8% Cost of living salary adjustments 1 3.4% Merit increases 7 24.1% Child daycare 2 6.9% Vacation time 15 51.7% Sick leave 13 44.8% Library 26 89.7% On-campus parking (or equivalent) 13 44.8% Retirement (401K, 403B or equivalent) 7 24.1% Life insurance 9 31.0% Travel expenses to conferences when the postdoc is presenting 3 10.3% Travel expenses to conferences when the postdoc is not presenting 2 6.9% Do not know 1 3.4% Other benefits 4 13.8% Non-Respondents 1

APPENDIX C 151 Non-Academic Organizations (N = 10) Responses Number Percent Dental insurance 8 88.9% Disability 8 88.9% Maternity/paternity leave 7 77.8% Email/computer accounts 8 88.9% Campus housing 0 0.0% Cost of living salary adjustments 3 33.3% Merit increases 4 44.4% Child daycare 3 33.3% Vacation time 8 88.9% Sick leave 8 88.9% Library 7 77.8% On-campus parking (or equivalent) 7 77.8% Retirement (401K, 403B or equivalent) 6 66.7% Life insurance 8 88.9% Travel expenses to conferences when the postdoc is presenting 9 100.0% Travel expenses to conferences when the postdoc is not presenting 8 88.9% Do not know 1 11.1% Other benefits 2 22.2% Non-Respondents 1 Some common “other” benefits offered to postdocs included access to recre- ational tickets, athletic facilities, credit unions, student unions, tuition wavers,

152 ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS travel accident insurance, and alumni privileges. Some institutions offered vari- ous leave benefits, including one vacation week for marriage, an illness pay program (up to one month), and six weeks of paid parental leave. At many universities, leave policies were determined by the adviser. Several institutions mentioned retirement plans, with most requiring a vesting period of two or more years. Several national labs covered relocation expenses. 6. Does the organization have staff that deals specifically with the special needs of non-US or foreign national postdocs? Responses Number Percent Yes 28 70.0% No 3 7.5% No, handled by postdoc adviser 3 7.5% Do not know 0 0.0% Other, please explain: 6 15.0% Non-Respondents 0 0 Most of the “other” responses indicated a pattern of offering postdocs the same access to international services as students and other scholars. 7. If offered, in what areas do foreign national postdocs receive assistance? (Select all that apply.) Responses Number Percent Visas 36 97.3% Housing 20 54.1% Tax advice 23 62.2% Credit references 4 10.8%

APPENDIX C 153 Social Security 16 43.2% Drivers License 4 10.8% English language or writing classes 21 56.8% No special services are available 1 2.7% Do not know 0 0.0% Other 7 18.9% Non-Respondents 3 Other areas where foreign national postdocs were offered assistance includ- ed obtaining a Social Security number, a drivers license, and tax treaty informa- tion. Several institutions offered help with household furnishings and support groups for spouses and dependents. 8. Does the organization require performance evaluations throughout a postdoc’s appointment? Academic Institutions (N = 30) Responses Number Percent Regular performance evaluations are required. 5 16.7% Each postdoc is evaluated by an appointed advisory committee that includes individuals beyond their direct advisers. 0 0.0% Documented progress reviews are performed by the respective adviser at his/her discretion. 4 13.3% No official performance reviews of any type are required. 14 46.7% Do not know 1 3.3% Other 6 20.0% Non-Respondents 0

154 ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS Non-Academic Organizations (N = 10) Responses Number Percent Regular performance evaluations are required. 7 70.0% Each postdoc is evaluated by an appointed advisory committee that includes individuals beyond their direct advisers. 1 10.0% Documented progress reviews are performed by the respective adviser at his/her discretion. 1 10.0% No official performance reviews of any type are required. 1 10.0% Do not know 0 0.0% Other 0 0.0% Non-Respondents 0 The responses to this question indicated that some institutions are examin- ing and/or revising their policies on evaluations (“may change”; “will be imple- menting performance management for all postdocs”). Others described optional or discretionary approaches to evaluation (“depends on program”; “depends on funding source”; “varies by unit”). Several institutions expected the adviser to take responsibility for evaluations, without formal reporting to the institution. 9. How is the duration of a postdoctoral appointment determined? (Select all that apply.) Responses Number Percent Determined prior to postdoc’s arrival. 18 45.0% Determined by an appointed advisory committee after a formal presentation. 1 2.5% Determined primarily by the adviser at any time point throughout a postdoc’s appointment. 23 57.5%

APPENDIX C 155 Determined primarily by source of funding and/or funding availability. 22 55.0% Do not know 0 0.0% Other mechanism 13 32.5% Non-Respondents 0 Many institutions said that they had firm limits to postdoctoral terms (typi- cally three, four, or five years). Others allowed for extensions “in special cases,” which sometimes required the specific approval of an administration officer. Other policies were to appoint postdocs for a year at a time, with renewal depend- ing on funding and performance, or to allow the length of training to vary by field and source of funding, with no suggested limit. 10. Is there a Postdoctoral Association or equivalent on-site? Responses Number Percent A Postdoctoral Association or equivalent is available and run by postdocs themselves. 11 27.5% A Postdoctoral Association or equivalent is available and run by the institution. 1 2.5% An Association that serves both doctoral students and postdocs is available. 0 0.0% No organizations are available for postdocs. 23 57.5% Do not know 1 2.5% Other 4 10.0% Non-Respondents 0 The “other” responses mentioned one other postdoctoral association run by postdocs, a “postdoctoral council.” One institution reported an association run jointly by postdocs and the institution. Most indicated that postdoctoral activities

156 ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS were either informal or confined to the lab, department, or a particular group (e.g., Chinese Students and Scholars). 11. If your organization has a Postdoctoral Association or equivalent, what are its main functions? (Select all that apply.) Responses Number Percent A conduit for information services such as housing, child care, visas for international postdocs, and general personal living questions. 7 50.0% Acts as a liaison between postdoc and the administration. 11 78.6% Provides appointed representatives to the organization’s administrative councils. 5 35.7% Provides professional and social activities for postdocs. 13 92.9% Do not know 1 7.1% Other 1 7.1% Non-Respondents (based on 16 responses to Question 10) 2 One organization reported that its office of postdoctoral programs worked closely with the postdoctoral council (run by postdocs). For example, the office and council “...co-sponsor responsible conduct in research training, career work- shops, a career fair, and survival skills training. [The office] is establishing men- tor guidelines. It enforces the University policy on postdoctoral appointments which sets minimum stipends and benefits....” 12. Who are the neutral parties responsible at the organization for handling grievances of the postdoc? (Select all that apply.) Responses Number Percent Human Resources staff person 19 51.4% An ombudsperson 16 43.2%

APPENDIX C 157 A dean or department chairperson 28 75.7% The adviser 17 45.9% Do not know 1 2.7% Other 12 32.4% Non-Respondents Institutions reported a wide range of “other” methods for handling postdoc grievances, from “same as junior faculty” to “office of grad studies and research” and “ombudsfolks—faculty peer adviser selected by postdocs”). A few placed most of the responsibility on a single person (“vice provost for research,” “pro- vost,” “always dean or chair; sometimes human resources, too”), while a smaller number described a more flexible process (“dispute resolution guideline for College of Medicine postdoctoral fellows; ad hoc committee makes recommen- dation to associate dean for research and graduate education”). At an industry lab, a variety of avenues were available, including human resources, a Scientific Advisory Committee of senior scientists, and “line management.” National labs mentioned both laboratory or division managers and a postdoctoral committee. 13. How are postdocs classified at your organizations? (Select all that apply. For multiple answers, please define the nature of the each appointment classification.) Responses Number Percent Faculty 5 12.5% Student 5 12.5% Staff 4 10.0% Employee 16 40.0% Fellow 20 50.0% Associate 9 22.5% Trainee 14 35.0%

158 ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS Other please specify 9 22.5% Non-Respondents 0 The “other” ways to classify postdocs varied widely, including “employees- in-training,” “scholars,” “visiting postdoctoral scholars,” and “students in train- ing.” One national lab used three categories of fellow, depending on funding source. Many titles were variations on the two commonest classifications—“fel- low” and “research associate”—but a few seemed to indicate a desire for a more functional definition: “guest researcher,” “academic professional,” “trainees— irrespective of funding source,” and “someone receiving further training in the laboratory.” 14. Please indicate how many postdocs are currently serving appointments at this organization? (Please provide the most current information available.) Responses Number Percent Less than 50 6 15.4% 50 to 100 7 17.9% 101 to 250 8 20.5% 251 to 500 3 7.7% 501 to 750 2 5.1% 751 to 1000 6 15.4% More than 1000 7 17.9% Do not know 0 0.0% Non-respondents 1

Next: D Summary of Workshop on Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience »
Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $44.95 Buy Ebook | $35.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The concept of postdoctoral training came to science and engineering about a century ago. Since the 1960s, the performance of research in the United States has increasingly relied on these recent PhDs who work on a full-time, but on a temporary basis, to gain additional research experience in preparation for a professional research career.

Such experiences are increasingly seen as central to careers in research, but for many, the postdoctoral experience falls short of expectations. Some postdocs indicate that they have not received the recognition, standing or compensation that is commensurate with their experience and skills. Is this the case? If so, how can the postdoctoral experience be enhanced for the over 40,000 individuals who hold these positions at university, government, and industry laboratories?

This new book offers its assessment of the postdoctoral experience and provides principles, action points, and recommendations for enhancing that experience.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!