Report from Postdoctoral Attendees at the Annual GREAT Meeting

1. Mentoring
2. Career Development
3. The Relationship of Postdoctoral Scholar with the Sponsoring Institution
4. Organization of Postdoctoral Scholars within an Institution
5. Development of a National Organization for Postdoctoral Scholars
6. Acknowledgments

I. Mentoring

Participants in the postdoctoral mentoring process were identified as the mentor or supervisor, the postdoctoral scholar or trainee, and the host institution. We discussed the relative responsibilities for each participant. It was generally agreed that good mentoring includes a regular discussion of goals and expectations, flexibility to allow for activities outside the lab, tangible measures of success or accomplishment, and assessment. To facilitate effective mentoring, the committee recommends a contract between the mentor and the postdoctoral scholar that clearly communicates goals and expectations. In addition, this contract should clearly articulate resources provided by the mentor to achieve the goals. The contract should be assessed annually to determine whether the stated goals have been met, and whether modifications to the contract are required. This contract can serve as the basis for job performance evaluations, which should be performed on an annual basis.

Responsibilities of the Mentor

Our general consensus was that the job of a mentor was not merely to support quality research that leads to the scholar obtaining funding and publications, but also to help the scholar identify and acquire additional skills that enhance their ability to obtain a job. The mentor should provide a clear statement of goals to the scholar (postdoctoral trainee), and the resources to achieve those goals. A regular assessment of progress should be provided. Promotion of professional development, including encouragement for improving communication skills, and support of a job search should offered by the mentor to the scholar. A discussion of career goals should regularly take place between mentor and scholar. The mentor should recognize that career goals may change over the time of postdoctoral training, and mentors should remain flexible to accommodate changes in the professional and personal goals of an individual scholar. The mentor should promote collaborations, and regularly discuss progress with the postdoctoral scholar.

Responsibilities of the Institution

A number of activities on the part of the host institution can promote good mentoring for the postdoctoral scholar. The committee recommends that both the institution where postdoctoral training takes place and the agencies that fund this training (if different) take responsibility for promoting good mentoring. A postdoctoral position should begin with a clear letter, or contract, which describes the terms of employment, the benefits provided, and the length of appointment and funding. While this statement is often provided by funding agencies in the form of a fellowship application, it is more often lacking in cases where the funding is provided by an individual lab head or department.

We discussed the need for guidelines for an annual review process, and a mechanism which allows reviews both by the mentor and the trainee. Funding agencies as well as host institutions could take account of successful or unsuccessful mentoring. Mentors, such as faculty, should be advised or trained in evaluation procedure and effective communication for management.

The committee recommends that formal grievance guideline for postdoctoral scholars be included in institutional handbooks and clearly communicated to fellows upon entering the institution. These guidelines should cover issues such as intellectual property rights, various forms of abuse or unreasonable behavior on the part of the scholar or the mentor. We had a variety of examples of grievance procedures among institutions, but for the most part this process is informal and not communicated to the scholar upon entering the institution.

Responsibilities of the Postdoctoral Scholar

The primary responsibility of the scholar is to participate in the research effort of the laboratory and at the same time communicate with all participants in their training, including the host laboratory, the host institution and the financial sponsor, if different. The scholar should communicate regularly with the mentor and other lab members, should promote collaboration with the mentor, and should communicate their own perceived training needs. Regular communication with the funding agency, especially informing them of serious difficulty with their progress, should be maintained by the scholar. Furthermore, the scholar should take responsibility for making decisions about their own career path, and communicate changes as they occur to the mentor. The scholar should be an active participant in their training, and should recognize that the primary research advisor cannot provide all the necessary advice and preparation for a successful career. Alternative sources of mentoring should be sought by the scholar. These sources may include a postdoctoral association, peers, and other members of the science community. Finally, a postdoctoral scholar should strive to gain a sense of responsibility for their own career, and to identify specific jobs in which they are best suited and most interested.

II. Career Development

Career development for a postdoctoral scientist is a multi-faceted process which includes scientific training as well as improved personal and professional skills. Many of these skills may be obtained from activities outside the laboratory, in the form of participation in professional societies, academic reviews and committees, teaching in the community and formal coursework. Tuition benefits should be provided to allow the postdoctoral scholar to attend courses outside the field of graduate training. These courses may include skills such as computer knowledge or training on special equipment, or other training that can enhance the career prospects for a postdoctoral trainee.

Experiences outside the laboratory should be recognized as career development opportunities by the postdoctoral scholar, by the mentor and by the institution. Thus the institution and mentor should allow flexibility in their demands for laboratory research for other career development activities by the postdoctoral scholar. We agreed that there is an implicit understanding on the part of the postdoctoral trainee that part of their compensation for the work performed, in lieu of salary, is provided in career development opportunities. This expectation is implied by the lower rate of compensation for postdoctoral scholars than for staff who often hold lower degrees, have less training and are assigned less responsibility. We also agreed that most institutions fail to recognize their obligation to this form of compensation for postdoctoral trainees.

Information about work force predictions and career opportunities should be provided to the postdoctoral scientist to aid in career planning. Resources to provide this information may include a career development office, human resources office and sites available on the internet. Career development activities may include self assessment courses, advice and practice in job search skills, and other professional skills such as negotiation, management, organizing meetings and conflict resolution. Postdoctoral scholars should not be discouraged from attending conferences or meetings either inside or outside the institution.

III. The Relationship of Postdoctoral Scholar with the Sponsoring Institution

The sponsoring institution may be defined by at least two entities: the facility where the postdoctoral work and training occur, and the agency which funds these activities. The two institutions may be the same, or may be separate. In both cases, the sponsoring institution should define their structure and their relationship to the postdoctoral scholar within that structure.

We recommend that postdoctoral scholars be recognized as trainees, regardless of their source of funding. The status of trainee should not, however, exclude postdoctoral scholars from protection from unfair labor practices, or from receiving basic benefits such as health and dental insurance and family leave.

The fact that funding is provided from a source separate from the host facility should not create a separate category for terms of employment or benefits. This situation exists at the University of Washington, for example, and can lead to inequities in treatment of scholars. University of California San Francisco has multiple titles which may be applied to a postdoctoral scholar, including postdoctoral fellow, postdoctoral scholar, postgraduate researcher and staff research investigator. These titles are applied to employees with different levels of training and different responsibilities. For example, the title of postgraduate researcher does not require a Ph.D., and may be applied to a research associate with a B.A. in a non-science subject, as well as to one with a Ph.D degree in science.

If a postdoctoral scientist is performing work on a grant issued to another principal investigator, and not considered a trainee or scholar, then the institution should recognize that relationship and make it clear to the employee. Clarification of this relationship among all parties will help the employee recognize their position in the institution, and give them realistic expectations as to the terms of their employment. In the case of a funding agency, consideration should be made for the standards of the host facility. Funding agencies should consider a guarantee of benefits and fair labor practices as part of a good training environment for postdoctoral scholars at a host facility.

IV. Organization of Postdoctoral Scholars within an Institution

Our discussion provided four models for the organization of scholars within an institution. Some of these organizations were discussed in the introductions and descriptions of activities (see appendix A). The four models are: 1) a 'grass roots' organization run by the scholars themselves with the collaboration of an administrative officer from the host institution for specific projects 2) an organization facilitated by the graduate dean or other administrative office, 3) a 'grass roots' organization which develops an adversarial relationship with the administration and 4) lack of a formal postdoctoral scholars organization.

The first model involves an organization of scholars in which activities are initiated and conducted on a volunteer basis by the scholars themselves, and collaboration with an administrative officer develops as needed. Projects initiated by the postdoctoral organization may be adopted by the administration and come under the leadership of the graduate dean. One model for this is University of California San Francisco (UCSF). A problem with this organization is the lack of a source for operating funds, difficulty in maintaining core leadership among postdoctoral scholars due to the transient nature of the positions and the lack of administrative support . However, this type of organization can provide fruitful collaborations between the graduate division and the postdoctoral scholars' organization (see Appendix B, the practice of science course curriculum at UCSF). Johns Hopkins, one of the initial postdoctoral organizations in the country, originated in this manner, and evolved to be incorporated into the administrative structure, with provision of operating funds, automatic enrollment of arriving scholars in the postdoctoral association and provision of an orientation manual for entering scholars.

A second model is of an organization which is facilitated by the graduate dean or similar administrative office within the host institution. Postdoctoral scholars are actively incorporated into the projects of this organization, and projects may be initiated by the postdoctoral scholars or by the administrative officer. Operating funds and administrative support is provided by the institution. Models for this type of organization occur at University of California at Berkeley, University of Cincinnati, at National labs such at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and at Johns Hopkins University, as discussed above. At NIEHS, one office provides administrative support and funding for activities involving all trainees, including graduate students and postdoctoral scholars (see Appendix C for examples of activities at NIEHS and University of Cincinnati).

A third model exists at University of Utah, where a grassroots organization has formed but has failed to gain recognition by the administration. This organization has formed largely due to a number of hostile interactions between faculty and postdoctoral scholars. The leadership of this organization is currently trying to develop a constructive dialogue between the administration and postdoctoral scholars.

Finally, a fourth model is reflected by University of Washington, and the Gladstone Institute in San Francisco, California, where no postdoctoral organizations exist. The lack of a postdoctoral organization at these institutions may reflect generally good treatment of postdoctoral scholars, provision of health and other benefits, and the existence of some grievance procedures by an ombudsmen or administrative heads within the institution. Other institutions without postdoctoral organizations may lack a 'critical mass' of scholars. At the Gladstone Institute, the nearly 60 postdoctoral scholars are recognized as 'at will' employees, with all rights and benefits of other employees except for vestment in the retirement program.

A first step to organizing postdoctoral scholars is to identify the administrative officer responsible for scholars within the host institution. This position may be held by the graduate dean, department chairs, head of an academic senate or faculty committee, a human resources officer, or research director. Several institutions have instituted a postdoctoral advisory committee to advise this officer. Members of this committee include postdoctoral scholars, faculty and administrators. Alternatively, the administrative officer may meet separately with representatives of the faculty and postdoctoral scholars, or with a designated facilitator within the officer's office. Preferably this meeting should be regular, we recommend quarterly. An operating budget for the administrator's salary, and for postdoctoral activities should be provided (see appendices B and C for examples of these activities). The designated administrator would also help maintain leadership among postdoctoral scholars by facilitating regular meetings, and providing continuity for projects when active postdoctoral scholars leave the institution.

Many institutions maintain poor records of the location and progress of a scholar, and are generally unaware of issues of concern to postdoctoral scholars. Thus the administrative officer may want to conduct a survey, and generally provide a line of communication from the administration to the scholar. This communication may be facilitated by an email list, or mailing list, or through a regular newsletter containing announcements and information.

In order to better incorporate scholars into an institution, scholars may be selected for representation on administrative committees, for example to discuss curriculum, hiring and tenure review, budgets, long-term planning and special events planning. This process will also serve to provide training in organizational skills to the scholar. Development of organizational skills and training is also provided to the scholar by participation in a postdoctoral organization.

Designating funds for postdoctoral activities has been difficult in a number of institutions. We discussed several proposed sources of funding, including a 'tax' levied on the mentors. This tax could be a nominal sum of $100-200 per year, which would then be used by the institution to support the training and administration of scholars. Thus the cost of administering scholars would be proportionately provided by lab heads, based on the size of the lab. Postdoctoral scholars with their own grants often provide 'overhead' funds, and part of these funds should be designated for postdoctoral activities. In addition, private funds may be available for postdoctoral training activities. Example sources for these funds are the Sloan Foundation, the Dreyfuss Foundation, and the local corporate sector.

Institutions without postdoctoral organizations were not generally represented within this group, as no 'contact' person was available among postdoctoral scholars. However, the need for career development resources, and promotion of good mentoring practice was noted at these institutions. Other postdoctoral associations not represented included Harvard University, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories and Albert Einstein University. Representatives from these organizations were invited, but were not available to attend this meeting. Furthermore, several graduate deans and faculty present at the GREAT meeting expressed interest in forming an organization at their institution, and we expect that these organizations may be increased over the next few years.

V. Development of a National Organization for Postdoctoral Scholars

The committee generally agreed on the benefit and need of a national organization for postdoctoral scholars. The structure of this organization was not defined, but could be as simple as a small resource office which could coordinate the activities of individual postdoctoral associations. This office could help various associations share information and resources, and disseminate information relevant to career development for scientists participating in postdoctoral fellowships. This office could also interact with host institutions and provide advice and support for developing postdoctoral programs. One proposal for such an office has been developed by Catherine Gaddy at the Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology and other associates of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. This proposal was presented by Bo Hammer of the Education Division of the American Institute of Physics. One difficulty for such an office is a continued source of funding. We recommend that all host institutions for postdoctoral training should contribute to the funding of such an organization. Furthermore, this office should be supported by federal funding under the general science budget.

VI. Acknowledgments

We thank Allan Shipp and Heather Stephens of the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) for excellent administrative support and for facilitating our attendance at this meeting. Also our gratitude to AAMC for financial support. We thank Cathy Gaddy, director of the Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology for providing essential administrative and organizational support. Funding for committee members to attend this meeting was generously provided by the Burroughs Wellcome Fund.

Contact Us    © 1995-2008 AAMC    Terms and Conditions    Privacy Statement