Search results

Discussions about science and engineering postdoctoral researchers focus almost exclusively on academic postdocs and their chances of eventually securing tenure-track faculty positions. Further, biological sciences dominate policy research and published advice for new PhDs regarding postdoctoral employment. Our analysis uses the Survey of Earned Doctorates and Survey of Doctorate Recipients to understand employment implications for physical sciences and engineering (PSE) and life sciences (LS) graduates who took postdoctoral positions in government, industry, and academic sectors. We examine postdoc duration, reasons for staying in a postdoc, movement between sectors, and salary implications. There is considerable movement between employment sectors within the first six years post-PhD. Additionally, postdocs in PSE are shorter, better paid, and more often in nonacademic sectors than postdocs in LS. These results can help science and engineering faculty discuss a broader range of career pathways with doctoral students and help new PhDs make better informed early career decisions. ; Published version

The purpose of this study was to uncover strategies commonly utilized by STEM doctoral program leaders to recruit students from historically marginalized backgrounds and to contrast these findings with the factors that program leaders and students say should and do drive decisions. To do so, we interviewed program leaders (n = 90), surveyed staff members (n = 63), and interviewed (n = 23) and
surveyed (n = 431) doctoral students. We critically examined the doctoral enrollment strategies as well
as program leadersэ stated values and priorities related to diversity through the theoretical underpinning
of theories of action. In the competitive environment of doctoral STEM recruitment, program leaders were influenced by other institutions and relied predominantly on financial recruitment strategies (i.e., the theory-in-use). Program leaders felt finances were readily available to recruit minoritized students, especially racially minoritized students; however, since peer institutions seemed to rely on
similar, but narrow, admissions criteria, program leaders felt they were competing with their peers
for the same small pool of students. Although we also found evidence that program leaders employed other student-facing and system-facing recruitment strategies, they often failed to consider the myriad of factors considered by students from historically marginalized backgrounds in making their doctoral program choices (i.e., the espoused theories). This incongruence between theory-in-use and espoused
theories may lead to the reproduction of inequities in STEM doctoral attainment.