Guidance and Support at Universities: Postdoctoral researchers caught within a dual ambivalence.
Author(s):
Christine Teelken (presenting / submitting) Inge Van der Weijden
Conference:
ECER 2016
Network:
22. Research in Higher Education
Format:
Paper

Session Information

22 SES 11 B, Development of Academics: Careers and Professions

Paper Session

Time:
2016-08-25
17:15-18:45
Room:
NM-Theatre O
Chair:
Sofie Kobayashi

Contribution

While postdoctoral researchers (postdocs) are an increasingly important and productive group of employees in academia, they lack a further career prospects and embeddedness within their organization. Our multimethod study consists of three parts: a survey, in-depth interviews and three focus group meetings with postdocs and representatives of the HRM staff and the Dutch Research Council (NWO).

We are investigating how and why postdoctoral researchers are caught within this dual ambivalence, the first caused by the complex combination of managerial and professional logics, the second derived from them being highly educated and specialized staff, but weakly connected to their employing organization. The three focus group discussions transpired that postdocs require and appreciate guidance and support, particularly when having to leave academia. The fragile balance between their own expectations and desires, the input from their supervisors and the more distanced role of the HRM department determines this support.

Postdocs are a crucial group of employees in academia (e.g. Davis, 2009), for example they account for about 40% of the first author publications in the renowned Science journal (O’Grady & Beam, 2011). Still, they are lacking visibility and embeddedness within their organization. Despite the importance of postdocs for the university and the determining nature of the postdoc period, there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding the postdoc position.

Van der Weijden et al (2015b) describe three main issues causing this uncertainty. The first is the limited of knowledge on the postdoc function and demographics (Davis, 2009; Mitchell et al., 2013), and they are not part of the official formation system (Dutch= UFO system). The second issue is the high amount of ambiguity on the career prospects of postdocs inside and outside of academia (van der Weijden et al., 2015b; Davis, 2009; van Arensbergen, 2013; van Balen et al., 2012). Third and related issue is the organisation of guidance and support for postdocs. HRM and talent management for postdocs is relatively underdeveloped (Thunnissen, 2015) and the needs for support of postdocs are largely unknown (O’Grady & Beam, 2011).

It is this third issue, the guidance and support for postdocs, which is the central topic of this paper. Postdocs are not working in a vacuum but within academic institutions in a modern day society. Academic organizations have changed quite substantially over the past decennia, in terms of tasks, structure and culture, due to increased internationalization, less government influence and funding and a larger impact of external stakeholders (Enders et al., 2011). Like other public organisations, universities are increasingly financed on an output-oriented manner, and therefore emphasis on performance plays an important role (e.g. Decramer, Smolders & Vanderstraeten, 2013; Häyrinen-Alestalo & Peltola, 2009; Pollitt & Bouckeart, 2004). Previous research shows that postdocs seemed to be trapped between the formerly public organization of the universities and the more privatized conditions of their employment, as well as their own ambitions and the lack of career possibilities both inside and outside academia.

Intention is to use Reay & Hinings (2005, 2009) approach towards the competing institutional logics to explain the ambivalence of the postdocs and their employment conditions.

This paper provides a rare glimpse into this relatively unexplored but important group, and focuses specially at what kind of guidance and support postdocs themselves require and expect, given their ambitions to pursue an academic career despite their knowledge of limited prospects in a longer term perspective. After presenting our research context in the full paper, we will go into the background of postdocs and their trajectories, their changing prospects, the research methods and the preliminary findings of this study.

Method

Research Methods As explained our multi-method study consists of three parts: 1) A preliminary comparative study amongst two Dutch universities contained a survey with both closed and open questions amongst 225 respondents (Van der Weijden et al., 2015). Nearly all postdocs (85%) want to stay in academics, but only less than 3% was offered a tenure track position. Statistical analysis was carried out with help of SPSS 21.0.0.1. 2) Twenty in-depth interviews with postdoctoral researchers at a Dutch University demonstrated that while the postdocs generally liked their job, gender and other personal circumstances (e.g marital status, family) had an interrelated impact on their job satisfaction. Approximately equal shares of the postdocs were satisfied, neutral or dissatisfied about the personal guidance and support they received. 3) In order to investigate the complex relationships between postdocs and their employers, we have chosen to organize three focus group meetings at a Dutch university in April 2015. The participants of these meetings consisted of four to five postdocs, representatives from the Dutch research council and of the HRM department of this university (Ruiter, 2015) (see table 2). In addition, two facilitators and three observators were present. Preliminary to the focus group meetings, we organised an interactive brainstorm with HRM and P&O staff members from the University in december 2014. The core of each focus group lasted two hours and consisted of three rounds of discussions. After a brief introduction the facilitators presented the findings of our studies until so far. Consequently we provided the group with a general topic: Academic work and research production. The postdocs explained their situation, in mutual interaction. Subsequently, we asked the representatives from the Dutch research council and the HRM department to react. Secondly, another topic was provided: Career opportunities and conditions. In order to allow for more structured discussion, the respondents used post-its to explain what they needed or what was required for a further career either inside or outside academia. After these post-its were stuck up and briefly summarized by the facilitators, the final part contained a discussion about the prioritizing of further career possibilities and requirements. The contents of these meetings were audiotaped and transcribed fully.

Expected Outcomes

Findings/Conclusion As explained, we frame our research gap here as a dual ambivalence, which evolved out of our preliminary research, and which is linked to the postdocs as employees and the university as their employer. The first ambivalence is caused by the complex combination of managerial and professional logics, the second can be derived from the postdocs being highly educated and specialized staff, but weakly connected to their employing organization. On the basis of our focus group data, the first ambivalence, caused by the competing managerial and professional logics, manifests itself in two manners. The first manner entails the attitude of the supervisors. They are academically involved with the postdocs but outside the content of their work, for example concerning further career options, the postdocs have to rely on the individual willingness of their supervisor. The discussions revealed that if postdocs intend to leave academia, their personal interests do not coincide with those of their supervisor, making their mutual relationship even more fragile and open for failure. Secondly, the expectations from postdocs are unclear as well, they are insecure in what kind of involvement they are allowed to expect, and feel they should not impose upon their professors/supervisors too directly. These two manifestations are related to the second ambivalence, the weak connection of the postdocs to their employing organisation. De facto are the professors or heads of departments responsible for any guidance and support of the postdocs, but if they fail to take on that responsibility and if their postdocs are not able or willing to remind them of their responsibilities, no one else does. The main challenge these HRM practitioners face is how to bridge the gap between managerial (moving in a strategic direction) and academic objectives (maintaining academic freedom and autonomy) (Mansour et al., 2015).

References

References (incomplete) Boeije, Hennie (2005) Analyseren in kwalitatief onderzoek. Den Haag: Boom, Lemma. Davis, G. (2009). Improving the Postdoctoral Experience: An Empirical Approach. In: Freeman, R.B. & D.L. Goroff (eds) Science and Engineering Careers in the United States: An Analysis of Markets and Employment. University of Chicago Press. De Goede, M., Belder, R. & De Jonge, J. (2013). Academic Careers in the Netherlands, Facts & Figures. www.rathenau.nl (retrieved 7 November 2013). Felisberti, F. M., & Sear, R. (2014). Postdoctoral researchers in the UK: A snapshot at factors affecting their research output. PLoS One 9, 4), e93890. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0093890. Fitzenberger, B., & Leuschner, U. (2012). Up or out: Research incentives and career prospects of postdocs in Germany. ESPE - UCL Department of Economics, Discussion paper 12-020. Retrieved from http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp12020.pdf

Author Information

Christine Teelken (presenting / submitting)
VU University Amsterdam
Faculty of Social Sciences
Amsterdam
Inge Van der Weijden
Universiteit Leiden, Netherlands, The

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.