Search for: All records

Abstract BackgroundPostdoctoral training holds an increasingly important place in preparation for leading academic and research positions. While little empirical research has described postdoctoral training beyond the sciences, across all fields, “misaligned expectations” are often touted as a key source of postdoctoral strife. Purpose/HypothesisThis article describes mentorship competency beliefs within engineering and computer science fields, which increasingly engage in postdoctoral training. Design/MethodAn embedded mixed‐methods design was used to quantitatively identify mentorship profiles from survey data using latent profile analysis (LPA) from a sample ofn = 118 postdoctoral scholars andn = 165 postdoctoral supervisors. Qualitative thematic analysis of interviews withn = 29 postdoctoral scholars andn = 20 postdoctoral supervisors was used to identify meaning in the differences between quantitative profiles. The combination of LPA with thematic analysis enabled the triangulation of distinct postdoctoral mentorship profile definitions. ResultsLPA identified six postdoctoral fellow profiles and four supervisor profiles, which became clearly definable through thematic analysis. Postdoc profiles included Technical Manager, Autonomy Focused Advisor, Stretched Mentor, Well‐Rounded Mentor, Exemplar Mentor, and Leader‐Mentor, while supervisor profiles included Autonomous Mentor, Reflective Mentor, Research Lab Mentor, and Confident Leader‐Mentor. Some of these are aligned, but several are not, giving insight into the phenomenon of “misaligned expectations” in postdoctoral literature. ConclusionsThe mentorship profiles illustrate the misalignment in expectations, which leads to negative mentorship experiences for many postdoctoral scholars. 

Postdoctoral fellows report experiencing misalignment between their expectations and their experiences in postdoctoral training. Little research explores their experiences with less still attempting to identify advisors’ expectations of postdoctoral fellows. This research aims to describe the knowledge, skills, and attributes (KSA) advisors/principal investigators expect when postdoctoral fellows begin and the expectations for developing postdoc KSA during the fellowship. Qualitative semi-structured interviews with postdoctoral advisors provide data about the hiring, starting, and development expectations advisors have for postdocs. Axial coding with KSA and abductive analysis identify advisors’ KSA expectations. Postdoctoral advisors describe hiring requirements and development expectations that do not clearly align. This misalignment starts postdocs and advisors in a new relationship with already misaligned expectations. Clarified language in hiring requirements and development expectations can help advisors and postdocs begin the fellowship with better-aligned expectations. The research reported here provides language to advisors and postdocs to assist and guide KSA expectations. 

In this research paper, we describe faculty development as mentors to postdoctoral fellows (postdocs). Postdoctoral fellowships have become a significant step in academic and industry positions, while little research investigates the purpose of a postdoc position, the experiences of postdocs, and how faculty develop as postdoc advisors. As part of a larger project investigating postdoc mentorship, nineteen semi-structured qualitative interviews with faculty advisors uncovered themes about how postdoc advisors learn to mentor and advise postdocs. Faculty from U.S. and Canadian universities completed 60-minute online interviews. Participants had varying experience and expertise in advising postdocs. Observational learning theory provides a framework for identifying the process of learning from observation and the replication of mentors’ past experiences. Open and axial coding was used to identify faculty experiences that informed how they mentored their postdoctoral fellows. Faculty who had completed a postdoc as part of their training reflected on their experiences, often identifying positive and negative experiences they used to guide, mentor, and plan the development of the postdocs they advise. Faculty who did not complete a postdoc used doctoral and industry experiences to inform their decisions. This work provides a unique window into postdoctoral training and