Contribution Versus Recognition: The Tenuous Role of Postdocs in Ph.D. Training

• In Event: Power in Graduate Education: Actors, Relations, and Accountability in the System

Abstract

The doctoral advisor (i.e., principal investigator [PI]) is often characterized as a singular or primary mentor who guides students through cognitive apprenticeship (e.g., Barnes & Austin, 2009). However, as the practice of science has shifted toward larger team enterprises and an increasing pace and volume of workload, the nature of the PI’s role has shifted to one that entails less contact with students (Jones et al., 2008). Perhaps as a result of these changes, the “cascading mentorship” model acknowledges that students are also mentored by more senior students and research staff within their lab (Golde et al., 2009). Still, the dominant narrative continues to position the faculty PI as the giver of knowledge. The purpose of this study is to (1) test the strength of evidence supporting each model (i.e., cognitive apprenticeship vs. cascading mentorship) and (2) consider implications for empowerment of laboratory team members.

Study Overview
Drawing from data collected as part of a national, longitudinal study (n=336) of Ph.D. students in the biological sciences, this multi-method study examines mentoring dynamics within labs and their impacts on student development. Through latent growth curve (LGC; Figure 1) and logistic regression models, we found that PIs’ laboratory and mentoring activities (assessed via participant surveys) do not significantly predict students’ skill development trajectories (measured by annual scored writing samples), but the engagement of postdocs in laboratory interactions do. Specifically, when postdocs actively participate in laboratory discussions, Ph.D. students are 4.2 times as likely to have positive skill development trajectories (OR = 4.20; 95% CI = [1.59, 11.10]; Figure 2). After conducting follow-up interviews with a subset of 82 participants, qualitative analyses reveal that students characterize postdocs as valued mentors and instructors; among other things, postdocs played a key role in helping students more successfully interact with hostile or absent PIs.

Significance
Our results suggest that postdocs substantially impact Ph.D. student learning outcomes, despite typically having no formal role or training in mentorship (Daniels & Beninson, 2018). Thus, they exercise great, but unrecognized (Mirsa et al., 2011), power in shaping graduate student outcomes from a precarious position: Postdoc effort is typically allocated completely to research, so they likely lack the standing in the laboratory or academic program to direct or advocate on behalf of a student for whom a change might be beneficial. As temporary appointments, postdocs are heavily reliant on the support of their PIs for continued employment or recommendations necessary to obtain a subsequent position. Further, postdocs (who may experience discrimination and mistreatment themselves; Camacho & Rhoads, 2015) may play a critical role in supporting marginalized students and/or have problematic experiences with PIs. To empower postdocs and increase benefits for students, we suggest the following: 1) establish postdoc roles with explicit recognition of their role in cascading mentorship; 2) provide training in effective mentoring and advocacy; 3) provide increased institutional rights and protections for postdocs so that they are empowered to be advocates; and 4) establish formal communication channels that link postdocs working with students to traditional academic oversight structures.

Authors

• David F. Feldon, Utah State University

• Jennifer Blaney, Utah State University

• Kaylee Litson, Utah State University