The postdoctoral paradox: A specification of nursing science?
Article Outline
The past few decades have seen increasing emphasis on evidence-based health care and nursing practice. Doctorally prepared nurses have the potential to engage in research that can produce such evidence. However, it may take several years after gaining a doctorate to develop sufficiently sophisticated research skills to achieve this. According to Wood (2002) doctoral education merely lays the foundations; it is in effect a basic research training (Johnson, 2000). It is now recognized that a period of post doctoral education is required to allow fledgling doctoral graduates to increase their repertoire of research skills (Wysocki, 1998, Conn, 2005, Montgomery et al., 2008, National Postdoctoral Association (NPA), 2010).
Post doctoral appointments were relatively rare across all disciplines before the 1950s. In the 1980s and 1990s however, they saw a rapid growth in numbers (Davis, 2005). Along with other disciplines, nursing is now in a position where post doctoral training is available (Wood 2002). As yet however, the infrastructure to support and develop post doctoral researchers in nursing is weak. Academic career pathways are not clearly defined (Taylor and Cantrell, 2006) and as we will discuss, the post doctoral period can be one of bamboozlement. Even in a formal post doctoral appointment, which is prima facie a good place to be, there are some issues that render it problematic. It is this that forms the hub of our discussion.
Post doctoral appointments provide a temporary period – usually one to three years – of mentored research and scholarly training (National Postdoctoral Association (NPA), 2010). Their purpose is to support post doctoral researchers (‘post docs’) towards developing an increasingly independent research career (Wysocki, 1998, Conn, 2005, National Postdoctoral Association (NPA), 2010). They present an opportunity to sharpen research focus, engage in faculty research, write for publication, present at conferences, establish research networks, and to incrementally take the lead in research projects. According to Conn, 2005, Bengry, 2010, the ultimate aim is to secure a tenure track position. Thus, in many respects, a post doc appointment seeks to bridge the transition between being a novice and becoming a senior researcher. This bridging period however, can be what Bengry (2010) refers to as a ‘strange, in-between place’; no longer a student, but not yet a professor. As post docs ourselves, we have discerned some aspects of the role that we term the ‘post doctoral paradox’. The paradox is based around three interwoven issues: mentorship, funding, and the research community.
The mentorship paradox is created by one important issue: age. Doctoral graduates in nursing tend to be older than graduates in other fields (Sigmon and Grady 2001). They have often ‘toiled’ with several years of part-time study in order to gain their doctorate (Taylor and Cantrell, 2006). The average age of post doctoral scholars across all major disciplines (social science, biomedicine, mathematics, computer science, engineering, and the arts and humanities) is early 30s (Davis, 2005, National Science Foundation Division of Science Resource Statistics, 2010). In nursing however, the average age increases to 45–48
years (Sigmon and Grady 2001). Like us, many doctoral graduates in nursing bring with them a wealth of clinical experience. However, clinical expertise does little to help post docs master the specific skills pertaining to research. Moreover, most are left with less than 20years in which to establish their career as senior researchers. The National Institute of Nursing Research in America identified that nurse researchers are already 52years when they receive their first research grant (Sigmon and Grady 2001). The age profile of researchers in nursing has implications for mentorship.
The importance of mentorship in a post doc appointment is widely recognized (Wysocki, 1998, Conn, 2005). We have been fortunate in receiving the support and encouragement that high quality mentorship provides. However, it is acknowledged that there is scarcity of suitably experienced mentors dedicated to research (Sigmon and Grady, 2001, Montgomery et al., 2008). Quite simply, there are not enough mentors in ‘the system’. As a result of this, post docs may be working alongside colleagues who have limited experience with post doctoral training or familiarity with the role of a post doctoral mentor (Montgomery et al., 2008). Perhaps more importantly, it is likely that many mentors may not have reached the zenith of their research career. This means that paradoxically, post docs and their mentors may be jostling for the same resources and positions, including authorship of papers and leading on research projects.
The funding paradox is created by the fact that the timeframe of most post doc positions is between one and three years (National Postdoctoral Association (NPA), 2010). In our experience, some funding bodies will only support research where the duration of a contract of employment exceeds the life span of the research project. However, it takes considerable time to develop a robust grant proposal — certainly beyond the confines of a short term contract. It may therefore be to the chagrin of many post docs that they are ‘forced’ to apply for smaller, short-term grants to fit with their contract status. Larger grants that they rely on for their career development remain elusive.
An additional element of the funding paradox relates to leadership. We have already suggested that post docs and mentors may be vying for leadership in research. The funding paradox relates to funding bodies who want to ensure that the financial resources they are releasing are well-invested. A track record of successful, timely completion of previous projects by the applying researcher is thus an important criterion used by funders. This creates a catch-22 situation. How can a junior post doc make the leap to leading on grant applications, when leading on grant applications is the very factor that may ensure success?
Lastly, there is the research community paradox. Gaining a doctorate should not be an end in itself — it should be a first step in contributing to the research community. Supervising and examining doctoral students are part of this contribution and are also important milestones on the journey to becoming a senior researcher. However, like the funding paradox, making inroads can be difficult. Tinkler and Jackson (2000) reviewed the PhD examination process in Britain by focussing upon institutional policy from 20 British universities. They noted that several institutions require external examiners to have examined at least three doctorates. They argue that although this assures a certain amount of experience, it also raises the question of how post docs can ever enter existing networks of examiners (Tinkler and Jackson, 2000). This is a point that we support.
In our experience a post doc appointment reaps strong rewards. However, there are some issues specific to nursing that may paradoxically prevent post docs from fulfilling their role, that is, to become independent researchers. Some of these defy immediate solution. There is very little that can be done to affect the age profile of nurse researchers. However, there are strategies that may prove useful in addressing some of the issues. Pairing-up post docs with well-established, senior researchers can overcome the mentorship paradox and provide post docs with opportunities for research leadership. This has certainly been beneficial in our case. Short term post doc appointments are unhelpful and create a funding paradox. We therefore advocate longer term appointments. According to Montgomery et al. (2008), post doc training offers nursing the opportunity to grow a strong cohort of nurse researchers for the next generation. With this in mind, it is important that nursing creates what Sigmon and Grady (2001) refer to as a ‘culture of post docs’. Part of this culture is to foster the expectation that a post doc position is a normal step in the career path of an academic (Wood, 2002). Post doc positions tend to attract relatively low salaries, yet many potential post docs hold senior academic or clinical posts on relatively high income. This may preclude their engagement in post doctoral training (Conn, 2005). For this reason, academic organizations should provide salaries that are attractive to this group of nurses. In the longer term, this will demonstrate that nursing is prepared to invest in future generations of researchers who can strengthen the evidence-base for nursing practice.
References
- . The strange case of postdocs in Canada. History Compass Exchanges. http://historycompass.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/the-strange-case-of-postdocs-in-canada/(Accessed: 14.10.2010)
- . Postdoctoral research preparation. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 2005;27(7):799–801
- . Doctors without orders: highlights of the Sigma XI postdoc survey. Special Supplement to American Scientist. 2005;1–13
- . Must they have a PhD?. Nurse Education Today. 2000;20:511–512
- . Post-doctoral training in nursing: a consideration of opportunities and strategies. Nursing Leadership. 2008;21(1):36–43
- . What is a postdoc?. http://www.nationalpostdoc.org/policy/what-is-a-postdoc(Accessed: 14.10.2010)
- . Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Board; 2010;
- . Increasing nursing postdoctoral opportunities: National Institute of Nursing Research Spring Science Work Group. Nursing Outlook. 2001;49:179–181
- . Peacock or Plum? Reflections on academic research career pathways. Nurse Education Today. 2006;26:449–456
- . Examining the doctorate: institutional policy and the PhD examination process in Britain. Studies in Higher Education. 2000;25(2):167–180
- . The postdoctoral fellowship. Clinical Nursing Research. 2002;11:123
- . Launching your research career through postdoctoral training opportunities. Nursing Research. 1998;47(3):127–128
PII: S0260-6917(10)00257-1
doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2010.12.005
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
