色盒直播

Renaming postdocs and PhD students would boost respect, pay, progression

What other industry would deem those with so much prior training to still be mere trainees? Let’s call them what they are – researchers, says Michele Nardin

四月 3, 2024
A postdoc holding her head
Source: iStock/Jacob Wackerhausen

What is a “postdoc”? How is one different from a PhD student? And do they really have any marketable skills??

The answers to these questions?might be obvious to those of us within academia, but I can assure you from personal experience that the same is not true elsewhere – including, sometimes, in the very industries that would benefit from early-career researchers’ services.??

If they don’t have academic research backgrounds themselves, even high-tech employers are often unaware that PhD students and postdoctoral researchers carry out the bulk of day-to-day scientific enquiries – often working , including over weekends and holidays.

Within academic science, we typically regard even postdocs as mere trainees and, accordingly, them . This is absurd. Imagine any other employer that treated anyone who was not a senior administrator as a mere trainee even after a decade of study (the ?hovers just above 31) and many years of work experience. Yes, good science requires time and expertise, which is why collaborations and mentorship are so important. However, acknowledging the full professional stature of young researchers is equally important.?

A big part of that should involve a re-evaluation of job titles. The terminology used to describe early-career researchers is more than a mere label; it shapes perceptions and realities. Within academia, the titles “PhD student” and “postdoc” obscure the professional nature and expertise of these roles and perpetuate a hierarchy that unacceptably extends the period of “training” and justifies lower compensation and precarious contracts.??

For individual early-career researchers, this endless sense of “not being prepared” or “not being good enough” for tenure-track positions sustains a cycle of and , characterised by low self-confidence and doubts about one’s “real-world” value, all of which our .?

Moreover, existing early-career titles make it hard for people outside academia to know what young researchers actually do. Most seriously, this complicates the transition to a job outside academia because companies judge PhD holders and postdocs as simultaneously over-qualified and apparently lacking any real work experience. Yes, the competition for principal investigator (PI) positions is pushing more and more people to make that transition, but that doesn’t mean academic nomenclature is not a barrier to doing so successfully. I and most of my colleagues have found ourselves having to explain to potential employers that we are, in fact, experienced, independent researchers and not just unthinking apprentices to our all-knowing masters.?

A very low-cost way to alleviate such misunderstandings would be to refer to a PhD student as a “junior researcher” and a postdoc as, simply, a “researcher” – instead of a “postdoctoral researcher”, which is all too commonly abbreviated to the much more opaque “postdoc”. Varying degrees of experience could easily be incorporated into this basic nomenclature, such as “independent researcher” or “senior researcher”: titles?that could be bestowed by departments as people progress.??

As well as offering immediate clarity about the roles and aiding in the transition to industry, such clarified titles would lay the groundwork for fair compensation – including for PhD students – and the establishment of clear career pathways within academia, including the creation of more long-term, senior research positions below the group leader level.?

An objection might be that calling PhD students junior researchers would be similar to calling medical students “junior doctors” or law students “junior lawyers”,?which would be genuinely misleading about their level of experience and expertise. That’s a fair observation, but there is a fundamental difference. For a PhD student, the period of taking lectures and exams, if it exists at all, is limited to the very beginning of the doctoral period, beyond which they become semi-autonomous researchers and the workhorses of their bosses’ labs.??

Redefining early-career researchers’ job titles is a simple and low-cost step towards enhancing young researchers’ self-perception and improving public understanding of their work. Let this be a for academic institutions across the globe to reconsider outdated titles and embrace a nomenclature that truly reflects the contributions and status of their researchers.?

is a Janelia Theory Fellow (independent researcher) at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) Janelia Research Campus, Virginia.

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
注册
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.

Reader's comments (8)

There is some worth in this piece and looking back through the lens of a retired and tired academic, I remember having very mixed feelings about self worth. One issue with the article is it appears to assume thst PhDs and postdocs would largely have parity in experience or intellectual capabilities. This I think any researcher would agree is not the case. I knew some very gifted researchers working on very challenging projects. Conversely I knew others who were able to cruise through on autopilot on straightforward plug in and play projects. I would be more inclined to try to characterise the range and depth of intellectual and practical experience that each PhD holder possessed. I know that this is or should be apparent at interview but this is not always the case. I know so many excellent science researchers who burnt out by their mid 30s and a number of scoundrels who progressed to getting a chair with the most meagre talent. The system currently does not explicity recognise this shortcoming.
Unfortunately, the number progressing with meagre talent seems to be on the increase and they are often the ones that ruthlessly exploit the greater talents of their junior staff.
Quite a US centric article. In most of the world, the transition the author argues for is already the case. In the UK, no one regards postdocs in the sciences as trainees. Postdocs here are PDRAs - Post Doctoral Research Associates, the "Postdoctoral" being a signifier of seniority, to distinguish them from RAs - Research Assistants (a non-PhD requiring position). Given that UK PhDs are maximum 4 years, people spend much more times as postdocs - 10 years is pretty much a minimum. Postdocs form the back bone of the research effort, and many industry places describe their non-managing researchers as postdocs. Its interesting that you bring up the example of junior doctors and lawyers. Because these are the answer to the strapline question "What other industry would deem those with so much prior training to still be mere trainees?". In medicine you are a junior doctor until you are a consultant. Similarly in law you will be regarded as a trainee until much later than most careers.
This article makes zero sense. 'Researcher' is completely meaningless, it could refer to anything and anyone. PhD student is much more prestigious, and it's clear what stage they are at. Likewise, a postdoc (postdoctoral research associate if you want to be long-winded) is a researcher with a doctorate. It's clear. I also think they are forgetting that there are plenty of research staff without PhDs, many of whom have far more experience. What should they be called if 'researcher' titles are reserved for people studying for/with PhDs?
I agree...this article makes no sense at all. A PhD student should be called a PhD student because that is an accurate description of their role. Ditto for post-docs. Researcher is too generic.
I'm sorry to hear people think this article doesn't make sense. The terms "junior researcher" and "researcher" are only proposals; better options can be found, and I'd be happy to hear people's opinions. Some institutes around the world have started in that direction. Generally, I argue that both "PhD student" and "postdoc" are very bad job titles (as argued in the article) and have a lot of historical baggage that is time to drop. "Student" used to be a prestigious term, together with "scholar" and "academic", but is now associated with youth and inexperience. --You're still a student..when will you start working?--. Postdoc, on the other side, used to be a transition position when, from the 60s to the 90s, people spent 1~2 years in a different lab to learn a new technique before getting their own lab (usually in their mid-20s). Realities have changed a lot, and it is time to update outdated titles. Academia has many problems, and many aspects are very old-fashioned. Changing job titles is only one (very small) step, yet it could lead to surprising benefits in the long run.
In agreement with you Nardine. Academia is the only place where people remain trainees forever as long as they are PhD students and postdocs. In most jobs around the world a degree makes you sufficiently qualified and a Masters makes you highly qualified and trained. Any thing in addition to those 2 degrees stands as experience. Imagine an intern in a bank as a teller(often with no degreee) being told after 3 years of being on the job that they are still trainees and students! That exactly is what is done to postdocs at least. Academia thrives on that system and they are not interested in a change just yet. They want to churn out hundreds and thousands of Masters and PhD students and have postdocs without asking the question where do these fit in if they are overqualified for industry and can't all fit into the few track-tenure positions as professors/PIs that are available at universities and research institutes. Tough lock to all the postdocs and future postdocs (PhD students) out there. The stats are clear, the system is moribund. The younger generations however remain hopeful and are starry-eyed. Governments however should seriously reconsider funding subsidies/models to Higher Education Institutions where student throughput levels at Masters and PhD levels don't tie with the markets' demand for skills and the availability of jobs. I think there is over-investment in some countries (not all) in increasing the number of Masters and PhD holders when these cannot be absorbed by the job market. If so many PhDs are generated who at the end must resort to selling flowers and opening bike repair shops or doing endless postdocs (limited though), then it's time to rethink the financing model and administrative lines at HEIs. Strategies like that which Nardine proposes here may help. I speak for the STEM.
Completely agree with the article. Personally I like to refer to senior research fellows for our more experienced staff and postgraduate researchers for PhD level scientists. It is a similar discussion as the US tradition of calling a research group by the PI's last name, which is pretty much not done in Europe. And PIs referring to 'their' group instead of 'our' group.
ADVERTISEMENT