University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Evaluation of the Sunshine University postdoctoral program

(USC Thesis Other)

Evaluation of the Sunshine University postdoctoral program

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 1

Evaluation of the Sunshine University Postdoctoral Program
By
Donna Garcia

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2019

Copyright 2019 Donna Garcia

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 2

Dedication
To my children, Ava and Cole: may this work empower you to stay curious and be a
voice for others that may feel invisible in this world.
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 3

Acknowledgements
To my committee members: Dr. Kimberly Hirabayashi, Dr. Gale Sinatra, and Dr. Eric
Canny. Your guidance throughout this process has provided me the opportunity to reflect on my
purpose in higher education. Your insight reaffirms my dedication to the field.
I would like to recognize the assistance that I received from Dr. Courtney Malloy. You
were instrumental to the development of my survey instrument and completion of the data
analysis. I am extremely grateful to my colleagues and friends, Dan Carino and Heather Rosoff.
The completion of this project would not have been possible without your expertise and
willingness to engage with me about my study. I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to
Dr. Mark Todd and Dr. Elizabeth Graddy for their support in my professional development.
I also appreciate the exchange of ideas and experiences shared by OCL Cohort 7 and the
faculty. You bring optimism and thoughtfulness to our practice that will undoubtedly lead to
positive change in our organizations. A very special thanks to my amazing writing group,
Timothy Seay-Morrison, Kenneth Lopour, and Raja Ridgeway, for providing me the helpful
advice and tools to get me the finish line.
To my mother, Lita Garcia, your unparalleled support kept the village running and made
this possible. Your strength and work ethic continues to inspire me.
Finally, to my husband Angel, who has supported me every step of the way. You have
done most of the heavy-lifting at home over the past several years, and I am truly blessed with
your patience, love, and commitment to our family.

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 4

Table of Contents
Dedication ........................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. 3
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... 9
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... 10
Introduction of the Problem of Practice ............................................................................ 12
Organizational Context and Mission ................................................................................ 12
Organizational Goal .......................................................................................................... 13
Related Literature.............................................................................................................. 14
Importance of the Evaluation ............................................................................................ 15
Description of Stakeholder Groups and Stakeholder Group for the Study ....................... 15
Stakeholder Performance Goals ........................................................................................ 16
Review of the Literature ................................................................................................... 18
Evolution of Postdoctoral Scholars ................................................................................... 18
Postdoctoral Scholar Definition .................................................................................... 18
Historical Trends for Postdocs Scholars ....................................................................... 19
Faculty Trends .............................................................................................................. 19
Ph.D. Student Trends .................................................................................................... 21
Postdoc Landscape and Role Changes .............................................................................. 22
Current Trends in the Postdoc Workforce .................................................................... 22
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 5

Postdoc Challenges and Issues...................................................................................... 24
Demographic Shifts ...................................................................................................... 26
Postdoc Advocacy ............................................................................................................. 27
Postdoc Reforms ........................................................................................................... 27
Postdoc Unions ............................................................................................................. 27
Recommended Practices for Postdoc Training ................................................................. 28
Institutional Policies and Initiatives .............................................................................. 28
Mentoring ...................................................................................................................... 29
The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework ............................................. 30
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences ......................................................... 31
Knowledge and Skills ................................................................................................... 31
Motivation ..................................................................................................................... 35
Organization .................................................................................................................. 42
Conceptual Framework: Interaction of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational
Context .............................................................................................................................. 47
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 51
Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 52
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 53
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale....................................................................... 53
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale .............................................. 53
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 6

Data Collection and Instrumentation ................................................................................ 54
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 56
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 56
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 58
Data Collection and Instrumentation ................................................................................ 60
Survey Instrument ......................................................................................................... 60
Survey Procedures ........................................................................................................ 63
Participants .................................................................................................................... 64
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 68
Quantitative Analysis .................................................................................................... 68
Qualitative Analysis ...................................................................................................... 70
Results and Findings ......................................................................................................... 71
Satisfaction .................................................................................................................... 71
Knowledge Influences .................................................................................................. 76
Motivation Influences ................................................................................................... 79
Organizational Influences ............................................................................................. 86
Multiple Regression Analysis ....................................................................................... 92
Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 94
Recommendations for Practice ......................................................................................... 95
Increasing Knowledge of Resources ............................................................................. 96
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 7

Fostering and Maintaining Engagement of Faculty Advisors ...................................... 97
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ............................................................. 101
Implementation and Evaluation Framework ............................................................... 101
Organizational Purpose, Needs, and Expectations ..................................................... 102
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ..................................................................... 103
Level 3: Behavior ........................................................................................................ 104
Level 2: Learning ........................................................................................................ 110
Level 1: Reaction ........................................................................................................ 112
Evaluation Tools ......................................................................................................... 113
Data Analysis and Reporting ...................................................................................... 114
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 115
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ................................................................... 116
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 116
Future Research .............................................................................................................. 117
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 117
Appendix I: Survey Items ............................................................................................... 119
Appendix II: Recruitment Email ..................................................................................... 134
Appendix III: Immediate Evaluation Instrument ............................................................ 135
Appendix IV: Blended Evaluation Instrument ............................................................... 136
Appendix V: Data Analysis Chart .................................................................................. 137
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 8

References ....................................................................................................................... 139

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 9

List of Tables
Table 1. Stakeholder Performance Goals ...................................................................... 16
Table 2. Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments ............................................ 35
Table 3. Motivational Influences and Assessments ....................................................... 42
Table 4. Organizational Influences and Assessments .................................................... 46
Table 5. Scales and Reliability Estimates ...................................................................... 62
Table 6. Demographic Characteristics ........................................................................... 66
Table 7. Descriptive Statistics of the Six Scales ........................................................... 69
Table 8. Correlation Matrix for Satisfaction and KMO Influences ............................... 70
Table 9. Knowledge of Postdoc Policies and Practices ................................................. 78
Table 10. Multiple Regression Analysis ........................................................................ 93
Table 11. Stakeholder Performance Goals ..................................................................... 104
Table 12. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ......... 106
Table 13. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ............... 108
Table 14. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ............................................ 112
Table 15. Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program ......................... 113

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 10

List of Figures
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework ................................................................................. 49
Figure 2. Postdoc Overall Satisfaction .......................................................................... 71
Figure 3. Postdoc Satisfaction with Faculty Advisor .................................................... 72
Figure 4. Postdoc Satisfaction with Academic Department or School .......................... 72
Figure 5. Postdoc Satisfaction with University.............................................................. 73
Figure 6. Postdoc Satisfaction with Professional Development Offerings .................... 73
Figure 7. Primary Long-Term Career Goal ................................................................... 77
Figure 8. Expectancy Value of Postdoc Training – Career Goals ................................ 80
Figure 9. Expectancy Value of Postdoc Training – Job................................................. 80
Figure 10. Expectancy Value of Postdoc Training – Independent Investigator ............ 81
Figure 11. Confidence – Discipline-Specific Knowledge ............................................. 82
Figure 12. Confidence – Research Skill Development .................................................. 83
Figure 13. Confidence – Communication Skills ............................................................ 83
Figure 14. Confidence – Professionalism ...................................................................... 84
Figure 15. Confidence – Leadership and Management Skills ....................................... 84
Figure 16. Confidence – Responsible conduct of research ............................................ 85
Figure 17. Confidence – Publishing Research ............................................................... 85
Figure 18. Confidence – Managing Work-Life Balance ............................................... 86
Figure 19. Number of Postdoc-Faculty Advisor Meetings ............................................ 87
Figure 20. Postdoc-Faculty Advisor – Personal, Family, or Life Goals Plan ................ 87
Figure 21. Postdoc-Faculty Advisor – Individual Development Plan ........................... 88
Figure 22. Postdoc-Faculty Advisor – Publications ...................................................... 88
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 11

Figure 23. Postdoc-Faculty Advisor – Research............................................................ 89
Figure 24. Postdoc-Faculty Advisor – Career Progress ................................................. 89
Figure 25. Postdoc-Faculty Advisor – Personal, Family, or Life Goals ........................ 90
Figure 26. Postdoc-Faculty Advisor – Research Progress ............................................. 90
Figure 27. Postdoc-Faculty Advisor – Independent Investigator .................................. 91
Figure 28. Postdoc-Faculty Advisor – Networking ....................................................... 91
Figure 29. Postdoc-Faculty Advisor – Professional Development ................................ 92

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 12

Introduction of the Problem of Practice
Due to the competitive academic job market, more Ph.D. graduates are postdoctoral
researchers (postdocs) as temporary holding positions rather than research opportunities (Hur,
Ghaffarzadegan, & Hawley, 2015; Powell, 2015). Postdocs are individuals that hold a doctoral
degree and work in a temporary research position for training and preparation, usually in a
university, research center or institute, or laboratory (National Postdoctoral Association, 2014).
The postdoc research and training program serve as a stepping-stone to a tenure-track faculty
position. However, studies show an increase in available postdoctoral positions as compared to
traditional tenure-track faculty positions (Alberts, Kirschner, Tilghman & Varmus, 2014; Horta,
2009; Kahn & Ginther, 2017; Su & Alexander, 2018). Due to budget cuts and limited faculty
positions, postdocs are likely to feel frustrated and dissatisfied by the lack of job security
(Alberts, 2013). The challenges face by postdocs make the transition to faculty positions even
more difficult, making the need for additional resources and support at their institutions even
more critical. This dissertation will examine the gaps in the training and preparation of postdocs
for careers as independent researchers, academics, and leaders of their chosen fields.
Organizational Context and Mission
Established in September 2011, the Sunshine University (SU) Postdoctoral Program is
the central resource on campus serving as a liaison between the Office of the Provost,
postdoctoral scholars, faculty, and staff to disseminate university initiatives and policies. The
mission of the Postdoctoral Program is to work closely with academic units to help recruit a
diverse cadre of the best junior scholars to the university and facilitate the training and
preparation of postdoctoral scholars for career independence. While most young postdoctoral
scholars work in the sciences, engineering, medicine and other health-related fields, SU
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 13

recognizes the increasingly important role of postdoctoral training in other fields. The
Postdoctoral Scholars in the Humanities program supports scholars in the humanities and
humanistic social sciences through SU’s Society of Fellows in the Humanities, which includes
cultural events, seminars, presentations, and support from outstanding faculty mentors across the
university. The office also provides an annual programming budget to the SU Postdoctoral
Association to assist with creating a connected and trained postdoctoral community through
professional development and social events. An important role of the Postdoctoral Program is to
encourage the full integration of postdoctoral scholars at SU as they transition to their labs and
departments and connect with other members of the SU Family and the broader intellectual
community. Led by one staff member, the program closely interfaces with faculty and
administrators to develop policies and programming to provide the knowledge of available
resources for postdocs to succeed in their careers as defined by the National Postdoctoral
Association Core Competencies (2007). The six core competencies are 1) discipline-specific
conceptual knowledge, 2) research skill development, 3) communication skills, 4)
professionalism, 5) leadership and management skills, and 6) responsible conduct of research.
Currently, there are about 473 postdocs employed at the University. Of the total postdoc
population, 54% are female and 46% are male. Forty-three percent are domestic, while 57% are
international. About 10% are from historically underrepresented populations in the United
States.
Organizational Goal
The Postdoctoral Program’s goal is that all postdocs will feel satisfied with their
postdoctoral training and preparation at the university, however a timeline and a targeted
percentage of postdocs is not specified. In 2011, then Provost established the goal after
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 14

reviewing comparative postdoc data of peer and aspiring institutions to raise the quality of
academic programs to a higher level. Guided by the National Postdoctoral Association Core
Competencies and a joint Postdoctoral Affairs Committee comprised of faculty, administrators,
and postdocs, the Provost charged the university to rise to the level of its peers and aspiring
institutions to incentivize postdocs to come to SU by offering competitive compensation and
benefits to postdocs. The achievement of SU’s goal in this matter will be measured by the
results of postdoc satisfaction surveys. It should be noted that this is an aspirational goal and
current data is unavailable, which substantiates the need for an evaluation.
Related Literature
The literature attributes the increase in postdoc and contingent faculty positions to the
economic downturn resulting from the end of the nation’s surge of investment in science
discovery during late 1990’s (Alberts et al., 2014; Morris, 2009). Consequently, as Morris
(2009) demonstrates, institutions maximized their budgets by limiting their hiring of tenure-track
faculty and offering more temporary research positions, such as postdocs, to fulfill their research
mission. With limited funding and support, postdocs and faculty end up competing for limited
resources and consequently spending a majority of their time submitting grant proposals, which
negatively affects their actual research activities (Alberts et al., 2014; Diaz, 2012).
Existing literature concludes that under a system where the labor workforce of the
research in universities is largely comprised of graduate students and postdocs, many of them are
treated as cheap labor. This culture causes psychological and intellectual harm on the trainees
and inhibits their full potential of being independent faculty researchers, thus negatively
affecting satisfaction and performance (Callier & Vanderford, 2014). Numerous studies suggest
postdocs with structured mentoring and formal training report increased satisfaction and
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 15

productivity (Gibbs, McGready, & Griffin, 2015; Jacob and Lefgren, 2011; Su, 2011; van der
Weijden, Teelken, de Boer, & Drost, 2016)
Importance of the Evaluation
It is important to evaluate the organization’s performance in relationship to their
performance goal of postdoc satisfaction of the resources and programs provided by SU because
the University depends on the scholarly contributions of postdocs to advance the research
mission. If the University does not address postdoc satisfaction, it negatively affects the postdoc
productivity and the growth of the research enterprise. Evaluating the organization’s
performance will enable stakeholders to gather formative data that can be used to assess the
organization’s programming decisions that positively impact the postdoc experience.
Description of Stakeholder Groups and Stakeholder Group for the Study
At SU, the stakeholders include postdocs, faculty, and staff administrators. The
community of postdocs is served by the SU Postdoctoral Program’s policies and initiatives. The
mission of the Postdoctoral Program is to work closely with faculty and staff administrators to
help recruit emerging scholars to the university, and facilitate the training and career preparation
of postdocs. The effective use of SU Postdoctoral Program’s resources by the faculty and staff
contribute to the postdocs’ satisfaction of the training and preparation at the university.
While the joint collaboration of all stakeholders will contribute to the achievement of the overall
organizational goal of providing high quality postdoctoral training and resources, it is important
to assess where the SU postdocs are currently with regard to their performance goal. Therefore,
the stakeholders of focus for this study will be all SU postdocs. The stakeholders’ goal,
supported by the Program Director and Office of the Provost, is that 100% of postdoctoral
scholars will feel satisfied with their postdoctoral training and preparation at the university. The
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 16

level of postdoc satisfaction will be measured through annual surveys and an exit survey at the
termination of postdoctoral appointment. Failure to accomplish this goal will lead to
postdoctoral training that lacks academic rigor needed for the postdoc’s career trajectory. The
evaluation of postdoc satisfaction is essential to determining the current needs of postdocs and
providing the guidance to the administration to develop a clear strategic plan in meeting the
Postdoctoral Program organizational goals. Low rates of postdoc satisfaction will lead to less
productivity in the workplace, which adversely impacts the advancement of the university’s
overall academic excellence.

Stakeholder Performance Goals
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of the Postdoctoral Program is to interface with faculty and staff to help recruit
junior scholars to the university, and promote the training and preparation of postdocs for career
advancement.
Organizational Performance Goal
All postdocs will feel satisfied with their postdoctoral training and preparation at the university,
however a timeline and a targeted percentage of postdocs is not specified.
Postdocs
All postdocs at SU university will feel satisfied with their postdoctoral training and preparation.

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 17

Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to evaluate the degree to which the SU Postdoctoral
Program is meeting its goal of all postdocs feeling satisfied with their postdoctoral training and
preparation at the university. The analysis will focus on knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences related to achieving the organizational goals. While a complete
performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder to
be focused on in this analysis is the postdocs.
As such, the questions that guide this study are the following:
1. To what extent is the Postdoctoral Scholar Program meeting its goal of all postdocs
feeling satisfied with their postdoctoral training and preparation at the university by July
2020?
2. What is the stakeholder knowledge and motivation related to the goal of all postdocs
feeling satisfied with their postdoctoral training and preparation at the university by July
2020?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and stakeholder
knowledge and motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organization resources?

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 18

Review of the Literature
This literature review will examine possible gaps in the training and preparation of
postdocs for careers as independent researchers, academics, and leaders of their chosen fields.
The review begins with an overview of the historical trends in the evolution of postdocs. This is
followed with general research the current landscape and changes in the postdoc role. Next, will
be a discussion on postdoc advocacy and reforms. Lastly, this chapter will include scientifically
based recommended practices for the postdoc training. Following the general research literature,
the review turns to the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework, and
specifically, knowledge, motivation, and organization influences on postdocs’ satisfaction with
training and preparation to achieve career goals.
Evolution of Postdoctoral Scholars
Postdoctoral Scholar Definition
Research training immediately after the doctoral degree is an essential step on the path to
a full-time academic and/or independent research career, known as a postdoctoral training. A
postdoctoral scholar (postdoc) as “an individual who has received a doctoral degree (or
equivalent) and is engaged in a temporary and defined period of mentored advanced training to
enhance the professional skills and research independence needed to pursue his or her chosen
career path” (National Postdoctoral Association, 2017, p.1). Although the definition of a
postdoc recently expanded to include diverse career paths, most postdocs and their mentors
develop career plans towards academia as tenure-track faculty. Therefore, the literature reports
that the standard training model in academia does not align with the current career options for
postdocs (Bankston & McDowell, 2018; Kahn & Ginther, 2017; McAlpine, 2018; Su &
Alexander, 2018).
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 19

Historical Trends for Postdocs Scholars
The postdoc landscape and availability of academic jobs is influenced by the economic
shifts of the U.S. Following World War II, the nation experienced a growth in the numbers of
postdoctoral researchers and the expectation that the professoriate would undertake postdoctoral
training prior to faculty appointment was a widely held belief (National Academy of Sciences,
2014). Alberts et al. (2014) describe the 1980’s and early 1990’s as a time when the U.S.
government prioritized investments in scientific research for the pursuit of institutional
expansion and building the nation’s economy. After a period of tremendous scientific growth,
the government shifted its federal spending and universities were forced to operate with
tightened budgets and implement cost-saving measures. From 2007 to 2009, the Great
Recession dramatically shaped the financial state of most US universities (Desrochers &
Wellman, 2011). The research shows that public universities experienced budget cuts, in turn
increasing tuition and fees. Meanwhile, private universities encountered financial instability as
returns on investments and charitable giving decreased (Desrochers & Wellman, 2011).
Moreover, Pomeroy (2014) reports that the nation’s economic crisis elevated when sequestration
called for a devastating 2013 federal budget cut under President Obama’s administration.
In order to better understand the postdoc experience, it is important to address the impact of
faculty trends in U.S. institutions on the lack of academic jobs for postdocs.
Faculty Trends
Research studies report that the Great Recession dramatically shaped the financial state of
most U.S. universities causing a decrease of tenure-track faculty hiring and a shortage of
academic jobs for postdoc career advancement. Institutions maximized their budgets by
transforming hiring across disciplines from mostly tenured faculty to hiring more part-time and
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 20

adjunct faculty, and offering more temporary research positions, such as postdocs, to fulfill their
research mission (Morris, 2009; McAlpine, 2018). There is greater specialization within the
academic workforce; for instance, the growth of teaching-only positions. Studies show a three
per cent increase in available postdoctoral positions as compared with only a 0.8 per cent
increase in available traditional tenure-track faculty positions (Horta, 2009).
The literature demonstrates that there is a growing reliance on part-time faculty in
higher education that influences the number of available tenure-track faculty positions in the job
market for postdocs. The faculty composition in higher education has shifted in the recent
decades from consisting of mostly full-time, tenure-track faculty to one comprised
predominantly of contingent, non-tenure-track faculty (Figlio, Schapiro, & Soter, 2015).
According to Ott and Cisneros (2015) and Benjamin (2015), the proportion of faculty who teach
part time on American campuses has nearly doubled in the last 30 years. In 1970, only 22% of
faculty held part-time appointments; today, at least 42% teach part time—more than twice the
proportion of part-time workers in the overall U.S. labor force. In Diascro’s (2011) study of the
political science field, she finds that more postdoc and part-time/adjunct faculty positions were
being offered to new political science doctoral graduates. Since most tenure and tenure-track
faculty focus on research, many researchers expect the proportion of contingent faculty will
continue to grow in the future (Banasik & Dean, 2015; Kezar, Maxey, & Holcombe, 2016). The
growth of contingent positions as compared to tenure-track positions provides additional
evidence of the changing landscape of the academic job market.
The literature supports that the 1986 amendment to the Age Discrimination Employment
Act of 1967, prohibiting any mandatory retirement ages for most workers in the US, influenced
lower retiring rates of faculty, thus, lowering the number of available faculty positions in the job
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 21

market. According to Larson and Gomez Díaz (2012) and Pema (2010), the National Research
Council report argues that abolishing mandatory retirement limited hiring and promotion of new
faculty. Furthermore, Pema (2010) highlights that the amendment can also reduce academic
productivity of senior faculty, which is what institutions rely on to maintain the cutting edge of
American science. Her study also suggests that this policy limits affirmative action programs,
since fewer openings would be available for women and minorities. In addition, the researchers
highlighted that the continued employment of older and usually higher-salaried professors
increased the likelihood of higher costs and financial difficulties for institutions, which seemed to
conflict with the institution’s strategies to minimize costs (Larson & Gomez Diaz, 2012). On the
other hand, Xue and Larson (2015) suggest that the competition for junior faculty positions has
resulted in higher quality hires, therefore the probability of earning tenure is higher. However, as
the probability of achieving tenure increases, the number of new faculty positions still declines.
In addition to the significant influence of faculty hiring trends on the academic job market,
studies report that the continued growth of Ph.D. students at higher education institutions further
reduces the number of academic jobs for postdocs.
Ph.D. Student Trends
Despite tightened university budgets and limited tenure-track faculty positions, the
number of academic jobs is unable to keep pace with the steady influx of Ph.D. student
enrollment. The most recent National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates reported
that U.S. universities awarded the highest number of Ph.D. degrees historically in 2014 (National
Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2015). A study by Callier and Vanderford (2014)
shows that twelve times more Ph.D.’s are produced each year than the number of new faculty
positions. Also, they found that many students lose hope of attaining a tenure-track position and
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 22

the percentage of graduate students that perceive faculty positions as an attractive career option
continues to decline from 45% to 32%, and more recently to 25%. According to Hur,
Ghaffarzadegan and Hawley (2015), more Ph.D. graduates pursue postdocs as temporary holding
positions rather than research opportunities. Furthermore, research suggests that the mismatch
between supply and demand creates a system that is in perpetual disequilibrium (Teitelbaum,
2008). In his study of biomedical researchers, he concludes that the strain on the academic job
market leaves many scientists less attracted to the profession. Moreover, Yi and McMurtrey
(2014) argue that societies that place an overemphasis on the value of higher education yields a
surplus in the labor market and their study determines that the industry structure in the U.S. is
not prepared to employ the number Ph.D. graduates it produces. The existing oversupply of
Ph.D. students and limited faculty hiring creates a highly competitive job market that has led to
shifts in the overall postdoc landscape and roles in the workplace.
Postdoc Landscape and Role Changes
Current Trends in the Postdoc Workforce
Due to the increased competition in the higher education job market, researchers report
that the postdoc role has changed over the years. As mentioned earlier, the National Postdoctoral
Association (2017) defines the purpose of postdoctoral training is to pursue a temporary period
of advanced research training so that a junior scholar can distinguish as an independent
researcher on their chosen path. In the most comprehensive survey of postdocs to date,
McConnell, Westerman, Pierre, Heckler, and Schwartz (2018) collected responses from over
7,600 postdocs from 351 academic and non-academic U.S. institutions in 2016 identify a
differing pattern in the postdoc role. Their study concludes that due to the economic and
political pressures impacting the research enterprise, the postdoc experience has evolved from
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 23

short and focused periods of training into often multidisciplinary and extended positions with
less clear outcomes. Many studies examining the impact of postdoctoral training on careers in
biomedicine offer an explanation for this trend. The research states that postdoctoral education
is structurally flawed in relation to the current climate and it is inconsistent with the traditional
intention of human capital investment (Alberts et al., 2014; Kahn & Ginther, 2017; Su &
Alexander, 2018). The research illustrates that postdoc period is a holding pattern for young
researchers to generate more papers in order to be competitive for positions (Alberts et al., 2014,
Hur et al.; Su & Alexander, 2018). The postdoc period operates as a tournament where
individuals compete for a limited number of tenured jobs demonstrating their ability and
“commitment through years of long hours in laboratories spent underpaid” (Kahn & Ginther,
2017; p.93).
Su and Alexander (2018) observe that postdocs are hired to work on their principal
investigator’s (PI) projects, so they spend long periods of their academic careers unable to set
their own research direction. The researchers report that the fierce competition exacerbates
worries that postdocs may choose to work on safe research topics and away from high stakes
projects to maximize their chances of landing permanent positions. In McAlpine’s (2018) book
titled The Postdoc Landscape, she reports that many postdocs have varied roles and
responsibilities, which may not involve much research. She shares that many postdocs take on
additional roles, like teaching and lab management. These additional duties make it difficult to
publish in scientific journals to be competitive, thus causing delay in a junior scholar’s path to
career independence. Because of the precarious career trajectories for postdocs, it is important to
examine the consequences of the competitive academic job market on a postdoc’s career
development and the obstacles faced by postdocs.
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 24

Postdoc Challenges and Issues
Numerous reports provide detailed concerns about the postdoctoral training system and
the negative effects on the postdoctoral experience. Due to the temporary nature of a postdoc
position, they lack institutional support (Bankston & McDowell, 2018; Callier & Vanderford,
2014). Institutions are reluctant to extend long-term funding commitments, thus offering short-
term contracts (McAlpine, 2010; McAlpine, 2018). The literature states that most postdocs
experience financial insecurity, such as low compensation, short-term contracts, insufficient
benefits, building up debt, and not being able to provide what individuals wanted for their
families, especially as compared to their peers (Bankston & McDowell, 2018; McAlpine, 2018).
In a review of U.S. postdoc reforms, Bankston and McDowell (2018) describe that many
postdocs feel like they are treated like second-class citizens (i.e. limited access to training,
conference funding, mail boxes, etc.). Also, many feel underprepared with expanded role
responsibilities (i.e. grant or team management, navigating politics in the workplace, dealing
with personnel issues).
McAlpine points out that the definition of “postdoc” actually incorporates two potentially
distinct tasks and fails to differentiate between those funded on fellowships (i.e., independent and
personally directed learning) and those funded through contracts with PIs (responsible for
carrying out designated work). She reminds policymakers to not ignore the difference in sources
of funding since the difference had fundamental effects on work and motivation of a postdoc.
She explains that a fellowship recipient is able to carve their own research niche and strengthen
collaboration, which benefits the postdoc with earlier career advancement. However, postdocs
who are funded on a PI’s grant are limited in their ability to maintain their own intellectual work
(and networking) while being paid to do work often outside of or on the periphery of their own
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 25

interests and expertise. They often find themselves caught between a passionate personal
investment in their research and work environments, which often offer little future, given soft
research funding as well as institutional contingent employment structures (McAlpine, 2010).
For these reasons, some postdocs are forced to make changes in career intentions. However, the
studies reveal that postdocs receive inconsistent training and career preparation, and they lack the
knowledge of alternative-academic career options.
Inevitably, some postdocs struggle with maintaining work and family life balance. They
often hold tension between career goals and personal goals. As mentioned earlier, one of the
greatest differences between postdoctoral populations in 1969 and today is the length of
postdoctoral training, which in 1969 was 1–2 years depending on the field, and today is reported
to be 5 years on average (Kahn & Ginther, 2017). Thus, some postdocs have multiple
obligations and priorities that influence work and career decisions, like having children or caring
for elderly parents. McAlpine reports that some in academic perceive that having children is
“career suicide” for an academic career. Furthermore, she mentions that postdoc work patterns
are affected by new technologies. New technology and tools provide convenience, but also it
can intrude on personal lives because you are so accessible and it is difficult to create boundaries
with work.
Therefore, the compounding effect of these forces creates high levels of stress and
anxiety for postdocs (Callier & Vanderford, 2014; Grinstein & Treister, 2018; McAlpine, 2018;
Su & Alexander, 2018). Callier and Vanderford (2014) assert that the culture of being treated as
cheap labor causes psychological and intellectual harm on the trainees and inhibits their full
potential of being independent faculty researchers. The challenges result in high levels of job
dissatisfaction, disillusionment about the value of academic work, low self-esteem, and low job
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 26

productivity (McAlpine, 2018; Su & Alexander, 2018). The literature clearly demonstrates that
the increased competition in academia and the short-term nature of postdoctoral employment
adds complications to the postdoctoral experience, however policy leaders should also consider
the complexities related to the changing demographics of the postdoc community.
Demographic Shifts
The demographics of the postdoctoral population have changed in recent years. In 2014,
the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of
Medicine (known as the National Academies) published a book titled Postdoctoral Experience
Revisited that reexamined postdoctoral programs in the United States and explored important
changes that have occurred in postdoctoral practices and the research enterprise. They reported
the percentage of women, temporary residents, among postdoctoral researchers has continued to
increase. The authors published that two thirds of the total postdoc population are international
postdocs on temporary visas, and that international postdocs are more likely to produce more
publications (Cantwell & Lee, 2010). Moreover, the percentage of women in the postdoctoral
population has grown between 10 and 20 percentage points in the past 25 years.
Underrepresented minorities (i.e. African-American and Hispanics) are not proportionately
represented in the postdoctoral population, when compared to the U.S. population nor with their
representation in the population of doctoral degree recipients. The National Academies (2014)
assert that the sustainability of the nation’s research enterprise depends on the policymakers’
consideration of the demographic shifts in the postdoc population.

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 27

Postdoc Advocacy
Postdoc Reforms
While there has been much discussion about the postdoctoral position over the last
50 years, there has been little progress. Bankston and McDowell (2018) conclude that postdoc
context described in the The Invisible University from 1969 is very similar to the current reality.
Although some reforms have been enacted at individual institutions to address a number of
issues, including postdoc titles, transparency surrounding the postdoc position, work–life
balance, and the instability of the postdoc position. Organizations supporting or representing
postdocs at the national level are now undertaking efforts to improve postdoc transparency by
gathering data on several postdoc issues. However, according to Bankston and McDowell and
the National Academies (2014) report, researchers observe a relatively static nature of the
postdoctoral position during this time and such efforts are not sufficient to effect change. Some
claim that it is simply not a priority of the academic system to ensure that postdocs are counted,
trained, or granted a role other than providing the cheap labor required for research to be
produced (Alberts et al., 2014). Bankston and McDowell state that it is not clear that the
academic community is truly making postdoctoral education a priority.

Postdoc Unions
Postdocs in the University of California (UC) system chose to address these challenges
by forming the first-ever stand-alone postdoctoral researchers' union: UAW 5810 in 2008. The
UC historical data reflected that postdoc compensation did not reflect the rigor of their work.
Prior to ratification of the first contract, the majority of Postdocs at UC were paid less than
$41,000 per year (and some as low as $18,000 per year). Through collective bargaining with the
university, postdocs at all 10 UC campuses now have a minimum salary scale, guaranteed annual
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 28

salary increases, stable and comprehensive benefits at low cost, and many other important gains.
These made this crucial postdoctoral time a better and more productive part of their careers
(Cain, Budke, Wood, Sweeney & Schwessinger, 2014). The UC agreement sent shock waves
through research institutions around North America — raising the profile of postdoc grievances,
spreading a fear of unionization, and, in some universities, prompting administrations to
proactively address postdoc inequities (Gewin, 2010). As the number of Ph.D. graduates rise
and the competition for academic jobs increase, more junior scholars will extend their time in
postdoc positions. In light of the research infrastructure’s reliance on the small army of junior
scientists to lead innovation, the manner in which institutions address postdoc issues may have
an impact on the future of research.
Recommended Practices for Postdoc Training
Institutional Policies and Initiatives
In alignment with 2014 National Postdoctoral Association guidelines for recommended
practices the literature suggests that institutions could address the current administrative,
training, and benefit postdoctoral policies and propose new strategies on how faculty prepare the
postdocs in their path towards independence. Su and Alexander (2018) and McAlpine affirm
that postdocs may have negative experience because implementation of postdoc policies remains
largely discretionary in academic departments, wherein priorities vary greatly. There is a
tendency for postdocs to remain siloed in their departments, rather being integrated in to the
greater research community. Therefore, the literature suggest that policy makers could increase
the visibility and importance of the postdoc community by developing centrally administered
strategies to address postdoc issues (Su & Alexander, 2018; Cavanaugh, 2018; McAlpine, 2018).
Cavanaugh (2018) outlines four recommendations for improving the postdoc experience: (a)
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 29

addressing the challenges of postdoctoral appointments in terms of salary and benefits; (b)
defining the postdoctoral training period and implementing Individual Development Plans
(IDPs); (c) providing career and professional development programs, and; (d) tracking and
maintaining alumni databases. McAlpine emphasized a need for institutional support for
alternative-academic careers and human resource policies for dealing with family and personal
issues. According to findings from several studies, the postdoc experience could improve when
institutions take greater accountability through university-wide policies and practices reflecting
the needs of postdocs.
Mentoring
A substantial body of research encourages institutions to reexamine their mentoring
approach and professional development offerings for postdocs. Structured postdoc–faculty
relationships have been demonstrated to influence the postdoc's career satisfaction and increased
productivity (Hokanson & Goldberg 2018; Haley, Hudson, & Jaeger, 2018; McAlpine 2018).
Through case studies, Hokanson and Goldberg (2018) highlight critical aspects of positive
postdoc–faculty mentoring relationships—establishing expectations, clear communication,
fostering independence, and creating inclusive research and teaching environments. Moreover,
McAlpine suggests that postdoc training requires greater alignment with career exploration and
decision-making regarding personal aspirations. However, the research recognizes that a strong
mentorship is difficult to establish and maintain. Faculty mentors are increasingly under strain
due to pressures within the overall training system and increasingly competitive research
enterprise (Alberts et al., 2014). Faculty are juggling many of their own responsibilities, so they
are limited with time they can career mentoring and professional development. Some faculty
feel they are not sufficiently trained to mentor postdocs towards nonacademic careers. In a study
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 30

by Haley, Hudson, and Jaeger (2018), the researchers point out that nearly half of the postdoc
participants lacked clear career goals. They recommend that postdoc training should emphasize
the role of agency and goal clarity for postdoc career development. The literature concludes that
establishing an engaged and supportive faculty mentoring relationship are instrumental in
creating successful opportunities for postdocs.
The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) provide a systematic problem-solving approach to help improve
performance and achieve organizational goals. The analytic framework is a modified gap
analysis that identifies the gap between actual performance measures and the performance goal.
According to Clark and Estes, the conceptual model examines the three critical elements that
influence performance– knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) environment.
Krathwohl (2002) outlined four knowledge types that are important to consider when identifying
a knowledge gap: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Each of the four types of
knowledge dimensions contribute to the knowledge and skills of the stakeholder to meet a
performance goal. Motivation is an important facilitator and inhibitor of performance (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Stakeholders must have adequate motivation to initiate a task,
persist, and engage the mental effort to reach a performance goal (Mayer, 2011). Motivational
theories related to self-efficacy and values serve as a framework for understanding the
performance gaps. Lastly, the analysis considers the role of organizational processes, resources
to support the achievement goals, and culture on stakeholder performance (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The principles of the Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis will be reviewed in the study of the
postdocs’ KMO needs to meet the performance of goal of all postdocs feeling satisfied with their
postdoctoral training and preparation. First, is a discussion of the assumed knowledge and skill
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 31

influences on the performance goal. The next section explores the motivation influences on the
stakeholder goal. Lastly, there is an examination of the assumed organizational influences on the
success of the performance goal. Each of these stakeholder knowledge, motivation, and
organization influences will be considered through the methodology discussion in Chapter 3.
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences
Knowledge and Skills
If university leaders want increased attention to academic quality and performance,
institutions should invest in the knowledge and skills necessary to produce it (Elmore, 2002). In
order to advance SU’s academic mission, it must evaluate its current operation of the
Postdoctoral Program to identify the knowledge and skills needed to meet the goal of all
postdocs feeling satisfied with their postdoctoral training and preparation. The results from this
assessment would allow for data-driven decision making for future enhancements and the
allocation of financial resources. The practice of improvement involves the acquisition of new
knowledge, connecting that knowledge with the skills necessary for effective practice, and
creating new settings where learning can occur. According to the work of Clark and Estes
(2008) and Rueda (2011), it is vital that the university provide postdocs the knowledge resources
to increase their individual productivity. The process of applying knowledge and skills
successfully to tasks contributes to the overall engagement level of the team member, which
leads to improved individual success and overall organizational performance (Mayer, 2011,
McGee & Johnson, 2015).
Krathwohl (2002) outlined four knowledge types that are important to consider when
identifying a knowledge gap: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual
knowledge is a discrete element, such as a postdoc’s knowledge of rules of regulations related to
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 32

conducting research. Next, conceptual knowledge is a complex and organized form of
knowledge that allow an individual to determine meaning. Postdocs present research results and
new ideas when publishing their discipline-specific conceptual knowledge in peer-reviewed
journal articles. Another dimension of knowledge is procedural, which is the ability to know
how to do something. For example, a postdoc’s ability to clearly articulate their research to a
general audience is a demonstration of their communication skills. Lastly, metacognitive
knowledge is the awareness of oneself as a learner and about the strategies required for the task
(Rueda, 2011). While each of the four types of knowledge dimensions contribute knowledge
postdocs possess to achieve the organizational goal of postdoc engagement and satisfaction, this
study will focus primarily on conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive influences.
Goal-setting and planning. The ability to think about one’s own thinking—
metacognition—is identified as one of the keys to mastery in most disciplines (Baker, 2006).
For a postdoc, metacognitive knowledge is the ability to reflect on the discipline-specific
knowledge, professional development gained through training and mentoring and apply it to their
individual plan. Based on the research of Mahdavi (2014), a postdoc should feel comfortable to
be one’s own critic by participating in self-monitoring and self-assessment to identify career
goals and a plan to achieving those goals. The author explains that individuals engage in
strategic planning and the provision of resources effective for reaching goals. For a postdoc’s
research development, the postdoc evaluates the discipline-specific knowledge to modify
research tasks and budgeting of time in order to develop their own novel ideas to establish
themselves as thought leaders in the field. Mahdavi adds that monitoring includes the self-
testing skills essential to regulate learning. He refers to the critical analysis of the implemented
strategies, for instance, how a postdoc reviews their research progress, problem solves, and
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 33

tailors their individual development plan strategically towards their career goals. Moreover,
McAlpine suggests that postdoc training requires greater alignment with career exploration and
decision-making regarding personal aspirations. In a study by Haley et al. (2018), the
researchers highlight that nearly half of the postdoc participants lacked clear career goals. They
recommend that postdoc training should emphasize the role of agency and goal clarity for
postdoc career development. In summary, regularly scheduled goal-setting and planning will
provide SU postdocs the metacognitive knowledge to reflect on their own research agenda and
individual development to help pave the way for their next step in their career.
Seeking guidance on career goals. This study views seeking guidance on career and
personal goals through mentoring and professional development resources as procedural
knowledge because it teaches the postdoc how to navigate their career path. Numerous studies
reveal that postdocs experience lower satisfaction and productivity because of the lack of career
prospects, thus postdocs who receive career mentoring for academic and alternative-academic
positions report more positive postdoc training experiences (Hokanson & Goldberg, 2018;
McAlpine, 2018; Haley et al., 2018; Callier & Vanderford, 2014; Scaffidi & Berman, 2011; Wei,
Levin & Sabik, 2012; McAlpine & Emmioğlu, 2015; Gibbs, McGready & Griffin, 2015; van der
Weijden, Teelken, de Boer, & Drost, 2016). Using Sigma Xi scientific research society’s data,
Wei, Levin, and Sabik (2012) explore the relationship between career preparation and outcomes.
The researchers discover that an increased professional networking leads to greater satisfaction
and productivity outcomes, resulting in less turnover. Scaffidi and Berman (2011) present
similar findings that determined that quality supervision, career mentoring, networking and a
nurturing research environment makes a positive difference in the experiences and productivity
of postdoctoral researchers.
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 34

Mentoring provides an opportunity to provide postdocs resources to make informed
decisions. McAlpine and Emmioğlu (2015) conduct a qualitative longitudinal study of 23
postdocs to assess the interpretive values of two constructs in explaining changes in career
thinking and decision-making. They find that the goal of pursuing an academic career track
narrows due to changing personal relationships and responsibilities in the course of a postdoc’s
lifetime. Therefore, having the support of an effective mentor would assist a postdoc in the
process of seeking out opportunities outside of the traditional academic track, which often
postdocs view as a disparaging path. Postdocs —described as an “invisible” community—
would benefit from a strong mentoring program that provides better visibility and integration
within the organization (National Academy of Sciences, 1969). If SU is committed to academic
excellence and postdoc career advancement, postdocs must know how to seek guidance on
professional development to successfully navigate the ever-increasingly competitive academic
job market.
Table 2 shows the organizational mission, global goal, stakeholder goal, and three
knowledge influences identified in this literature review.

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 35

Table 2
Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis

Organizational Mission
The mission of the Postdoctoral Program is to interface with faculty and staff to help recruit
junior scholars to the university, and promote the training and preparation of postdocs for
career advancement.
Organizational Global Goal
All postdocs will feel satisfied with their postdoctoral training and preparation at the
university, however a timeline and a targeted percentage of postdocs is not specified.
Stakeholder Goal
There is no stakeholder goal. The study is guided by the organizational goal.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type (i.e.,
declarative, procedural, or
metacognitive)
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Postdocs need to have the
metacognitive knowledge
to identify career goals and
develop an Individual
Development Plan (IDP)
with their faculty advisor.
Metacognitive Survey: Asking postdocs if
they have goals and whether
they developed an IDP
Postdocs need to know
what resources are
available to achieve their
career goals.
Declarative

Survey: Assessing how often
postdocs use resources to
meet career and goals

Motivation
Motivation is an important facilitator and inhibitor of performance (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Rueda, 2011). We must have adequate motivation to initiate a task, persist, and engage the
mental effort to reach a performance goal (Mayer, 2011). The lack of motivation is the key
factor that causes many performance problems. When postdocs discover the reality of the tough
job market, they experience disillusionment, stress, and anxiety about their future (Callier &
Vanderford, 2014; McAlpine, 2018; Su & Alexander, 2018). The literature argues that
challenges faced by postdocs negatively affects satisfaction and performance (Callier &
Vanderford, 2014). In order for SU to develop a strategic plan for increasing postdoc
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 36

satisfaction and productivity, it is important to examine the motivational influences that affect
the postdoc’s persistence and achievement of performance goals. In this section, the study will
focus on two motivational theories: expectancy value theory and self-efficacy theory. Each of
these theories will serve a framework for understanding: (a) how the postdocs feel their work is
important for their career aspirations and the greater research enterprise and (b) how the
postdocs’ confidence affect performance.
Expectancy value theory. Individuals must hold a value for their stated goals, along
with high expectations of competence in order to develop realistic expectancies for success
(Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). Expectations and values are a strong predictor of persistence,
mental effort, and performance. Eccles (2006) states that there are a number of components of
task value beliefs: attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value, and cost value. First,
attainment value is the importance of a goal to self-schema. Intrinsic value is subjective interest
in a goal, whereas utility value is the usefulness of meeting a future goal. Lastly, cost belief is
the perceived effort required to completing a goal. Pintrich (2003) relates these values or social–
cognitive constructs to the basic needs of humans to achieve competence and autonomy. Thus,
positive expectancy values increase an individual’s level of mastery and control in determining
one’s own behavior to initiate active choice, persistence, and mental effort to achieve
performance goals.
Expectancy value theory and postdoc satisfaction. The literature reports that the value
postdocs place on their goals affects their level of motivation, performance, and satisfaction
(McAlpine, 2018). Two quantitative studies designed to understand how postdoc training might
be improved revealed that individuals stay in postdoctoral positions longer than they would like
because it is difficult to get a faculty position (Åkerlind, 2005; Puljak & Sharif, 2009). Despite
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 37

the discouraging employment possibilities in academia, the majority of the postdocs identify the
utility value of their effort because they will need the research training for a career in science
(Davis, 2009). This mindset encourages a positive value on their work to meet career
aspirations, as well as being a contribution to the greater research enterprise, which enables
increased persistence, satisfaction, and performance (Su & Alexander, 2018; McAlpine, 2018).
Although, several studies highlight that postdocs must also have realistic expectations
about their career trajectory (Aschwanden, 2006; Benderly, 2005; National Research Council,
2005). The studies find that a postdoc’s first independent faculty appointment and their real
debut as an independent investigator is delayed to later in their careers than past generations.
Due to having far more people in the pipeline than there are available academic positions, most
aspiring biomedical scientists will not have an academic job. The competitive market triggers
postdocs to continually reflect on their decisions and future goals. They must set clear goals in
their path towards independence, but many encounter distractions (i.e. unsupportive colleagues,
administrative issues, familial responsibilities) that force them to divide their attention between
less important goals, resulting in a persistence problem (Clark & Estes, 2008; Callier &
Vanderford, 2014; McAlpine, 2018). Therefore, SU postdocs who engage in regular reflection
to determine the attainment, intrinsic, utility, and cost value of meeting future goals are able to
maintain realistic expectations, manage their motivation, satisfaction, and performance.
Self-efficacy. Based on social cognitive theory, self-efficacy or confidence as it is
commonly known, is the belief that one can perform a behavior (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 2006).
Bandura (1997) outlines four sources for self-efficacy: (a) mastery experiences; (b) vicarious
experiences; (c) verbal persuasion; and (d) psychological or emotional states. Through mastery
experiences, successes increase one's personal efficacy and failures have an opposite effect.
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 38

Vicarious experiences encourage the observer to form beliefs that they are also capable of
mastery in similar activities. Similar to mastery, observing others fail at similar tasks leads one
to lower their self-efficacy. Next, verbal persuasion strengthens one’s belief that they have what
it takes to succeed. On the other hand, individuals who experience criticism develop self-doubt
about their abilities. Lastly, one’s psychological or emotional state, affects one’s judgments of
their personal efficacy. A positive mood enhances perceived self-efficacy, whereas a negative
mood or stress reaction diminishes it.
An individual’s level of confidence to implement actions for goal attainment determines
the level of motivation to either succeed or fail at a goal. In addition, research claims that
confident students are more cognitively engaged in learning and thinking than students who
doubt their capabilities to do well (Pintrich, 2003). Bandura (2000) explains that increased
motivation and performance is a result of individuals and organizations with high self-efficacy
that choose difficult tasks, dedicate more effort, persist longer, apply complex learning strategies,
and experience less anxiety.
Self-efficacy and postdoc satisfaction. Recent research finds that the competitive
academic job market negatively affects a postdoc’s level of self-efficacy, which results in lower
rates of training satisfaction, motivation, and performance. Müller (2014) administers qualitative
interviews with 38 postdoctoral life scientists to investigate how these researchers experience the
temporalities of their work and career practices. The results illustrate that postdocs are
particularly susceptible to the changing demands of academic work life, as they mostly inhabit
fragile institutional positions while they aspire to establish themselves in academia through a
strong focus on individual achievement. Additionally, postdocs describe feeling like a failure
due to the multiple rejections and delay in publications as part the traditional academic path (Su
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 39

& Alexander, 2018). Research studies describe the temporal orientation of postdocs as having
detrimental effects to the epistemic and social dimensions of their work, thus affecting one’s
self-efficacy. Moreover, researchers point that as junior scholars progress they increasingly
assume that their particular training makes them fairly unattractive for non-academic
employment, resulting in a loss of confidence to pursue options outside of academia (Åkerlind,
2005; Puljak & Sharif, 2009). Furthermore, Müller states that the academic culture in the
sciences breeds a belief where academic work is normatively superior to other types of
employment and hence leaving academia is considered a failure. He explains further that even
expressing interest in non-academic employment among peers or particularly towards superiors
is considered to be potentially damaging to one's reputation as a serious scholar.
Postdocs should feel confident with their skills, as defined by the National Postdoctoral
Association Core Competencies (2007). The six core competencies are: 1) discipline-specific
conceptual knowledge, 2) research skill development, 3) communication skills,
4) professionalism, 5) leadership and management skills, and 6) responsible conduct of research.
The literature suggests postdocs with structured oversight and formal training gain mastery of
these competencies, thus experiencing greater levels of self-efficacy, satisfaction and
productivity. Davis (2009) highlights the need of better postdoc training using the results of a
2003 Sigma Xi scientific research society’s multi-campus survey of postdocs. The study
concludes that most of the training that postdocs receive is informal and training quality is
inconsistent, so many postdocs feel unsatisfied with their training because they do not often have
a tangible mechanism to demonstrate their proficiency. The study finds that 62% indicated a
desire to improve their skill at crafting proposals, and over 40% express interest in obtaining
training in lab and project management, communication skills, teaching and negotiation.
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 40

Researchers state that postdoc training indeed boosts research productivity during the early
career period, thus increasing the likelihood of greater satisfaction in type of training provided
(Jacob & Lefgren, 2011; McAlpine, 2018; Su, 2011; Su & Alexander, 2018). Examining a
nationally representative sample of academic scientists and engineers, Jacob and Lefgren (2011)
studied the impact of receiving the National Institute of Health (NIH) postdoctoral training grant
on the number of publications and citations, as well as the postdoc’s subsequent career
placement. The researchers argue that the receipt of an NIH postdoctoral fellowship leads to
about one additional publication over the next five years, which reflects a 20 % increase in
research productivity and great satisfaction with career outcomes. Therefore, some institutions
create structured programs to offer a scientific training pipeline to prepare postdocs for academic
careers that balance high-quality research, effective teaching, and the development of the
professional skills necessary to be leaders in the field. In a comparison study, researchers
examined the research productivity of postdocs who participated in a structured scientific
training pipeline and the findings determined that scholars in the program obtained faculty
positions at a threefold greater rate than did a national sample of postdoctoral scholars not in the
program. (Rybarczyk, Lerea, Lund, Whittington, & Dykstra, 2011). This learning environment
enables postdocs to develop proficiency in the core competencies, thus increasing performance
(Deans for Impact, 2015; Mayer, 2011). Therefore, SU postdocs who are confident in the six
core competencies are more productive, competitive for the job market, and satisfied with their
training. In addition, studies report that a postdoc’s career path may come into conflict with
individuals’ aspirations for their personal lives (McAlpine, 2018; Su & Alexander, 2018).
McAlpine (2018) highlights that personal values and life goals represent an individual’s
conceptions of what is important in their lives. In many cases, these values create tension with
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 41

work. For instance, McAlpine describes that having children is “career suicide” for an academic
career. Often postdocs perceive that one must be married to their research over their loved ones
in order to be successful. He concludes that a lack of alignment between the two may lead
individuals to turn away from an academic future, experience dissatisfaction, and perform
poorly. The research indicates that the instability of a postdoc’s position and the competitive
environment of academia forces postdocs to question their sense of self-efficacy and motivation
diminishes. Accordingly, it is essential that SU develop new strategies for the professional
development of postdocs to be competitive in diverse markets, so they are confident progressing
in their individual path to independence.
Table 3 below identifies two motivational influences that focus on expectancy value and
self-efficacy.

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 42

Table 3
Motivational Influences and Assessments for Motivation Gap Analysis
Organizational Mission
The mission of the Postdoctoral Program is to interface with faculty and staff to help recruit
junior scholars to the university, and promote the training and preparation of postdocs for career
advancement.
Organizational Global Goal
All postdocs will feel satisfied with their postdoctoral training and preparation at the university,
however a timeline and a targeted percentage of postdocs is not specified.
Stakeholder Goal
There is no stakeholder goal. The study is guided by the organizational goal.
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment

Expectancy value – Postdocs should value their
postdoc training for career preparation.
Survey: using Likert scale items, “Do you
value your efforts to meeting your career
goals (i.e. grant-writing, lab supervision,
teaching, research publication)?”

Self-efficacy – Postdocs should feel confident
that their postdoc training will achieve career
goals.
Survey: using Likert scale items, “How well
do you feel your postdoc training is
preparing you for your specified career
goal?”; “I am confident in my leadership and
management skills.”; “I maintain balance
between competing demands in my life.”

Organization
The managerial literature often emphasizes that having a strong culture is essential for
effective performance in organizations (Schein, 2004). As stated in the previous section,
research over the last 50 years provides detailed concerns about the postdoctoral training system
and the evolving academic landscape that results in postdoc dissatisfaction. Therefore, it is
necessary that SU postdocs be in a supportive work environment to minimize dissatisfaction and
maintain performance. In this section, the study will focus on the role of cultural models and
cultural settings on postdoc satisfaction. Each of these concepts will examine the importance of:
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 43

(a) developing a culture of support within a postdoc’s academic unit and the larger university; (b)
promoting engaged postdoc-faculty advisor experiences; (c) committing resources aligned with
the priorities, and policies for postdocs.
Cultural model. Cultural models establish a shared mental schema of how the world
works, or ought to work, through a collective set of values, group norms, or patterned behaviors
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2011; Schein 2004). The cultural models set the foundational
direction for the organization, which in turn affect individual’s goals and performance. Schein
(2004) states that the cultural model provides structural stability and organization because it not
only frames the shared philosophy, but it also provides meaning and predictability.
Culture of support. Although SU has a shared value of advancing the research mission,
a lack of a unified strategic vision for the professional development of postdocs weakens SU’s
ability to deliver the highest quality-training program. In addition, the divergent objectives
across multiple authority levels leads to an accountability problem. The literature suggests that
SU could adopt a culture of support at the institution to effectively prepare postdocs towards
career aspirations (Cavanaugh, 2018; McAlpine, 2018; Hokanson & Goldberg, 2018).
The common-good approach in leading organizational change authored by Velasquez,
Andre, Thomas Shanks, and Meyer (2011) presents possible solutions on how to align
accountability mechanisms towards a cultural model of support that considers each stakeholder’s
interest and the betterment of the postdoc community. For example, utilizing the principles of
accountability, a key element in creating a unified definition of accountability requires SU to
build its internal capacity (Elmore, 2002; Marsh, Pane, & Hamilton, 2006). SU may explore the
idea of creating a university-wide advisory committee of faculty, administrators, and postdocs
that reflect the needs of postdocs or other mechanisms to build a cohesive vision for the
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 44

postdocs. This committee may consist of representatives from the postdoc community, directors
of postdoctoral office/training/research programs, faculty, and administrators from human
resources, grant management, and the international/diversity office. A core advisory team will
limit divergent objectives for stakeholders at all levels, while promoting an inclusive work
environment to increase postdoc engagement with the broader research community (Hentschke
& Wohlstetter, 2004; Darling-Hammond, Wilhoit, & Pittenger, 2014). Hence, creating a culture
of support through coalition-building across stakeholders may increase performance and
satisfaction of postdocs with their training.
Cultural setting. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2011) define cultural settings as visible
and concrete manifestations of cultural models that appear within a work environment. A
cultural setting is the social context in which the individuals or groups within the organizations
enact the values of the cultural model. According to Clark and Estes (2008), the culture setting
could reflect policies, procedures, and resources aligned with the organizational values.
Engaging postdoc-faculty advisor experience. This study defines an engaging postdoc-
faculty advisor experience as part of the cultural setting because the postdoc is supported through
mentoring to develop a critical intellectual understanding of their discipline for career
advancement. The literature suggests postdocs with structured oversight and formal training
report increased satisfaction and productivity (Hokanson & Goldberg 2018; Haley et al., 2018;
McAlpine 2018). Based on survey data of 1,137 postdocs Miller and Feldman (2015) highlight
that one of the factors that determine the probability of dissatisfaction is related to the frequency
of postdoc-advisor interaction. Through case studies, Hokanson and Goldberg (2018) draw
attention to critical aspects of positive postdoc–faculty mentoring relationships—establishing
expectations, clear communication, fostering independence, and creating inclusive research and
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 45

teaching environments. McConnell et al. (2018) present a multivariate analysis on the factors
that influence postdoc career plans and mentorship satisfaction. The researchers conclude that
receiving mentorship as a postdoc has a significantly positive impact on satisfaction.
Interestingly, they also find that the quality of mentorship strongly influenced career goals. The
literature concludes that establishing an engaged and supportive faculty mentoring relationship is
instrumental in creating successful opportunities for postdocs.
Resources. The research on postdoc trends offers possible strategies that institutions
may consider to improve postdoc satisfaction. For instance, SU may choose to take greater
accountability for postdocs by committing resources aligned with the institutional priorities and
policies for postdocs. Based on the work of Darling-Hammond, Wilhoit, and Pittenger (2014),
the initiatives of SU’s Postdoctoral Program could rest on three pillars: meaningful learning for
all postdocs, enabled by committed faculty, and supported by financial resources. The culture
setting for postdocs could be improved by focusing the leadership’s attention to the current
administrative, training, and benefit postdoctoral policies (Cavanaugh, 2018; McAlpine, 2018).
Using the 2014 National Postdoctoral Association guidelines for recommended practices, the
university-wide advisory committee proposed above could review the existing postdoctoral
policies and propose new strategies on how SU could support postdocs. An in-depth review can
offer ideas for the allocation of resources to address postdoc needs, such as: (a) developing a
university-wide mentoring plan; (b) providing fair compensation and benefits; (c) increasing job
stability; and (d) serving the needs of women and temporary residents, among postdocs.
However, the data in the study could reveal more areas to be addressed. Thus, committing
resources aligned with the priorities and policies will provide a supportive work setting to
increase postdoc performance and satisfaction with postdoctoral training.
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 46

Table 4 below identifies two organizational influences that focus on a culture of support
and a commitment to resources aligned with the institutional priorities and policies for postdocs.
Table 4
Organizational Influences and Assessments for Organizational Gap Analysis

Organizational Mission
The mission of the Postdoctoral Program is to interface with faculty and staff to help recruit junior
scholars to the university, and promote the training and preparation of postdocs for career
advancement.
Organizational Global Goal
All postdocs will feel satisfied with their postdoctoral training and preparation at the university,
however a timeline and a targeted percentage of postdocs is not specified.
Stakeholder Goal
There is no stakeholder goal. The study is guided by the organizational goal.
Assumed Organizational
Influences

Organizational Influence
Assessment
Research-Based
Recommendation or
Solution Principle

Proposed Solution
The organization needs
to develop a culture of
support in their academic
unit and the larger
university.
Survey: using a Likert
scale, How satisfied are
you with the professional
development resources
offered by SU?; I feel a
part of the greater
research enterprise at SU;
The institution values
postdoc contributions;
Postdocs have a voice
and are included in the
institution’s governance
structure; My supervisor
invests time to discuss
my progress, as it relates
to my personal goals; I
am part of a nurturing
research environment)
To be completed in
future semesters

To be completed in
future semesters

Postdocs need to have an
engaging postdoc-faculty
advisor experience.
Survey: Assessing how
much time they spend
meeting with their
advisor to discuss their
progress
To be completed in
future semesters

To be completed in
future semesters

The organization needs
to commit resources
Survey: using a Likert
scale, The training and

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 47

aligned with the
academic unit’s and
institutional priorities
and policies for
postdocs.
development of the
postdocs is incorporated
in the school’s priorities
and policies. (Strongly
Agree; Agree; Disagree;
Strongly Disagree;
Decline to Answer)

Conceptual Framework: Interaction of Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organizational Context
The purpose of a conceptual framework is to identify the key factors and relationships
contributing to a research problem (Maxwell, 2013). Maxwell (2013) describes that the
framework is a view through the researcher’s lens of the dynamics based on the literature review,
personal experience, and thought experiments. The theory developed provides an illustration of
previous research, including a road map of how the study can be further examined (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, Maxwell states that the framework informs the researcher’s
methodological approach and design to address the research questions. Thus, the conceptual
framework outlined here includes the current literature on the postdoc experience and the
variables contributing the postdoc experience, performance, and satisfaction. The framework
presents a model for the Postdoctoral Scholar Program to achieve its goal of all postdocs feeling
satisfied with their postdoctoral training and preparation at SU.
According to Creswell (2014), the pragmatist worldview provides context by focusing on
what works and solutions to problems in a specific organizational environment. Applying this
paradigm, the study uses a pluralistic approach through a mixed-methods design to provide
recommendations that will address postdoc satisfaction at SU. The study will use a two-phase
approach using an explanatory sequential mixed methods model, which integrates both
quantitative and qualitative methods (Creswell, 2014). Because this is the first time for the SU
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 48

Postdoctoral Program to be evaluated, it is worthwhile to begin with a quantitative study to
assess if postdoctoral training has a causal effect on postdocs’ satisfaction at SU, and how
effective the Postdoctoral Scholar Program at meeting its goal of 100% postdoc satisfaction.
Applying the principles from Merriam and Tisdell (2016) and Creswell for qualitative research, a
qualitative follow-up allows for an in-depth look at how the variables interact to impact postdoc
satisfaction.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), KMO needs could be addressed concurrently to
effectively achieve performance goals. While each of the assumed KMO influences are
presented previously as separate elements affecting postdoc satisfaction in SU’s Postdoctoral
Program, these three factors are interrelated and do not operate independently. The conceptual
framework presented here demonstrates the ways in which knowledge and motivation interact
within the SU organizational context of all postdocs feeling satisfied with their postdoctoral
training and preparation at the university. Figure 1 below illustrates this conceptual framework.

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 49

Figure 1. Interaction of Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation within Organizational
Cultural Models and Settings.

This figure outlines the relationship between the factors influencing the postdoc
experience with the SU Postdoctoral Program and meeting the stakeholder goal. In the figure,
the larger blue circle represents SU as the organization aimed in the study, along with the
cultural model and settings present at the institution. These cultural elements include
organizational values centered on developing a culture of support within the academic unit and
the larger university. The blue circle shows the cultural settings where values are enacted, such
as, having an engaged postdoc-faculty advisor experience (Haley et al., 2018; Hokanson &
Goldberg, 2018; McAlpine 2018; McConnell et al., 2018), and the institutional policies and
resources aligned with postdoc training and experience (Cavanaugh, 2018; McAlpine, 2018;
Sunshine University
• Cultural Models: Developing a culture of support in their
academic unit and the larger university
• Cultural Settings: Engaging postdoc-faculty relationship;
Committing resources aligned with the academic unit’s
and institutional priorities and policies for postdocs
Postdoctoral Program
Postdoc Knowledge
• Metacognitive knowledge:
identifying career goals;
Individual Develop Plan
• Conceptual knowledge:
Resources available to achieve
career goals
Postdoc Motivation
• V alue: Importance of work to
achieve career goals and the
greater research enterprise
• Self-Efficacy: confidence in
achieving their career goals
100% postdoc satisfaction with
training and preparation at SU
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 50

Hokanson & Goldberg, 2018).
The green circle illustrates the Postdoctoral Program’s training and preparation, which is
the focus of study and the global goal of the program. Within the Postdoctoral Program, the
orange circles represent the knowledge and motivation influences that affect the postdoc
experience. The knowledge influences include metacognitive and conceptual knowledge.
Postdocs need to have the metacognitive knowledge to: identify career goals; apply the
knowledge received from training and mentoring; and reflect on their own research agenda or
individual career path to make meaning, problem solve, and navigate their careers for their next
step (Mahdavi, 2014). For conceptual knowledge, postdocs need to know what resources are
available to achieve their career goals. The motivation influences include the value postdocs
place on their postdoc training for career preparation and its contribution to the greater research
enterprise (McAlpine, 2018). In addition, postdocs require the self-efficacy in achieving their
career goals.
While postdocs receive discipline-specific conceptual knowledge in their training, the
knowledge and motivation influences interact with one another within the organizational context
for the achievement of the stakeholder goal (Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011). The two
orange circles demonstrate the alignment of the knowledge and motivation variables as they
operationalize concurrently advancing towards the stakeholder goal. This study also seeks to
understand the ways in which postdoc knowledge, motivation, and organization influences
interact with each other to best support the postdoc experience. A positive postdoc experience
encompasses quality supervision and training; career mentoring and networking; career
prospects; job security, and a nurturing research environment (Su & Alexander, 2018; McAlpine,
2018). These are necessary factors resulting in increased productivity and higher rates of
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 51

postdoc satisfaction, as represented by an arrow pointing towards the orange rectangle with the
stakeholder goal. In conclusion, this conceptual framework theorizes that if KMO culture within
the SU’s Postdoctoral Program is addressed, the postdocs are in an ideal setting for increasing
productivity, creating a positive training experience, and reaching higher levels of satisfaction.
Summary
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the degree to which the SU Postdoctoral Program
is meeting its goal of all postdocs feeling satisfied with their postdoctoral training and
preparation at the university. The literature review examined gaps in the training and preparation
of postdocs for careers as independent researchers, academics, and leaders in their chosen fields.
The review presented recent literature on the following topics: historical trends in the evolution
of postdocs; current postdoc landscape and the changing postdoc role; postdoc advocacy;
challenges and issues facing the postdoc community; and scientifically based recommended
practices for postdoc training. Following the general research literature, the review presented the
key stakeholder’s group’s KMO influences on postdocs’ satisfaction with training and
preparation to achieve career goals. Lastly, the section ends with the study’s conceptual
framework. Chapter Three outlines the study’s methodological approach.

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 52

Methodology
The purpose of this project is to evaluate the degree to which the SU Postdoctoral
Program is meeting its goal of all postdocs feeling satisfied with their postdoctoral training and
preparation at the university. Applying the framework from the Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap
analysis model, this study will include an analysis will focus on knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences related to achieving the organizational performance goal. While a
complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the
stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis is the postdocs.
As such, the questions that guide this study are the following:
1. To what extent is the Postdoctoral Scholar Program meeting its goal of all postdocs
feeling satisfied with their postdoctoral training and preparation at the university, by July
2020?
2. What is the postdocs’ knowledge and motivation related to the goal of all postdocs
feeling satisfied with their postdoctoral training and preparation at the university by July
2020?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and postdocs’
knowledge and motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of KMO
resources?
This chapter will present the research design and methods for data collection and
analysis. The review begins with a description of the participating stakeholders, survey sampling
criteria, and recruitment strategy. This is followed with the procedure for data collection,
instrumentation, and data analysis. Lastly, there will be a discussion on maximizing validity and
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 53

reliability in the study, and the ethical considerations
Participating Stakeholders
A postdoc is a trainee in residence at the university pursuing advanced study beyond a
doctorate in preparation for a full-time academic and/or research career. While the joint
collaboration of all stakeholders will contribute to the achievement of the overall organizational
goal of providing high quality postdoctoral training and resources, it is important to assess where
the SU postdocs are currently with regard to their performance goal. Therefore, the stakeholders
of focus for this study will be all SU postdocs.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. To be considered for appointment as a postdoc at SU, the individual must
qualify as a postdoc with the following job titles and codes: Postdoctoral Scholar – Research
Associate, Postdoctoral Scholar – Teaching Fellow, Postdoctoral Scholar – Fellowship Trainee,
and Postdoctoral Research Associate are eligible for the study. Limiting the sample to
individuals in the official postdoc job codes is necessary because the term “postdoc” is often
inaccurately used to describe any doctoral graduate participating in advance research.
Criterion 2. Postdocs in residence for no more than five years, with the exception of
Postdoctoral Scholar—Teaching Fellows appointed for no more than one to two years. The
criteria considered SU policy for postdoc appointments and prevented data submission from
individuals who are in a postdoc job code due to an administrative oversight.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
According to Merriam and Tisdell, and Creswell, a large and random sample allows the
researcher to form generalizable findings from the population for which the data is drawn in
quantitative research. In order to assess the KMO influences on the overall postdoc experience
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 54

at SU, the researcher requested that the Postdoc Office administer a single survey to all postdocs
via the Postdoc Office email communication, postdoc digital newsletter, and email
communication to postdoc administrators. The study sent an email request to the the entire
population of eligible postdocs (N=473) to complete a survey. In exchange for the postdoc’s
time, the respondents entered contact information to be entered for a drawing for one of three
$100 Amazon gift cards. Postdocs were only eligible to receive a gift card when the survey was
fully completed.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
A quantitative methodological approach was appropriate for the study because the
numerical data was used to quantify attitudes, opinions, and behaviors, in order to generalize
results from the large sample population. The measurable data was used to formulate facts and
reveal patterns in the in the postdoc experience. The study assessed if postdoctoral training had a
causal effect on postdocs’ satisfaction at SU, and how effective the Postdoctoral Scholar
Program was at meeting its goal of 100% postdoc satisfaction. Postdoc satisfaction was
measured as it relates to each of the KMO influences.
The researcher emailed the entire eligible postdoc population an online survey to a large
random sample of postdocs using Qualtrics software. Pazzaglia, Stafford, and Rodriguez (2016)
recommend careful consideration of when the survey is administered. The survey was
publicized during SU sponsored events for “National Postdoc Appreciation Week” in September.
Institutions from across the country and other parts of the world participated by holding special
events to recognize the significant contributions that postdoctoral scholars make to research and
discovery. The survey was framed as a mechanism for creating awareness and providing a voice
for the postdoc community to improve their training and preparation. Pazzaglia et al. suggest
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 55

that researchers provide enough time (three to four weeks) to yield desired response rates, so the
postdoc survey launch on January 29, 2019 and closed on February 25, 2019 (28 days).
The conceptual framework of the study summarizes that a postdoc’s knowledge,
motivation, along with the organizational culture of the academic unit and the greater institution,
shapes the postdoc experience. The survey studied seven influences on postdoc satisfaction (two
knowledge, two motivation, and three organizational); therefore, 106 items (including three
open-ended items and 20 demographic items) was in the instrument. The survey included a
combination of nominal, ordinal, interval, and open-ended questions. Some items were adopted
from the National Postdoc Survey (McConnell et al., 2018), which is the most comprehensive
validated survey results from over 7,600 postdocs based at 351 academic and non-academic U.S.
institutions in 2016. For example, nominal rating scales asked participants to affirm their group
affiliations to provide data that can be cross-tabulated as independent variables to satisfaction,
such as gender or residency status. Ordinal items in the form of Likert scales asked respondents
to report how closely they agree or disagree with a statement. With regard to examining self-
efficacy and career preparation, the survey asked respondents “How confident are you with
achieving your career goals?” Fink (2013) explains that a 4-point scale diverts respondents from
taking the path of least resistance by selecting a middle option. Therefore, this question had are
four response options (Not Confident, Somewhat Not Confident, Somewhat Confident, Very
Confident). Participants were asked an interval question to collect demographic data about their
annual postdoc income. The response choices were: Less than $48,432; $48,433- $53,433;
$53,434- $58,434; $58,435 - $63,435; $63,436 - $68,436; Greater than $68,436; Other (please
specify); and Decline to Answer. There were several open-ended questions that allowed the
respondents the opportunity to express their opinions on what other resources were beneficial to
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 56

the postdoc experience to guide our action plan.
Data Analysis
Frequencies were calculated. Means and standards deviation were presented to identify
average levels of responses. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted once all survey
results were submitted. For the open-ended questions, the researcher used open coding in the
first phase of analysis, created empirical codes and applied a priori codes from the conceptual
framework. A second phase of analysis was conducted where empirical and a priori codes were
aggregated into analytic/axial codes. In the third phase of data analysis the researcher identified
pattern codes and themes that emerged, in relation to the conceptual framework and study
questions. Given the literature on the factors contributing to the postdoc experience, the study
explored whether is a relationship with overall postdoc satisfaction and the KMO influences
proposed in the study. An inferential statistical analysis was performed to examine significant
differences in gender, race, residency status, or income on postdoc satisfaction, as supported by
the recent literature (Callier & Vanderford, 2014; McAlpine, 2018; Su & Alexander, 2018).
Validity and Reliability
As mentioned in a previous section, the study used some survey items from a recent
validated 2016 National Postdoctoral Survey. Because the researchers in the National
Postdoctoral Survey were in the data analysis phase when the SU survey instrument was
developed, the results and statistical data were not available. Using this approach maintained
validity and reliability of the administered survey in this study of SU postdocs. According to
Salkind (2014), content validity is the property of a survey such that the items sample the
universe of measures for which the survey is designed. In order to maximize content validity,
the proposed instrument was thoroughly reviewed by individuals who are closely familiar to the
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 57

postdoc experience, such as the Director of Postdoctoral Affairs, a SU Data Analyst (formerly a
SU postdoc) and a few SU Faculty. They determined whether the items reflected the breadth of
items related to postdoc satisfaction. To address non-response bias, they provided insight on the
survey design techniques that kept the instrument brief, user-friendly, and informative. In order
to maximize reliability in the study, Salkind recommends that researchers design multiple items
that test for one dimension, known as internal consistency reliability. For example, the SU
postdoc survey asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement to two statements: “My
faculty advisor helps me to develop high profile publications.” and “My faculty advisor helps me
to develop high quality research from the lab/research setting.” In this example, the results
found that the degree that a faculty advisor helped a postdoc to develop high profile publications
is consistent with the degree that a faculty advisor helped a postdoc develop high quality
research from the lab/research setting.
Applying the strategies of Pazzaglia et al. to ensure confidence in the survey sample, this
section outlines the researcher’s methods in the design of the study. Since a large representative
sample of postdocs would be most informative, the researcher collaborated with SU’s Office of
Postdoctoral Affairs and postdoc administrators to promote participation. At the launch of the
online postdoc survey, an email was sent to each postdoc to introduce the purpose of the survey
so the recipient will understand the importance of participating for the future of SU postdoc
community. The researcher clearly stated in the survey instructions that the survey responses
were confidential and the data reporting was aggregated strictly by school or department. An
early check of data recording accuracy during the first week of survey administration was
completed to ensure accuracy in the data collection, along with the identification of possible non-
response bias. For items with non-response bias, these items were examined for moderating
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 58

variables. The tracking of submissions was monitored in the survey tool and the researcher sent
weekly email reminders to the all postdocs through the Office of Postdoctoral Affairs. After 28
days, the survey was closed. In exchange for the postdoc’s time, the postdoc was entered into a
drawing for one of three $100 Amazon gift cards.
Ethics
According to Rubin and Rubin (2012), in exchange for the individual’s full participation
to share information openly, researchers have the responsibility to conduct ethical research to
prevent harm on their study participants. The following section will describe how the study will
address the following ethical issues: informed consent, confidentiality, data access and
collection, and potential risks.
Informed consent. The literature summarizes that informed consent serves as a
mechanism to protect the study participants (Rubin & Rubin, 2012; Glesne, 2011). Informed
consent forms, along with an information sheet, was given to all participants online at the
beginning of the study to outline the purpose of the study and methods used in the study.
Aligned with Krueger and Casey (2009), the form stated that participation is voluntary, that
answers to specific questions may be withheld without penalty, and that they may withdraw from
the research at any time. Documented consent was electronically signed. In addition, the form
included the researcher’s contact information and a statement regarding the researcher’s
relationship to the SU Postdoc Program. The researcher is a staff member of the Office of the
Provost, but is not directly affiliated with the SU Postdoc Program. The recruitment letter stated
that the data will solely be viewed and analyzed by the student researcher. Additionally, the
letter stated that the study had no affiliation with the department/school or the university
administration.
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 59

Confidentiality. Data regarding their postdoc experience at SU was collected, along
with demographic information. Self-administered surveys protected the anonymity and privacy
of the postdocs. All data was kept confidential and stored on a password-protected server, which
will be limited to the researcher. In the data analysis, the data was aggregated to identify overall
trends in the postdoc population. Postdocs entered the raffle for the survey incentive through a
separate google form, which was not linked to the survey.
Potential risks. Since participants remained anonymous, the risks in study participation
was minimal. Rubin and Rubin remind researchers that although the study does not plan to ask
sensitive or highly personal questions, it is possible that a question will be too intrusive or trigger
discomfort. The survey may generate stress for participants. Moreover, if the researcher
observes an egregious act or information shared brings into question compliance policies further
action may be required. The researcher was required to report the incident to proper authorities
while preserving the confidentiality of the parties involved, but the participants were reminded
that there is an option to withdraw from the study at any point with no repercussions.

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 60

Data Collection and Instrumentation
Survey Instrument
The survey was developed with a mix of questions for this study and including some
items from an existing validated survey, National Postdoc Survey designed by McConnell et al.
in 2018. The comprehensive survey examined the interaction of gender, career choice and
mentor impact on postdoc satisfaction from over 7,600 postdocs based at 351 academic and non-
academic U.S. institutions in 2016. When this survey was created, the results from the National
Postdoc Survey were not published. The researcher included ten items from the National
Postdoc Survey (McConnell et al., 2018)––one knowledge item, one satisfaction item, and seven
demographic items. In order to assess for all knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences of this study, an additional 44 knowledge items (including three open-ended), 13
motivation items, and 15 organization items were included. An additional four items focused on
overall satisfaction, seven items on policy recommendations, and thirteen items collected
demographic data. This survey used a 4-point Likert scale to assess the motivation and
organization influences, overall satisfaction, and policy recommendations. The survey
instrument aligned with research questions, constructs, and potential analyses is included in
Appendix I.
Six scales were created in this study and a Cronbach’s alpha reliability analysis was
performed to measure the internal consistency in each scale. Table 5 presents the items that
belong to each scale, along with the Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficient. In summary, the following
scales computed alpha coefficients that suggest the items have relatively high internal
consistency: Motivation – Expectancy Value of Postdoc Training; Motivation- Confidence
related to the six Core Competencies for postdocs; Organizational Model - Culture of Support;
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 61

Cultural Setting – Priorities and Policies; Cultural Setting – Engaged Faculty Advisor; and
Satisfaction. Because the items related to the expectancy value of the job market and confidence
about managing workload computed low alpha coefficients, the items were excluded from a
scale. Instead, the individual frequency data was reported on the following items: (a) I think the
current job market in academia is highly competitive; (b) I feel that there are limited
opportunities for me in the job market; (c) I feel confident about getting my work published; and
(d) I feel able to manage my work-life balance.

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 62

Table 5
Scales and Reliability Estimates
Scale and Items α
Satisfaction
Postdoctoral training and experience
SU Professional development offerings
Faculty advisor experience
Academic department and school experience
SU academic institution

0.878
Motivation- Expectancy Value of Postdoc Training
My postdoc training has helped me achieve my career goals.
I expect that my postdoc training will help me obtain a job in academia.
I expect that my postdoc training will help me become an independent
investigator.

0.840
Motivation- Confidence in six Core Competencies
Discipline-specific conceptual knowledge
Research skill development
Communication skills
Professionalism
Leadership and management skills
Responsible conduct of research

0.786
Organizational Model – Culture of Support
Supporting postdocs is valued in my academic department/school.
Supporting postdocs (i.e. benefits, advisement on grievances, gym) is
valued at the administrative-level or university-wide SU.

0.875
Cultural Setting – Priorities and Policies
The training and development of postdocs is incorporated into my
department/school’s priorities and policies.
The training and development of postdocs (i.e. professional
development, research/travel grants, tuition remission) is incorporated
into SU’s priorities and policies.

0.888
Cultural Setting – Engaged Faculty Advisor
My faculty advisor helps me to:
Become an independent investigator
Develop a plan that considers my personal, family, or life goals
Develop an Individual Development Plan (IDP) so I have a clear path
towards career independence
Develop high profile publications
Develop high quality research from the lab/research setting
0.944
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 63

Network with my peers
Learn about new professional development resources
Think about my career progress and goals
Think about my personal, family, or life goals
Think about my research progress and goals

Survey Procedures
The study received Institutional Review Board approval in late November 2018. In order
to maximize content validity, the survey was reviewed by individuals who are closely familiar to
the postdoc experience, such as the Director of Postdoctoral Affairs, a SU Data Analyst
(formerly a SU postdoc) and a few SU Faculty. They provided input on whether the survey
items aligned with the numerous influences related to postdoc satisfaction. Their feedback
provided the researcher suggestions on how to ensure a robust analysis and be helpful to the
institution. Two of the content experts had substantial experience in survey design, which helped
the researcher yield greater participation (i.e., item numbering, question format, presentation,
survey length). Before the survey was distributed to postdocs, the researcher received final
approval from the Executive Vice Provost.
In order to obtain a representative sample, the researcher implemented a recruitment
strategy that invited all postdocs to participate in the survey. In late January 2019, the researcher
sent recruitment letters to postdocs via the Office of Postdoctoral Affairs digital newsletter and
postdoc staff administrators. The sample recruitment letters are in Appendix II. Since the Office
of Postdoctoral Affairs had contact information in their database, all eligible postdocs received a
recruitment letter through the digital newsletter postdoc staff administrators were asked to
advertise the postdoc study in their departments. The recruitment letter provided information on
the study’ purpose, survey format, participant anonymity and incentives, and a link to the
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 64

Qualtrics survey. Lastly, in an effort to increase participation the researcher posted flyers in
campus buildings where many postdocs conduct research. The flyers had a QR code for the
postdoc to scan and participate through a mobile device. The survey was open twenty-eight
days.
Participants
Before the launch of the survey, the Office of Postdoctoral affairs reported that there
were 473 postdocs at SU. The researcher determined that surveys with 20% or less completion
did not answer item 11 (“Did you complete an Individual Development Plan (IDP) with your
faculty advisor?”). Therefore, the researcher excluded 37 records from the data set. Survey data
included surveys completed by 169 postdocs (including 28 partial responses), a response rate of
35.7%. The SU Office of Postdoctoral Affairs had demographic data available for the postdoc
population in the following categories: gender, underrepresented minorities, residency status, and
the SU school distribution. Currently, there are about 473 postdocs employed at the University.
Of the total postdoc population, 54% are female and 46% are male. Forty-three percent are
domestic, while 57% are international. About 10% are from historically underrepresented
populations in the United States. The majority of SU postdocs are conducting research in the
natural sciences of the College Letters, Arts and Sciences, and the School of Medicine. Table 6
provides a demographic summary of the study sample, including characteristics based on gender,
age, race and ethnicity, residency status, year as a SU postdoc, annual gross income, and school
affiliation. The researcher noted that the sample included a slight overrepresentation of
underrepresented minorities (11.3%) as compared to the total SU postdoc population. The
researcher also found that almost 12% of the respondents reported earning less than the postdoc
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 65

salary minimum, which is in violation of the university policy for postdocs if the salary reported
is accurate.

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 66

Table 6
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
Characteristic n %
Participants 169
Gender
Male
Female
Non-binary
No response
69
61
1
38
40.8
36.1
0.6
22.5
Age
under 30 years old
30 to 35 years old
over 35 years old
No response
13
80
34
42
7.7
47.3
20.1
24.9
Race and Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino
Latin American/Latino
Mexican/Mexican American/Chicano
No response

15
5
9
35

8.9
3
5.3
20.7
White
European
Middle Eastern
Other White
Asian
Chinese/Chinese American
Japanese/ Japanese American
Korean/Korean American
Pakistani/East Indian
Vietnamese
Other Asian
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
American Indian or Alaskan Native
No response
60
46
4
12
48
22
3
5
16
1
1
3
1
0
59
35.5
27.2
2.4
7.1
28.4
13
1.8
3
9.5
0.6
0.6
1.8
0.6

35

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 67

Residency Status
F1 Visa
H1B visa
J1 visa
J2 visa
Permanent Resident
U.S. Citizen
No response

14
5
50
3
6
57
34
8.2
3
29.6
1.8
3.6
33.7
20.1
Year as a SU Postdoc
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
No response

65
37
20
12
4
31
38.5
21.9
11.8
7.1
2.4
18.3
Income
$48,433- $53,433
$53,434- $58,434
$58,435 - $63,435
$63,436 - $68,436
Greater than $68,436
Less than $48,432
No response

49
26
17
13
13
20
31
29
15.4
10.1
7.7
7.7
11.8
18.3
School
College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
School of Medicine of SU
School of Engineering
School of Gerontology
School of Dentistry of SU
School of Pharmacy
School of Education
School of Social Work
Office of the Provost
School of Law
School of Cinematic Arts
School of Public Policy
No response

47
43
13
8
6
4
3
3
2
1
1
1
37
27.8
25.4
7.7
4.7
3.6
2.4
1.8
1.8
1.2
0.6
0.6
0.6
21.9

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 68

Data Analysis
Data was exported from Qualtrics to SPSS for analysis. The data was cleaned by
removing 37 incomplete records where the respondent did not answer item 11, (“Did you
complete an Individual Development Plan (IDP) with your faculty advisor?”). Survey data
(N=169) yielded a response rate of 35.7%. Since different types of data (i.e. nominal, ordinal,
and interval) were analyzed, it was necessary to clean and code the data into a uniform set of
numerical values in relation to the specific item. Once the data was cleaned and coded, a
quantitative analysis was computed to outline the descriptive statistics.
Quantitative Analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to examine the frequency distribution of each item in the
study. Next, the researcher organized the survey items by theoretical construct and KMO
influence to develop a scale for each construct. The constructs with a reliability coefficient less
than .70 were excluded as a scale, instead the frequencies were reported individually. A
Cronbach’s alpha reliability analysis was performed to measure the internal consistency of each
scale: Motivation – Expectancy Value of Postdoc Training; Motivation- Confidence in the six
Core Competencies; Organizational Model - Culture of Support; Cultural Setting – Priorities and
Policies; Cultural Setting – Engaged Faculty Advisor; and Satisfaction. Composite scores were
created for each scale and Table 7 presents the descriptive statistics for each.

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 69

Table 7
Descriptive Statistics of the Six Scales
Scale n M SD
Motivation - Expectancy Value of Postdoc
Training
128 3.16 0.68
Motivation - Confidence in six Core Competencies 97 3.64 0.39
Organizational Model - Culture of Support 127 2.98 0.77
Cultural Setting – Priorities and Policies 130 2.84 0.81
Cultural Setting – Engaged Faculty Advisor 114 2.97 0.75
Satisfaction 128 3.14 0.73

A Pearson’s r correlation analysis was calculated to measure the strength and direction of
the relationship between the scales. Table 8 presents the correlations and statistical significance
(p < 0.05 = *; p < 0.01 = **). The coefficients indicated that the correlations were all positive.
Confidence in the six core competencies for postdocs displayed the least correlation with all the
scales. The value of postdoctoral training showed a moderate correlation with the respondents’
perceptions regarding the culture of support at SU and the priorities and policies that exist to
support postdocs. The value of postdoc training had highest correlation with having an engaged
faculty advisor. The respondents’ evaluation of the culture of support for postdocs was highly
correlated with the priorities and policies for postdocs and having an engaged faculty advisor.
The priorities and policies that exist for postdocs had strongest correlations with having an
engaged faculty advisor. In summary, overall satisfaction had highest correlations with the value
of postdoc training; culture of support for postdocs in the academic units and the broader SU
community; having priorities and policies to support postdocs; and having an engaged faculty
advisor.

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 70

Table 8
Correlation Matrix showing Pearson’s r for Satisfaction and KMO influences
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Motivation - Expectancy Value
of Postdoc Training
-
2. Motivation - Confidence
related to the six Core
Competencies for postdocs
.33** -
3. Organizational Model - Culture
of Support
.35** 0.24* -
4. Cultural Setting – Priorities
and Policies
.46** 0.29** 0.77** -
5. Cultural Setting – Engaged
Faculty Advisor
.64** 0.29* 0.53** 0.68** -
6. Satisfaction .55** 0.33** 0.54** 0.66** 0.70** -
Note. *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the
0.01 level (2-tailed)

Qualitative Analysis
In order to validate the assumed influences, the survey included three open-ended
questions. The researcher used open coding as the first step of analysis, including the application
of empirical and a priori codes from the conceptual framework. Using the literature review, the
researcher used axial coding to identify pattern codes and themes that emerged in relation to the
conceptual framework and research questions (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Harding, 2013).
Applying the approach of Corbin and Strauss (2008), analytic memos were drafted to process the
open-ended comments and notes on the coding process.

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 71

Results and Findings
Satisfaction
Based on the satisfaction scale, postdocs are generally satisfied at SU (M = 3.14, SD =
0.73), as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 illustrates that over 80% of respondents (n=141) reported
they were satisfied (very or somewhat) with their overall their postdoctoral training and
experience, while nearly 20% of respondents reported they were dissatisfied (slightly or not at all
satisfied). Figure 3 shows that a similar proportion of postdocs reported satisfaction with their
faculty advisor experience (n=139), and academic department or school (n=137; Figure 4), and
SU as an academic institution (n=142; Figure 5). However, only two-thirds of postdocs (n=133)
were satisfied with SU professional development offerings and one-third were dissatisfied
(Figure 6).
Figure 2. Postdoc overall satisfaction. This figure illustrates the responses for item #
28a: How would you rate your overall satisfaction with your SU postdoc training and
experience?

7.8
12.1
41.8
38.3
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
Not at all satisfied Slightly satisfied Somewhat satisfied Very satisfied
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 72

Figure 3. Postdoc satisfaction with their faculty advisor. This figure illustrates the
responses for item # 28c: How would you rate your overall satisfaction with your
faculty advisor?

Figure 4. Postdoc satisfaction related to their academic department or school. This
figure illustrates the responses for item # 28d: How would you rate your overall
satisfaction with your academic department or school?

8.6
7.2
29.5
54.7
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Not at all satisfied Slightly satisfied Somewhat satisfied Very satisfied
3.6
16.1
37.2
43.1
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Not at all satisfied Slightly satisfied Somewhat satisfied Very satisfied
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 73

Figure 5. Postdoc satisfaction with the University. This figure illustrates the
responses for item # 28e: How would you rate your overall satisfaction with SU as an
academic institution?

Figure 6. Postdoc satisfaction with professional development offerings. This figure
illustrates the responses for item # 28b: How would you rate your overall satisfaction
with SU professional development offerings?

An open-ended question asking respondents, “When joining SU, what were your
expectations for your postdoc experience?” and a subsequent survey item further supported the
postdoc satisfaction findings. Of the 130 comments collected, 40% postdocs stated that there
expectations were to: 1) gain additional research training to prepare for the job market and 2)
4.3
14.2
41.8
39.7
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
Not at all satisfied Slightly satisfied Somewhat satisfied Very satisfied
9.0
24.8
36.8
29.3
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
Not at all satisfied Slightly satisfied Somewhat satisfied Very satisfied
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 74

networking and developing new collaborations. With regard to gaining additional research
training, a postdoc stated:
I expected that I would gain more knowledge in my research area. Also, I expected that I
would get involved in other different areas of research so that I can broaden my research
interest. I thought I would publish several research papers in peer-review journals.
Another postdoc described that networking and developing new collaboration was an expectation
for their postdoc experience, for example:
I expected to be working as part of a team, which I was introduced to prior to starting. I
expected to be deeply involved with ongoing projects and be able to work collaboratively
to take the initiative to start my own based on my interests. I was given an extensive run
down of current and possible projects and was told I'd be applying for my own funding
and making significant contributions to the team.
The next survey item, “Is your SU postdoc experience meeting your expectations? Please
explain.” revealed that 90% of respondents indicated that their SU postdoc experience was
meeting their expectations at least partially or completely. For instance, a postdoc explained:
My long-term goal is to build my expertise in the field of biophysics. Projects I am
currently working on require combination of a knowledge in biology and physics along
with mathematical modelling. It encourages me to acquire more information so that I can
understand the topics clearly and execute successful experiments. Also, I am welcome to
contribute to the ongoing projects in the lab. That helps practice to propose new
hypotheses and test them. In addition, I am being trained to publish the experimental
data in nearest future. It will definitely help me while applying for job position.
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 75

However, the third most common theme was that some postdocs reported a lack of collaboration
with their academic unit and the greater research community. To illustrate, a postdoc
commented, “I am working on my project and am really satisfied with it, but the interaction with
the community of scholars is scattered and not really satisfactory.” Another postdoc reported, “I
am generally satisfied with the postdoc experience, though do not particularly feel included in
the university community or department.”
Overall satisfaction had highest correlations with the value of postdoc training (r = 0.55,
p < .01); culture of support for postdocs in the academic units and the broader SU community (r
= 0.54, p < .01); having priorities and policies to support postdocs (r = 0.66, p < .01); and having
an engaged faculty advisor (r = 0.70, p < .01).
An independent samples t-test was used to determine if there are significant differences
by gender, race, residency status, or income on postdoc satisfaction. For gender, the survey
identified three variables (male, female, and non-binary). Due to a low number of non-binary
respondents, non-binary was excluded in the t-test for gender. The t-test for gender indicated
that there were no significant differences between males (M =3.08, SD =0.66) and females (M
=3.28, SD =0.79), t (113) =-1.48, p = .142. Although underrepresented minorities
(Hispanic/Latino, Black/African American, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander) were slightly
overrepresented in the sample, the study combined the underrepresented minorities and Asians to
form a Non-White group. The t-test for White (M =3.09, SD =0.71) versus Non-White postdocs
(M =3.25, SD =0.81) showed that there were no significant differences on levels of satisfaction
t (-1.06), p = .29. For residency status, the survey item included five variables (U.S. Citizen,
Permanent Resident, H1B Visa, J1 Visa, and F1 Visa). The study examined differences between
one group of U.S. citizenship or permanent residency versus a group of visa holders. The t-test
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 76

results determined there were no significant differences between the U.S. Citizen/Permanent
Resident postdoc groups (M =3.28, SD =0.68) versus the Visa postdoc group (M =3.04, SD
=0.76), t (119) =1.82, p = .07 on satisfaction. The survey collected the respondent’s current
individual gross (pre-tax) income using six variables (Less than $48,432; $48,433 - $53,433;
$53,434 - $58,434; $58,435 - $63,435; $63,436 - $68,436, and Greater than $68,436). The t-test
compared postdocs earning $53,433 or less (M =3.17, SD =0.73) versus postdocs earning
$53,434 or more (M =3.09, SD =0.74), t (122) =0.68, p = .50 and the results indicated there were
no significant differences on satisfaction. Because the respondents were mostly in the first or
second year of the postdoc training, the study combined the third, fourth, and fifth year postdocs
as one group to compare the mean satisfaction between the groups. A one-way analysis of
variance was conducted to compare the effect of the year of the postdoc (1
st
, 2
nd
, 3
rd
– 5
th
year)
on satisfaction. The results reported no significant differences between the groups, F (2, 119) =
2.69, p = .07. The following section will discuss results related to the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences on satisfaction.
Knowledge Influences
Knowledge of resources to achieve career goals. Ninety-nine percent of respondents
(n=168) identified a primary long-term career goal. Figure 7 represents the variety of interests in
the sample population, while over 50% identified the tenure-track as their career goal.
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 77

Figure 7. Primary long-term career goal. This figure illustrates the responses for item
# 3: What was your primary long-term career goal when you started your SU postdoc?

There are several types of resources available at SU to help postdocs achieve their career goals
and survey collected their awareness of these opportunities. Of the survey respondents (n=142),
27% were unaware of university-wide professional development opportunities (i.e., Postdoc
Appreciation Week, Postdoctoral Association); 33% (n=129) were unaware of professional
development funding (i.e., conference funding, research grant); 21% (n=151) were unaware of
postdoc support services (i.e., grievance process, Postdoc Orientation); and only 10% (n=139)
were unaware of the university’s postdoc health benefits. Subsequently, the postdocs were
surveyed about their knowledge of 18 policies or practices recommended by the National
Postdoctoral Association that have been implemented at SU. As shown in Table 9, 11 of the 18
items listed revealed that 50% or more of the 154 respondents were unaware these policies or
practices were offered at SU.

Academia-
Clinical Professor
4%
Academia-
Tenure-Track
54%
Academia-
Research
Professor
21%
Industrial
Research
11%
Other
10%
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 78

Table 9
Knowledge of Postdoc Policies and Practices (n=154)
# Item Yes No
1 A centralized postdoc appointment process 35% 65%
2 A Diversity Office to ensure diversity and inclusion 49% 51%
3 A minimum baseline salary/stipend, plus a salary/stipend scale 62% 38%
4 A postdoc listserv 34% 66%
5 A social media outlet 24% 76%
6
A Postdoctoral Association that actively engages and
represents postdocs 62% 38%
7 A postdoctoral handbook 35% 65%
8
A Postdoctoral Office that actively engages and represents
postdocs 72% 28%
9 A timeline for postdoctoral transition to independence 16% 84%
10 An orientation program for new postdocs 74% 26%
11
Administrative policies that adopt a clear definition of a
postdoc 33% 67%
12
Administrative policies that allow access to university
facilities such as the fitness center, library, as well as career
and professional development resources and university events 60% 40%
13
Administrative policies to deal with issues concerning
postdocs (i.e. compensation, visa status, grievances) 49% 51%
14
Benefits package to postdocs, comparable to that which is
received by standard employees whether national or
international at the same institution 67% 33%
15 Career counseling and development services 40% 60%
16
Effective mentoring through career planning and an annual
review 30% 70%
17 Family-friendly benefits to all postdocs 49% 51%
18
Professional development and advanced training for postdocs
on topics related to job market demands (i.e. writing grant
proposals and mastering the principles of effective resource
management) 49% 51%

Self-regulation skills for goal-setting and career planning. While 99% of postdocs
(n=169) identified a career goal, 29% completed an Individual Development Plan (IDP) with
their faculty advisor, 46% did not complete IDP, and 25% selected “I do not know what an IDP
is.” Furthermore, of the postdocs that completed an IDP (n=48), 65% found it helpful, 25%
Slightly Helpful, and 10% reported that the IDP was not helpful. When asked, “To what extent
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 79

has the IDP been helpful in identifying a path toward your goals?”, the main themes were that
the IDP was helpful because it was: 1) a planning document to monitor progress 2) a document
to for goal-setting and setting clear expectations and, 3) a tool to obtain feedback from my
mentor. For example, a postdoc shared that the “IDP helped me to develop a pathway for
designing long term goals in my research areas and next career goals.” Another respondent
expressed, “I knew my goals/trajectory already; the process was mainly helpful in
communicating my plans to supervisors.”
Although the postdocs were able to identify a long-term career goal, over 70% did not
have a written plan with their faculty advisor that established clear expectations and objective
criteria to achieve career goals. Likewise, many postdocs are unaware of professional
development opportunities, policies and practices, and support services offered by the university
for postdocs. The motivation influences related to expectancy and value and self-efficacy will be
discussed in the next section.
Motivation Influences
Perceived value of postdoc training to achieve career goals. The respondents placed a
moderately high value in their postdoc training for career preparation, as shown in the motivation
– expectancy value of postdoc training scale (M = 3.16, SD = 0.68). As seen in Figure 8 - 10,
over 80% consistently reported agree to strongly agree with the three items in the motivation –
expectancy value of postdoc training scale.
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 80

Figure 8. Motivation – expectancy value of postdoc training scale. This figure
illustrates the responses for item #22a: My postdoc training has helped me achieve
my career goals.

Figure 9. Motivation – expectancy value of postdoc training scale. This figure
illustrates the responses for item #22b: I expect that my postdoc training will help
me obtain a job in academia.

5.1
6.5
60.9
27.5
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
4.9
6.3
48.6
40.1
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 81

Figure 10. Motivation – expectancy value of postdoc training scale. This figure
illustrates the responses for item #22e: I expect that my postdoc training will help
me become an independent investigator.

Additionally, two items were not part of a scale. For “I think the current job market in academia
is highly competitive,” 17% agreed and 81% strongly agreed (n=144) with this statement. By
the same token, “I feel that there are limited opportunities for me in the job market,” resulted in
38% agreed and 42% strongly agree (n=146). The motivation – expectancy value of postdoc
training was highly correlated with overall satisfaction (r = 0.55, p < .01) and having an engaged
faculty advisor (r = 0.64, p < .01).
Confidence about achieving career goals. The score on the confidence scale in the six
core competencies for postdocs was found to be high (M = 3.64, SD = 0.39). Figures 11 - 16
demonstrated that over 95% of postdocs (n=131, except for several competencies noted below)
reported confident (somewhat confident to very confident) in each of six areas: (a) Discipline-
specific conceptual knowledge; (b) Research skill development; (c) Communication skills
(n=128); (d) Professionalism; (e) Leadership and management skills (n=122); and (f)
Responsible conduct of research (n=127). In response to items 22f and 22g not included in a
confidence scale (Figures 17 - 18), 51% of postdocs agreed and 35% strongly agreed (n=143)
5.1
10.9
46.0
38.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 82

with “I feel confident about getting my work published,” and 48% agreed and 22% strongly
agreed (n=144) with “I feel able to manage my work-life balance.” These findings present a gap
in postdoc confidence. Although postdocs perceived to have high confidence in skills related to
their research, their self-efficacy in publishing their research is lower. Being able to maintain
balance between their work and personal life seemed to be more of a challenge for postdocs.

Figure 11. Confidence in the six core competencies scale. This figure illustrates the
responses for item #23a: How confident are you in your capabilities based on your SU
postdoc training, as it relates to Discipline-specific conceptual knowledge?

0.8
32.1
67.2
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Not Confident at all Somewhat Confident Very Confident
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 83

Figure 12. Confidence in the six core competencies scale. This figure illustrates the
responses for item #23b: How confident are you in your capabilities based on your
SU postdoc training, as it relates to Research skill development?

Figure 13. Confidence in the six core competencies scale. This figure illustrates the
responses for item #23c: How confident are you in your capabilities based on your SU
postdoc training, as it relates to Communication skills?

38.9
61.1
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Somewhat Confident Very Confident
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Not Confident at all Somewhat Confident Very Confident
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 84

Figure 14. Confidence in the six core competencies scale. This figure illustrates the
responses for item #23d: How confident are you in your capabilities based on your
SU postdoc training, as it relates to Professionalism?

Figure 15. Confidence in the six core competencies scale. This figure illustrates the
responses for item #23e: How confident are you in your capabilities based on your SU
postdoc training, as it relates to Leadership and management skills?

1.5
33.6
64.9
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Not Confident at all Somewhat Confident Very Confident
4.1
50.0
45.9
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Not Confident at all Somewhat Confident Very Confident
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 85

Figure 16. Confidence in the six core competencies scale. This figure illustrates the
responses for item #23f: How confident are you in your capabilities based on your SU
postdoc training, as it relates to Responsible conduct of research?

Figure 17. Confidence in publishing research. This figure illustrates the responses for
item #22f: I feel confident about getting my work published.

0.8
27.6
71.7
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Not Confident at all Somewhat Confident Very Confident
3.5
9.7
51.4
35.4
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 86

Figure 18. Confidence in managing work-life balance. This figure illustrates the
responses for item #22g: I feel able to manage my work-life balance.

Organizational Influences
Culture of support. The postdocs reported a moderately high perception of the
organizational culture as it relates to postdoc support (M = 2.98 SD = 0.77). This scale paired
with the priorities and policies scale had the highest correlation of the six scales, (r=0.77, p<.01).
In response to “Supporting postdocs is valued in my academic department/school,” 30% of
responses indicated strongly agree, 53% agree, 12% disagree, and 5% strong disagree (n=136).
In reference to whether postdoc support is valued at the administrative-level or university-wide,
21% of respondents strongly agree, 52% agree, 17% disagree, and 10% strongly disagree.
Engaging postdoc-faculty advisor relationships. Of the 142 responses collected, 60%
strongly agree, 35% agree, and 5% disagree with this statement, “It is important to me to have an
engaged faculty advisor during my postdoc training.” When asked “How often do you meet with
your advisor to discuss your progress toward meeting your career goals,” postdocs (n=137)
indicated a wide spectrum of responses as shown in Figure 19. The survey findings
demonstrated
6.9
23.4
48.3
21.4
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 87

Figure 19. Number of postdoc-faculty advisor meetings. This figure illustrates the
responses for item #25 about how often postdocs meet with their advisors.

that postdocs have a moderately high perception on the engaged faculty advisor scale (M = 2.97
SD = 0.75), which included 10 items presented in Figures 20 - 29 related to how a faculty
advisor helps a postdoc reach their career and personal goals. The engaged faculty advisor scale
was highly correlated with the priorities and policies scale (r = 0.68, p < .01)

Figure 20. Level of engagement in postdoc-faculty advisor relationship. This figure
illustrates the responses for item #27b: My faculty advisor helps me to develop a plan
that considers my personal, family, or life goals.
14.2
23.9
32.8
29.1
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 88

Figure 21. Level of engagement in postdoc-faculty advisor relationship. This figure
illustrates the responses for item #27c: My faculty advisor helps me to develop an
Individual Development Plan (IDP) so I have a clear path towards career
independence.

Figure 22 Level of engagement in postdoc-faculty advisor relationship. This figure
illustrates the responses for item #27d: My faculty advisor helps me to develop high
profile publications.

17.5
28.6
34.1
19.8
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
8.1
7.4
44.9
39.7
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 89

Figure 23. Level of engagement in postdoc-faculty advisor relationship. This figure
illustrates the responses for item #27e: My faculty advisor helps me to develop high
quality research from the lab/research setting.

Figure 24. Level of engagement in postdoc-faculty advisor relationship. This figure
illustrates the responses for item #27h: My faculty advisor helps me to think about my
career progress and goals.

3.9
4.7
49.6
41.9
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
10.4
12.7
46.3
30.6
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 90

Figure 25. Level of engagement in postdoc-faculty advisor relationship. This figure
illustrates the responses for item #27i: My faculty advisor helps me think about my
personal, family, or life goals.

Figure 26. Level of engagement in postdoc-faculty advisor relationship. This figure
illustrates the responses for item #27j: My faculty advisor helps me think about my
research progress and goals.

15.4
23.1
39.2
22.3
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
7.4 7.4
45.2
40.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 91

Figure 27. Level of engagement in postdoc-faculty advisor relationship. This figure
illustrates the responses for item #27a: My faculty advisor helps me to become an
independent investigator.

Figure 28. Level of engagement in postdoc-faculty advisor relationship. This figure
illustrates the responses for item #27f: My faculty advisor helps me to network with
my peers.

4.6
12.3
46.9
36.2
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
9.0
14.2
43.3
33.6
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 92

Figure 29. Level of engagement in postdoc-faculty advisor relationship. This figure
illustrates the responses for item #27g: My faculty advisor helps me to learn about
new professional development resources.

Resources aligned with priorities and policies for postdocs. The postdocs reported a
moderately high perception about the alignment of organization’s policies and priorities with
postdoc support scale (M = 2.84 SD = 0.81). This scale paired with the culture of support scale
had the highest correlation of the six scales, (r=0.77, p<.01). In response to “The training and
development of postdocs is incorporated into my department/school’s priorities and policies,”
23% of responses indicated strongly agree, 46% agree, 24% disagree, and 7% strongly disagree
(n=138). When asked about the respondent’s agreement with “The training and development of
postdocs is incorporated into SU’s priorities and policies,” 21% of respondents strongly agree,
49% agree, 22% disagree, and 8% strongly disagree (n=130).
Multiple Regression Analysis
Based on the conceptual framework in the study, the interaction between the knowledge,
motivation, and organization influences on postdoc satisfaction was studied using a multiple
regression analysis. The analysis tested if the value of postdoctoral training, confidence in the
12.2
19.8
41.2
26.7
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 93

six core competencies, organizational culture of support, priorities, and policies supporting
postdocs, and having an engaged faculty advisor significantly predicted postdoc satisfaction.
The results of the regression model indicated that these five scales explained 60% of the variance
(R
2
= 0.596, F(5,61) = 17.98, p < 0.01). It was found that having an engaged faculty advisor is
the only statistically significant predictor of postdoc satisfaction (β = 0.42, p < 0.01). A
summary of the statistics for the regression model is included in Table 10.
Table 10
Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Postdoc Satisfaction (N = 67)

Model
Variable B SE B β t
Value 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.90
Confidence 0.12 0.15 0.07 0.79
Organizational
Culture
0.17 0.12 0.17 1.41
Priorities and
Policies
0.18 0.13 0.19 1.40
Engaged Faculty
Advisor
0.41 0.13 0.42 3.23
R
2
.596
17.98*

F for change in R
2

p<.001*

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 94

Recommendations
The study used the KMO framework to examine the influences for postdoc satisfaction,
which found that postdocs were highly motivated and possessed a high level of self-efficacy
about achieving career goals. As a result, only two K influences (declarative and metacognitive)
were validated and the M & O influences examined were not validated as a gap in postdoctoral
training experience. Therefore, this section outlines the recommendations focused on the
knowledge gaps informed by the study. Next, the section will provide a detailed summary of a
professional development training program that will be developed to address the gap in
knowledge that is impacting postdoc satisfaction. The program will address two learning goals
through a series of four one-hour in-person training sessions offered once per semester focused
on: 1) providing information about resources (i.e., information about professional development,
networking, funding opportunities, and support services) that will help postdocs achieve career
goals and, 2) providing an interactive training to postdocs on developing self-regulation
strategies for goal setting, planning, and the mentoring experience. Postdocs will have full
access to the recorded training sessions on the postdoc website, which is the main portal for
postdoc information and resources. Lastly, the implementation of the Program will be evaluated
using tools based on the Kirkpatrick New World (2016) model of evaluation. Immediately
following the program implementation, a blended evaluation method will be used for the
participants’ reaction to the program (Level One) and learning (Level Two). Three months after
the program implementation, facilitators will evaluate whether the training resulted in changes in
postdoc behavior and improved outcomes related to the overall postdoc training experience.

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 95

Recommendations for Practice
The analysis of the study validated two knowledge influences, one declarative and
another metacognitive. The knowledge influences are based on a literature review on postdoc
satisfaction and research productivity, including the 2014 National Postdoctoral Association
guidelines of recommended practices for institutions supporting postdocs and substantial
research on improving learning and organizational performance. Clark and Estes (2008) and
Rueda (2011) suggest that providing knowledge resources increases individual productivity.
According to Krathwohl (2002), declarative knowledge, also referred to as conceptual
knowledge, is a complex and organized form of knowledge that allows an individual to examine
interrelationships between elements and determine meaning. Postdocs present research results
and new ideas when publishing their discipline-specific conceptual knowledge in peer-reviewed
journal articles. Metacognitive knowledge is the awareness of oneself as a learner and about the
strategies required for the task (Rueda, 2011). For a postdoc, metacognitive knowledge is the
ability to reflect on the discipline-specific knowledge, professional development gained through
training and mentoring, and apply it to an individual plan.
The process of applying knowledge and skills successfully to tasks contributes to the
overall engagement level of the team member, which leads to improved individual success and
overall organizational performance (Mayer, 2011, McGee & Johnson, 2015). The first
recommendation is to increase the awareness of postdoc resources available at SU. Although the
findings did not indicate a gap in the area of faculty advisor engagement, the only predictive
influence for postdoc satisfaction was the engagement of faculty advisors. Thus, the gap in
metacognitive knowledge will be addressed in the second recommendation on how to foster and
maintain the number of engaging postdoc-faculty advisor relationships.
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 96

Increasing Knowledge of Resources
The results and findings of this study indicated that postdocs need more declarative
knowledge about the resources available to achieve their career goals. A recommendation rooted
in information processing theory and cognitive load theory was selected to close this declarative
knowledge gap. According to Schraw and McCrudden (2006), how individuals organize
knowledge influences how they learn and apply what they know. Applying the work of Mayer
(2011), frequent dissemination of information spread out over shorter learning sessions is more
effective for learning. This would suggest that providing learners with easily accessible
information aids would help postdocs clearly identify important content to create meaning and
application to individual goals. The recommendation is for postdoc resources (i.e., information
about professional development, networking with Postdoc Association, funding opportunities,
and support services) to be strategically publicized in manageable parts on SU’s communication
channels (i.e. website, monthly newsletter, and orientation) to help postdocs achieve their career
goals. Because some postdocs expressed the value of Postdoc Orientation in the survey, the
University should consider making orientation mandatory as part of on boarding and/or
recording orientation to increase access to information. Another suggestion is for the Office of
Postdoctoral Affairs to hold open forums on a semester basis to answer general questions from
postdocs.
Applying the work of Clark and Estes (2008) and Rueda (2011) on improving
performance, it is vital that the university provide postdocs the knowledge resources to increase
individual productivity and achieve their career goals. The professional development
opportunities and support services provides postdocs information to navigate their career path.
Numerous studies reveal that postdocs experience lower satisfaction and productivity because
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 97

there is a lack of career prospects, thus postdocs who receive more information on career
preparation report more positive postdoc training experiences (Hokanson & Goldberg, 2018;
McAlpine, 2018; Haley et al., 2018; Callier & Vanderford, 2014; Scaffidi & Berman, 2011; Wei,
Levin & Sabik, 2012; McAlpine & Emmioğlu, 2015; Gibbs, McGready & Griffin, 2015; van der
Weijden, Teelken, de Boer, & Drost, 2016). Using Sigma Xi scientific research society’s data,
Wei, Levin, and Sabik (2012) explore the relationship between career preparation and outcomes.
The researchers discover that an increased professional networking leads to greater satisfaction,
increased research productivity, and improved career trajectories. Therefore, providing clearly
stated and accessible information about career resources and support services will help postdocs
attain their career goals.
Fostering and Maintaining Engagement of Faculty Advisors
Because the regression analysis determined that the only predictive influence for postdoc
satisfaction was the engagement of faculty advisors, it is highly suggested for the administration
to develop a plan to support postdoc and faculty advisor mentoring. This section presents a two-
way model for fostering and maintaining excellence in postdoc mentoring, which are: (a)
providing resources to faculty to achieve excellence in mentoring and (b) providing resources to
postdocs for increasing self-regulation skills for goal-setting and navigating the mentoring
process, using an Individual Development Plan (IDP).
Providing resources to faculty to achieve excellence in mentoring. Yough and
Anderman (2006) concluded that creating a community of learners where everyone supports
everyone else’s attempts to learn encourages learning and performance. This suggests that the
postdoc experience improves when the institution takes greater accountability in designating
faculty resources in achieving the common goal of supporting postdocs. The recommendation is
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 98

for central administration to commit resources in support of postdoc mentoring. According to
the recent literature, the postdoc training experience could be improved by focusing the
leadership’s attention to the organization’s cultural settings, such as the current administrative
practices and guidelines in support of postdocs (Cavanaugh, 2018; McAlpine, 2018). Prior
research (Davis, 2009; Miller & Feldman, 2015; Scaffidi & Berman, 2011) determined that the
postdoc experience could be improved within the smaller academic unit (i.e. lab, department,
program, center, or institute) through targeted professional development resources and
mentoring. Committing resources to faculty, such as developing guidelines on mentoring
expectations, best practices, or the use of an IDP to enhance postdoc mentoring, should cultivate
a culture that recognizes that faculty have limited resources so they need support to best the
mentor for postdocs.
Increasing self-regulation skills for goal-setting, planning, and navigating the
mentoring process. In addition to postdocs lacking the knowledge of postdoc resources and
support services available at SU to achieve their career goals, the results revealed that only 29%
of the study sample had a documented plan for meeting their goals. Similar to the faculty need,
postdocs need more resources on leveraging the mentoring experience. A solution based on
social cognitive theory is selected to address this metacognitive gap. Self-regulation strategies,
including goal setting, enhance learning and performance (Dembo & Eaton, 2000). Therefore,
providing postdocs with the metacognitive knowledge about self-regulation strategies during the
feedback process and mentoring experience would improve research productivity, goal
attainment, and overall career performance. The proposed solution is to provide postdocs
structured training on goal setting, planning, and navigating the mentoring process.
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 99

Based on the research of Mahdavi (2014), a postdoc should feel confident in self-
monitoring and self-assessment to engage in strategic planning and the provision of resources
effective for achieving career goals. Several studies suggest postdocs with structured mentoring
and training receive the feedback needed to make informed decisions, which result in increased
satisfaction, productivity, and higher rates of career placement (Blau, Currie, Croson, & Ginther,
2010; Faupel-Badger, Raue, Nelson & Tsakraklides, 2015; Jacob & Lefgren, 2011; Su, 2011;
van der Weijden, Teelken, de Boer, & Drost, 2016). For example, Faupel-Badger, Raue, Nelson
and Tsakraklides (2015) used qualitative methods to publish evaluations of career preparation of
alumni from long-standing postdoctoral fellowship programs in the biomedical sciences. Four
main themes emerged from these interviews, including the value of structured training
curriculum, mentorship, transdisciplinary environment, and professional identity. In summary,
providing a formal training will provide postdocs the opportunity to reflect on their research
agenda and develop a clear plan with their faculty mentors to meet their career goals.
Schraw and McCrudden suggested for leaders to model effective strategy use, including
“how” and “when” to use particular strategies. This would suggest that providing postdocs with
a regular opportunity to receive feedback on their performance from effective models would help
make informed decisions on how to maximize engagement with their faculty advisor. In order to
improve postdoc knowledge on how to leverage the mentoring relationship, the proposal is to
provide professional development opportunities with successful postdoc alum that will share
their feedback on the process.
Structured training and mentorship is key to performance (Scaffidi & Berman, 2011;
Hokanson & Goldberg 2018; Haley et al.,2018; McAlpine 2018; McConnell et al., 2018).
Several studies (e.g., St. Clair et al., 2017; Scaffidi & Berman, 2011) found that a positive
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 100

postdoctoral experience is related to quality supervision and career mentoring. St Clair, Hutto,
MacBeth, Newstetter, Melkers, McCarty and Melkers (2017) found that postdocs and Ph.D.
students with low perceived program support for career goals have lower career development
and lower self-efficacy about the job search. Rybarczyk, Lerea, Whittington, and Dykstra (2016)
conducted a study of alumni from a structured postdoctoral program at the University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, known as Seeding Postdoctoral Innovators in Research and Education
(SPIRE) program. The researchers learned that the SPIRE alumni valued the importance of
having interactions with a community of scholars who have similar professional goals because it
encouraged the postdocs to engage in consistent reflection that helped make informed decisions
about their career trajectory. In effect, receiving feedback through professional networking helps
postdocs better navigate the postdoc training experience.
Increasing the use of an IDP. The results and findings of this study showed that the
postdocs lack a formal mechanism to identify career goals and develop an IDP with their faculty
advisor. A recommendation based on organizational change theory was selected to close this
knowledge gap. Clark and Estes (2008) asserted that effective change is possible when leaders
use feedback to monitor progress. This suggests that postdocs and their faculty advisor should
participate in engaging relationships to create a regular process for providing feedback related to
improvement. The recommendation is to schedule regular meetings for postdocs to engage with
faculty to address critical aspects of positive postdoc-faculty mentoring relationships using an
existing IDP template available at SU—establishing clear expectations and nurturing
independence in research and/or teaching settings. For instance, the University can facilitate
effective mentoring by mandating the use of an IDP for every postdoc prior to yearly
appointment renewal.
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 101

The practice of good communication between postdocs and mentors is critical for a
successful postdoc experience. As mentioned in the literature review, structured postdoc–faculty
relationships influenced postdoc career satisfaction and increased productivity (Scaffidi &
Berman, 2011; Hokanson & Goldberg 2018; Haley et al., 2018; McAlpine, 2018; McConnell et
al., 2018). The National Postdoctoral Association (2014) recommends the use of an IDP because
it institutes communication, sets clear expectations, and provides objective criteria for success.
In addition, the IDP demonstrates the importance of training for achieving career and personal
goals. The literature concludes that participating in an engaged faculty mentoring relationship is
instrumental in a postdoc’s career trajectory and overall satisfaction with their training
experience.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The model used to create the implementation and evaluation plan is the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), which is based on the first Kirkpatrick
Four Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). The model is composed of
four levels: reaction (Level 1), learning (Level 2), behavior (Level 3), and results (Level 4).
Rather than proceeding in a linear fashion from the Level 1 to the Level 4, Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend starting at Level 4 and working backward to Level 3. Level 4
(Results) is the degree to which the internal and external outcomes (or leading indicators) are
met as a result of the training and organizational support. At Level 3 (Behavior), one examines
if participants applied what they learned during training to their work setting. There are required
drivers (i.e., processes or systems) that reinforce, encourage reward, and monitor performance.
An established infrastructure to support the new behavior allows for learning to develop in Level
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 102

2 (Learning), through the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and motivational beliefs to
successfully apply the new training to their individual performance. Lastly, the evaluation ends
with Level 1 (Reaction), which is the extent to which participants find the training engaging and
relevant to their individual work.
Organizational Purpose, Needs, and Expectations
The mission of the Postdoctoral Program is to work closely with faculty and staff
administrators to help recruit emerging scholars to the university, and facilitate the training and
career preparation of postdocs. The Postdoctoral Program’s goal is that all postdocs will feel
satisfied with their postdoctoral training and preparation at the university, however a timeline
and a targeted percentage of postdocs is not specified. It should be noted that this is an
aspirational goal and current data is unavailable, which substantiated the need for an evaluation.
The effective use of SU Postdoctoral Program’s resources by the faculty and staff contribute to
the postdocs’ satisfaction of the training and preparation at the university. If the University does
not address postdoc satisfaction, it negatively affects the postdoc productivity and the growth of
the research enterprise.
While the joint collaboration of all stakeholders will contribute to the achievement of the
overall organizational goal of providing high quality postdoctoral training and resources, it is
important to assess where the SU postdocs are currently with regard to their performance goal.
Therefore, the stakeholders of focus for this study will be all SU postdocs. The stakeholders’
goal, supported by the Program Director and Office of the Provost, is that 100% of postdoctoral
scholars will feel satisfied with their postdoctoral training and preparation at the university. It is
important to evaluate the organization’s performance in relationship to the stakeholder’s goal of
postdoc satisfaction of the resources and programs provided by SU because the University
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 103

depends on the scholarly contributions of postdocs to advance the research mission. Evaluating
postdoc satisfaction will allow the leadership to make informed decisions on how to improve the
postdoc experience.
The recommendations described in this section to improve postdoc satisfaction consist of
information resources about professional development opportunities; providing resources to
faculty on achieving excellence in mentoring; postdoc training on goal-setting and planning; and
the promoting the use of an IDP for structured mentoring. The effective implementation of these
recommendations by all SU stakeholders should increase postdoc satisfaction with the training
and preparation at the university.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 11 shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form of
outcomes, metrics and methods for both external and internal outcomes for the SU Postdoctoral
Program. If the internal outcomes are achieved for postdocs, then the desired external outcomes
should be reached.

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 104

Table 11

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1.Improved reputation of the
university as a good training
institution for postdocs
1a.Reputational rankings (i.e., Best
Places to Work as Postdocs by Scientist
Magazine)

1b.Number of referrals from postdocs
to prospective postdocs

1c.Number of applications to postdoc
positions in the university
1a.Develop an improvement plan

1b.Track number of referrals to SU or
specific faculty mentors/labs

1c.Request an annual report from HR
on the number of applications to
postdoc positions in the university
2.Successful placement of
postdocs following their time at
the university
Number by type of placement (i.e.,
Academia vs. Alternative-Academic
Careers)
Conduct a postdoc exit survey at
termination of a postdoc appointment
and generate an annual report
3.Increased the number of
postdocs hired at the university
Number of postdocs hired Request an annual report from the
Office of Postdoctoral Affairs on the
number of postdocs in the university
Internal Outcomes
4.Increased number of postdocs
who report being satisfied with
their postdoc training
Rates of overall satisfaction with
postdoc training at the university
Administer an annual postdoc
satisfaction survey

5.Increased number of postdocs
who report having an engaged
faculty advisor
Number of meetings for each postdoc
and their faculty advisor in an
academic year.
Administer an annual postdoc
satisfaction survey that includes the
number of meetings for each postdoc
and their faculty advisor
6.All postdocs complete an
Individual Development Plan
(IDP)
Number of postdocs who report
completing an IDP in an academic year
Administer an annual postdoc
satisfaction survey that asks postdocs
if they completed an IDP
7.Increased number of postdoc
publications
Number of publications 7a.Request an annual report from the
Center for Excellence in Research on
the number of postdoc publications

7b.Administer an annual postdoc
satisfaction survey asking postdocs to
report on the number of publications
accepted

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, stakeholder outcomes are
achieved when critical behaviors occur to demonstrate stakeholders applied what they learned
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 105

during training to their work setting. For postdocs, there are five proposed critical behaviors
outlined in Table 12. The first critical behavior is that postdocs should complete an IDP with
their faculty advisor for goal-setting and planning. Next, postdocs should schedule regular
meetings to monitor work progress. The third critical behavior is that the postdocs should
increase their participation in professional development opportunities. In addition, postdocs will
increase their use of postdoc support services. Lastly, these four behaviors will enable increased
research productivity. The specific metrics, methods, and timing for each of these outcome
behaviors appears in Table 12.

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 106

Table 12
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Completion of an IDP
with their faculty advisor
Completed IDP signed by
postdoc and faculty
advisor
Department Postdoc
Administrator reviews IDP’s
filed in personnel file or
Office of Postdoctoral Affairs
Database
Each semester
2.Meet with postdoc
faculty advisor to monitor
progress
Number of completed
meetings in a calendar
Faculty tracks number of
meetings completed
Twice a month
3.Increased participation
in professional
development opportunities
Number of postdocs
attending events
Department records
attendance at events
Each semester
4.Increased utilization of
postdoc support services
Number of postdocs using
postdoc support services
Office of Postdoctoral Affairs
collects usage data through
an online request form for
postdoc support services
Monthly report
5.Increased productivity 5a.Number of research
projects completed on time

5b.Number of research
article submissions
5a.Postdoc incorporates
feedback received from the
faculty advisor to modify
research strategies

5b. Department tracks
number of submissions to
peer-reviewed research
journals
Yearly
Required drivers. There are required drivers, such as processes and systems, that enable
performance of critical behaviors. The drivers are enacted through reinforcement,
encouragement, rewards, and monitoring so stakeholders remain accountable for engaging in
critical behaviors to meet the organizational goal (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). In order for
postdocs to increase their knowledge of career resources and improve self-regulation skills, there
should be systems in place to reinforce this outcome. For example, faculty advisors and human
resources should require postdocs to participate in postdoc orientation to learn about postdoc
support services as part of the on-boarding process.
An effective monitoring system of postdoc progress must be established to increase
postdoc training satisfaction. There are four strategies proposed to ensure that the required
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 107

drivers exist: a) research labs or team meetings should conduct weekly check-ins to discuss
research progress; b) faculty and postdocs use the IDP to monitor progress at least once per
semester; c) the University creates a policy for the IDP to be a mandatory criterion for yearly
postdoc appointment renewal; and d) the University administers postdoc satisfaction survey on
annual basis to observe trends in the postdoc experience. Table 13 shows the recommended
drivers to support critical behaviors of postdocs.

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 108

Table 13
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Provide information about resources
(i.e., information about professional
development, networking, funding
opportunities, and support services)
that will help postdocs achieve their
career goals
Monthly (especially, at
Postdoc Orientation)
1,2,3,4,5
Faculty advisors and postdocs
develop a regular meeting schedule
to discuss progress
Biweekly 1,2,3,4,5
University provides a template for
the IDP document with clear
submission instructions to the Office
of Postdoctoral Affairs
Ongoing 1
Faculty advisors and HR requires
participation in postdoc orientation
to learn about postdoc support
services as part of the on-boarding
process
Ongoing 4,5
Encouraging
Faculty advisors provide structured
postdoc mentoring, using an IDP
Biweekly 2,3,4,5
Faculty advisors promote
participation in professional
development opportunities
Ongoing 3,5
Office of Postdoctoral Affairs
professional development resources
using peer modeling
Monthly 3,5
Rewarding
Faculty advisors provide public
recognition at department meeting
and/or digital newsletter for postdoc
research productivity
Each semester 5
Monitoring
Research teams check-in on progress
at weekly lab/research group
meetings
Weekly 5
University creates a policy for the
IDP to be a mandatory criterion for
postdoc appointment renewal
Ongoing 1
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 109

Faculty and postdocs use the IDP to
monitor progress towards achieving
the postdoc research and career
goals
Each semester 1,5
University administers postdoc
satisfaction survey
Yearly 1,2,3,4,5

Organizational support. Organizational support is key to the successful implementation
of required drivers and attaining critical behaviors. Due to limited resources and competing
priorities, additional financial support from the Provost’s Office and buy-in from the provost and
school leadership is required. The Office of Postdoctoral Affairs will need to draft a budget
request for the new postdoc training program, including flipping the content for online delivery.
The Office of Postdoctoral Affairs will need to develop a strategic marketing communications
plan to promote the postdoc resources and support services available at the university. In order
to promote faculty engagement in postdoc mentoring, accountability from all stakeholders must
be established and aligned in the individual units’ priorities.
As the literature states, an engaged faculty mentoring relationship is critical in a
postdoc’s career path, which has influence on their training satisfaction and research productivity
(Scaffidi & Berman, 2011; Hokanson & Goldberg 2018; Haley et al., 2018; McAlpine 2018;
McConnell et al., 2018). The leadership should set expectations for postdoc mentoring through
the completion of an IDP on a semester basis. The administration will need to examine cost-
effective measures for addressing faculty mentoring resources and possible incentives for
promoting the use of an IDP to provide postdocs structured mentoring.

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 110

Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following the professional development training program to help
postdocs navigate their career path, postdocs should be able to:
1. Know what resources are available to achieve their career goals.
2. Identify career goals and develop an Individual Development Plan (IDP) with their
faculty advisor.
Program. The learning goals will be achieved through a series of four one-hour training
sessions offered once per semester focused on: 1) providing information about postdoc resources
(i.e., information about professional development, networking, funding opportunities, and
support services) and 2) providing an interactive training to postdocs on developing self-
regulation strategies for goal setting, planning, and the mentoring process. In order to maximize
the program’s outreach, a version of the training will be available online on the SU’s website for
postdoc resources. Each training will include small and large group discussions to allow time for
postdoc reflection on the topic presented.
As part of the on-boarding process to the university, a postdoc will begin with a sixty-
minute information session about postdoc resources that will enhance the postdoc training
experience. Postdocs will learn where to find web resources for future reference and key
individuals on-campus when issues arise. Next, the postdoc will participate in a training session
on goal-setting and planning. They will have opportunity to obtain a general overview of
possible career opportunities and begin identifying their goals. The program will utilize effective
models, such as junior faculty or postdoc alum, to share their perspectives on the value of
postdoc training for career preparation. In the third session, they will engage in an interactive
session to draft an IDP. Moderated by representatives from human resources and the Center for
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 111

Excellence in Teaching, the fourth and final training will be a step-by-guide on how postdocs can
develop an engaging mentoring experience with their faculty advisor. In this training, postdocs
will have an opportunity to practice their skills through mock mentoring sessions and receive
feedback from their peers and professionals in the training.
Evaluation of the components of learning. Postdocs must have the knowledge of
resources available to maximize their training experience, along with the confidence in how to
apply it to their day-to-day work with colleagues and overall career goals. Therefore, postdocs
completing the professional development training program should be able to demonstrate the
value in their postdoc training and their commitment by integrating the new knowledge to their
Individual Development Plan. Table 14 outlines the evaluation methods and timeline for the
program learning components.

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 112

Table 14
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Pre- and post-tests of knowledge of postdoc
resources
Before and after the professional development
training
Pre- and post-tests of knowledge of goal
setting, planning, and the feedback process
Before and after the professional development
training
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Postdoc will conduct a self-assessment,
identify goals, and create a draft IDP to
achieve career goals
During the professional development training
Postdoc peer role-playing to simulate a one-on-
one meeting with their faculty advisor to
receive regular feedback and monitor progress

During the professional development training
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Items on pre- and post- survey related to the
postdoc’s value of the training
Before and after the professional development
training
Small and large group discussions for postdocs
to reflect on the importance of the content in
the training
During the professional development training
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Items on pre- and post- survey related to the
postdoc’s confidence with applying the new
knowledge of postdoc resources to their IDP
Before and after the professional development
training
Items on pre- and post- survey related to the
postdoc’s confidence in participating in an
engaging postdoc-faculty advisor experience.
Before and after the professional development
training
Small and large group discussions for postdocs
to reflect on their ability to apply the training
During the professional development training
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Postdoc finalizes a draft IDP to be discussed
with their faculty advisor
At the completion of the professional
development training
Postdoc schedules a meeting with their faculty
advisor to obtain feedback and discuss their
IDP
At the completion of the professional
development training

Level 1: Reaction
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, Level One measures how participants react to
a training or learning experience. The facilitator examines whether the training was favorable,
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 113

engaging and relevant for the participants. As noted in Table 15, facilitator observations,
surveys, and attendance records, will be used to measure reactions to the program.

Table 15
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Facilitator observation During the training session
Attendance During the training session
Asking meaningful questions During the training session
Completion of training activities During the training session
Training session and program evaluation After the training session and at the completion
of the program
Relevance
Brief check-in with participants via discussion
(ongoing)
Before and after each session/topic during the
training
Training session and program evaluation After the training session and at the completion
of the program
Customer Satisfaction
Brief check-in with participants via discussion
(ongoing)
After every session and at the completion of
the program
Training session and program evaluation After the training session and at the completion
of the program

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. Immediately after training,
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick suggest that facilitators use a blended evaluation method that
includes questions related to Level One and Level Two. Therefore, eight items were created to
examine participants’ initial reactions to a training session and their learning (refer to Appendix
III). Level One has three items to assess engagement, relevance, and participation satisfaction.
For Level Two, there are five items that address a participant’s learning as it relates to
declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, attitude, confidence, and commitment.
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 114

Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Oftentimes, evaluations of
training programs stop at Level One or Two (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Using a delayed
survey evaluation, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick stated that a training facilitator will be able to
assess the four levels of the New World Kirkpatrick Model, once participants apply the new
knowledge and observe results. The data from the blended evaluation will be analyzed so the
training facilitators can modify the content to improve participant reaction and learning. Thus,
eight items were developed for assessing participants’ reactions, learning, behavior, and results
during the following semester after the training program (refer to Appendix IV).
Level One evaluates the relevance of the postdoc resources training session on the overall
postdoc training experience. Next, Level Two examines the knowledge gained and the postdoc’s
level of confidence as it relates to the postdoc’s participation in the training session. Level Three
determines whether there is an effect of postdoc behavior (i.e. increased participation in
professional development opportunities). Finally, Level Four looks at the organization’s desired
outcomes related to the postdoc experiences.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick highlight the importance of engaging in a thoughtful process
to determine what findings are most informative to guide the organization’s stakeholders. A
summary progress report from the training program will be provided to the Office of the Provost
to guide administrative decisions to improve the postdoc experience, as it relates to the
organizational goal of increasing postdoc satisfaction (Level Four) and associated critical
behaviors (Level Three). A dashboard of pertinent information will be presented, such as the
example in Appendix V. These data will assist the leadership to develop an action plan
addressing the issues raised in the evaluation.
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 115

Summary
The findings from the study discuss two validated knowledge influences on postdoc
satisfaction at SU. There are two recommendations proposed to effectively address gaps in the
postdoc training experience. The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016) was used as a framework for SU to plan, implement, and evaluate the recommendations to
achieve the organization and stakeholder goal of increasing postdoc satisfaction. This
framework provides the institution a strategic plan to identify metrics and critical behaviors for
successful outcomes, processes to enable critical behaviors, and evaluation tools for the four
levels of the training evaluation model.
The New World Kirkpatrick Model and the Blended Evaluation Survey Instrument offers
the institution a comprehensive approach to the implementation and evaluation of a new training
program. The model evaluates four levels: results, behavior, learning, and reaction to the
training program. The evaluation is conducted immediately after program participation and three
months afterwards, so the participants have had the opportunity to apply their learning and
observe changes in behavior (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The all-encompassing and
organized approach to implementation and evaluation benefits the university because it creates
efficiency within the current landscape of limited resources in higher education. Furthermore,
the findings from the evaluation will increase the knowledge of an invisible community of
postdocs at SU and across the nation. The insight gained will raise awareness about a vital core
to the university’s research enterprise and improve the culture of support for the postdoc training
experience.

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 116

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
This study used the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model to evaluate postdoc
satisfaction at SU. A strength of the model is that it provides a systematic problem-solving
approach to studying issues in organizational performance. With the priority of achieving the
organizational goal, the model begins with stating the goals, followed by identifying gaps,
validating and prioritizing influences, proposing recommendation, and concluding with
evaluating outcomes. The methodological approach allows for recommendations and resources
to be allocated with greater efficiency (Rueda, 2011). The evaluation of outcomes minimizes the
risk of long-term implementation of ineffective solutions and high costs. Another advantage of
the gap analysis framework is that it is applicable to many organizational settings. However, the
time and cost for an organization and its team members to conduct a formal gap assessment may
be more than surveying the team members informally about their perceptions of gaps in the
organization’s performance. Both the formal and informal assessment may yield the same
outcome. Lastly, the researcher discovered that the gap analysis was not inclusive of all
stakeholders that may have contributed to the gaps in postdoc satisfaction. The lack of evidence
from multiple stakeholders limits the researcher’s ability to propose exhaustive recommendations
to the organization.
Limitations and Delimitations
There were several limitations and delimitations in the study. Although the sample was
generally representative, the study could have benefited from a larger sample size to increase the
response rate and further support the generalizability of the findings. Because the percentage of
international postdocs was significantly lower than the total population, there was not enough
evidence to draw significant relationships from the data to be considered representative of SU
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 117

postdocs. Although the survey was anonymous, the study may have included respondents who
experienced social desirability bias in order to be viewed more favorably by others. There were
several delimitations created by the KMO framework during the development of the survey
instrument. A specific and limited set of questions were designed for the survey based on the
parameters of the conceptual framework. Such decisions were made intentionally to focus the
scope of the study to best inform the SU administration about postdoc satisfaction.
Future Research
There are several considerations for future research that emerged from the findings of this
study. Since faculty advisor engagement was the only significant predictor of postdoc
satisfaction, future studies can further examine the perceptions of faculty advisors as critical
pieces to the overall postdoc experience. The data gathered can inform best practices for
fostering an engaging postdoc mentoring and training, such as the recommended frequency of
meetings, topics discussed with a postdoc, or tools used to guide the process. Considering the
recent literature on the moderating effects of residency status on postdoc satisfaction, future
research should explore the international postdoc training experience.
Conclusion
This dissertation examined the gaps in the training and preparation of SU postdocs for
careers as independent researchers, academics, and leaders of their chosen fields. While the joint
collaboration of all stakeholders will contribute to the achievement of the overall organizational
goal of providing high quality postdoctoral training and resources, it is important to assess where
the SU postdocs are currently with regard to their performance goal. Therefore, the stakeholders
of focus for this study will be all SU postdocs. Using the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic
Conceptual Framework, the study explored the knowledge, motivation, and organization
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 118

influences on postdoc satisfaction with training and preparation to achieve career goals. The
results determined that postdocs were highly motivated and confident about achieving their
career goals. As a result, only two K influences (declarative and metacognitive) were validated
and the M and O influences examined were not validated as a gap in postdoctoral training
experience. As a result, only two K influences (declarative and metacognitive) were validated
and the M and O influences examined were not validated as a gap in postdoctoral training
experience. The recommendations provided focus on the knowledge gaps informed by the study.
The first recommendation is to increase the awareness of postdoc resources available at SU.
Although the findings did not indicate a gap in the area of faculty advisor engagement, the only
predictive influence for postdoc satisfaction was the engagement of faculty advisors. Thus, the
gap in metacognitive knowledge was addressed in the second recommendation on fostering and
maintaining the number of engaging postdoc-faculty advisor relationships.
Postdocs are a small army of junior scientists that pursue advance training to create
innovations that improve our quality of life. It is important to evaluate postdoc satisfaction
because the future of research and a chance for a better future depends on the scholarly
contributions of postdocs. The university needs to pay attention to postdocs because it is morally
and ethically responsible for their care because it entrusts our future in postdocs. The findings
from the study will increase the knowledge of an invisible community in academia. The SU
employees, staff, students—all who contribute to SU—need sufficient support and mentoring to
maintain productivity in the workplace. Therefore, postdocs deserve the same treatment. The
insight gained will raise awareness about a vital core to the university’s research enterprise and
improve the culture of support for the postdoc training experience.

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 119

Appendix I: Survey Items
#
Research Question/
Data Type
KMO Construct Survey Item (question and response)
1 Postdocs need to identify
their career goals and
develop an Individual
Development Plan (IDP)
with their faculty advisor.
K-M What was your primary long-term career goal
when you started your SU postdoc? (Multiple
choice, only select one response)
• Academia – Tenure-Track
• Academia – Research Professor
• Academia – Teaching Professor
• Academia – Clinical Professor
• Industrial Research
• Patent law / Tech transfer
• Science policy
• Government / Non-profit
• Consulting
• Science writing / Publishing
• Research Administration
• Other (please specify)
• Decline to answer

2 Demographics – Sample
Description
NA Has your primary long-term career goal
changed since you started the SU postdoc?
• Yes
• No

3 Postdocs need to identify
their career goals and
develop an Individual
Development Plan (IDP)
with their faculty advisor.
K-M If yes, what is your current primary long-term
career goal? (Multiple choice, only select one
response)
• Academia – Tenure-Track
• Academia – Research Professor
• Academia – Teaching Professor
• Academia – Clinical Professor
• Industrial Research
• Patent law / Tech transfer
• Science policy
• Government / Non-profit
• Consulting
• Science writing / Publishing
• Research Administration
• Other (please specify)
• Decline to answer

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 120

4 Postdocs need to identify
their career goals and
develop an Individual
Development Plan (IDP)
with their faculty advisor.
K-M Please identify your primary reason for
accepting a postdoc position at SU. (Multiple
choice, only select one response)
• To gain additional training in your area
of study
• To gain training in a different area of
study
• The postdoc is necessary to obtain a
permanent academic position
• I was unable to find a different position
(academic or industry)
• To work on a manuscript
• To complete an existing research project
• Other (please specify)
• Decline to Answer

5 Postdocs need to identify
their career goals and
develop an Individual
Development Plan (IDP)
with their faculty advisor.

K-M When joining SU, what were your expectations
for your postdoc experience? (Open-ended;
Decline to answer)
6 Postdocs need to identify
their career goals and
develop an Individual
Development Plan (IDP)
with their faculty advisor.

K-M Is your SU postdoc experience meeting your
expectations? (Yes, completely; Yes, partially;
No) Please explain. (Open-ended; Decline to
answer)
7 Postdocs need to identify
their career goals and
develop an Individual
Development Plan (IDP)
with their faculty advisor.

K-M Did you complete an Individual Development
Plan (IDP) with your faculty advisor?
• Yes
• No
• I don’t know what an IDP is
8 Postdocs need to identify
their career goals and
develop an Individual
Development Plan (IDP)
with their faculty advisor.

K-M (If YES with #6) To what extent has the IDP
been helpful in identifying a path toward your
goals? (Not helpful at all; Slightly Helpful;
Somewhat helpful; Very helpful; Decline to
Answer)

9 Postdocs need to know
what resources are
K-C Which of the following professional
development opportunities have you
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 121

available to achieve their
career goals.
participated in at SU? Please check all that
apply.
• Attended “Beyond the Ph.D.
Conference”
• Attended workshops/events sponsored
by the Center for Excellence in
Research (CER)
• Attended workshops/events sponsored
by the Center for Excellence in
Teaching (CET)
• Networked with peers (i.e. SC Connect,
faculty, school, department, industry)
• Participated in “Postdoc Appreciation
Week”
• Involved with the Postdoctoral
Association (PDA)
• I’m not aware of these postdoc
opportunities at C

10 Postdocs need to know
what resources are
available to achieve their
career goals.
K-C Which of the following have you applied for
while at SU? Please check all that apply.
• Conference funding
• Research grant
• Travel grant
• Tuition remission
• I’m not aware of these postdoc
opportunities at SU
11 Postdocs need to know
what resources are
available to achieve their
career goals.
K-C Which of the following postdoc benefits or
services have you utilized at SU? Please check
all that apply.
• Medical benefits
• Dental benefits
• Vision benefits
• Maternity leave
• Paternity leave
• Counseling
• I’m not aware of these postdoc benefits
at SU

12 Postdocs need to know
what resources are
available to achieve their
career goals.
K-C Which of the following support services are
you aware of at SU? Please check all that
apply.
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 122

• Advisement and support on postdoc
issues provided by the Office of
Postdoctoral Affairs
• Postdoc grievance process
• Postdoc orientation
• “Postdoc Power Hour”
• Access to the SU gym
• I’m not aware of these support services
at SU

13 Postdocs need to know
what resources are
available to achieve their
career goals.
K-C (If Helpful with #8 or #9) Which of the
aforementioned professional development
and/or university resources in questions 11-14
(or whatever you choose as the numbering
schematic) have been most helpful to you?
(Open-ended; Decline to answer)

14 Postdocs need to know
what resources are
available to achieve their
career goals.
K-C (TABLE) The National Postdoctoral
Association publishes is a list of recommended
policies and practices for postdoc training. SU
has implemented many of them. Which of the
following policies or practices are you aware of
as being offered at SU?
• A centralized postdoc appointment
process (Yes/No)
• A Diversity Office to ensure diversity
and inclusion (Yes/No)
• A minimum baseline salary/stipend,
plus a salary/stipend scale (Yes/No)
• A postdoc listserv (Yes/No)
• A social media outlet (Yes/No)
• A Postdoctoral Association that actively
engages and represents postdocs
(Yes/No)
• A postdoctoral handbook (Yes/No)
• A Postdoctoral Office that actively
engages and represents postdocs
(Yes/No)
• A timeline for postdoctoral transition to
independence (Yes/No)
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 123

• An orientation program for new
postdocs (Yes/No)
• Administrative policies that adopt a
clear definition of a “postdoc” (Yes/No)
• Administrative policies that allow
access to university facilities such as the
fitness center, library, as well as career
and professional development resources
and university events (Yes/No)
• Administrative policies to deal with
issues concerning postdocs (i.e.
compensation, visa status, grievances)
(Yes/No)
• Benefits package to postdocs,
comparable to that which is received by
standard employees whether national or
international at the same institution
(Yes/No)
• Career counseling and development
services (Yes/No)
• Effective mentoring through career
planning and an annual review (Yes/No)
• Family-friendly benefits to all postdocs
(Yes/No)
• Professional development and advanced
training for postdocs on topics related to
job market demands (i.e. writing grant
proposals and mastering the principles
of effective resource management)
(Yes/No)

15 Postdocs need to know
what resources are
available to achieve their
career goals.
K-C (TABLE) Which of the following policies or
practices have you utilized or received at SU?
• A centralized postdoc appointment
process (Yes/No)
• A Diversity Office to ensure diversity
and inclusion (Yes/No)
• A minimum baseline salary/stipend,
plus a salary/stipend scale (Yes/No)
• A postdoc listserv (Yes/No)
• A social media outlet (Yes/No)
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 124

• A Postdoctoral Association that actively
engages and represents postdocs
(Yes/No)
• A postdoctoral handbook (Yes/No)
• A Postdoctoral Office that actively
engages and represents postdocs
(Yes/No)
• A timeline for postdoctoral transition to
independence (Yes/No)
• An orientation program for new
postdocs (Yes/No)
• Administrative policies that adopt a
clear definition of a “postdoc” (Yes/No)
• Administrative policies that allow
access to university facilities such as the
fitness center, library, as well as career
and professional development resources
and university events (Yes/No)
• Administrative policies to deal with
issues concerning postdocs (i.e.
compensation, visa status, grievances)
(Yes/No)
• Benefits package to postdocs,
comparable to that which is received by
standard employees whether national or
international at the same institution
(Yes/No)
• Career counseling and development
services (Yes/No)
• Effective mentoring through career
planning and an annual review (Yes/No)
• Family-friendly benefits to all postdocs
(Yes/No)
• Professional development and advanced
training for postdocs on topics related to
job market demands (i.e. writing grant
proposals and mastering the principles
of effective resource management)
(Yes/No)

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 125

16 Postdocs need to know
what resources are
available to achieve their
career goals.
K-C There are also several policies and practices for
postdocs that have not been implemented at
SU. Please indicate how helpful providing the
following seven policies or practices would be
to improving your postdoc experience, using a
scale from Not Helpful At All to Very Helpful.
• Establish a Postdoc Advisory
Committee to guide the Postdoctoral
Office’s activities and postdoctoral
policies (Not Helpful at all; Slightly
Helpful; Somewhat Helpful; Very
Helpful; Decline to Answer)
• Ensure postdoc representation on
relevant institutional committees (Not
Helpful at all; Slightly Helpful;
Somewhat Helpful; Very Helpful;
Decline to Answer)
• Conduct a postdoc exit interview (Not
Helpful at all; Slightly Helpful;
Somewhat Helpful; Very Helpful;
Decline to Answer)
• Conduct an annual survey of postdocs
(Not Helpful at all; Slightly Helpful;
Somewhat Helpful; Very Helpful;
Decline to Answer)
• Provide career counseling and
development services beyond faculty
mentoring (Not Helpful at all; Slightly
Helpful; Somewhat Helpful; Very
Helpful; Decline to Answer)
• Allow matched contributions to a
retirement program (Not Helpful at all;
Slightly Helpful; Somewhat Helpful;
Very Helpful; Decline to Answer)
• Maintain an office for international
scholar services (Not Helpful at all;
Slightly Helpful; Somewhat Helpful;
Very Helpful; Decline to Answer)
• Other suggestions (please specify)

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 126

17 Postdocs should value their
postdoc training for career
preparation and its
contribution to the greater
research enterprise.
M-EV My postdoc training has helped me achieve my
career goals. (Strongly Disagree; Disagree;
Agree; Strongly Agree; Decline to Answer)

18 Postdocs should value their
postdoc training for career
preparation and its
contribution to the greater
research enterprise.
M-EV I expect that my postdoc training will help me
obtain a job in academia. (Strongly Disagree;
Disagree; Agree; Strongly Agree; Decline to
Answer)
19 Postdocs should value their
postdoc training for career
preparation and its
contribution to the greater
research enterprise.
M-EV I think the current job market in academia is
highly competitive. (Strongly Disagree;
Disagree; Agree; Strongly Agree; Decline to
Answer)

20 Postdocs should value their
postdoc training for career
preparation and its
contribution to the greater
research enterprise.
M-EV I feel that there are limited opportunities for me
in the job market. (Strongly Disagree;
Disagree; Agree; Strongly Agree; Decline to
Answer)

21 Postdocs should value their
postdoc training for career
preparation and its
contribution to the greater
research enterprise.
M-EV I expect that my postdoc training will help me
become an independent investigator. (Strongly
Disagree; Disagree; Agree; Strongly Agree;
Decline to Answer)

22 Postdocs should feel
confident with achieving
their career goals.
M-SE I feel confident about getting my work
published. (Strongly Disagree; Disagree;
Agree; Strongly Agree; Decline to Answer)
23 Postdocs should feel
confident with achieving
their career goals.
M-SE I feel able to manage my work-life balance.
(Strongly Disagree; Disagree; Agree; Strongly
Agree; Decline to Answer)
24 Postdocs should feel
confident with achieving
their career goals.
M-SE Based on your SU postdoc training, please rate
your level of confidence with each skill, as
defined by the National Postdoctoral
Association Core Competencies (2007).

a) discipline-specific conceptual knowledge, b)
research skill development, c) communication
skills, d) professionalism, e) leadership and
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 127

management skills, and f) responsible conduct
of research (include link to definitions).

Each competency will be separately assessed in
the survey instrument.

(Very confident; Somewhat confident;
Somewhat confident; Not at all
confident; Decline to Answer)

25 The organization needs to
develop a culture of support
in their academic unit.

CM Supporting postdocs is valued in my academic
department/school. (Strongly Agree; Agree;
Disagree; Strongly Disagree; Decline to
Answer)
26 The organization needs to
develop a culture of support
within the larger university.
CM Supporting postdocs is valued at SU (Strongly
Agree; Agree; Disagree; Strongly Disagree;
Decline to Answer)

27 Postdocs need to have an
engaging postdoc-faculty
advisor experience.
CS The training and development of postdocs (i.e.
professional development, research/travel
grants, tuition remission) is incorporated into
my department/school’s priorities and policies.
(Strongly Disagree; Disagree; Agree; Strongly
Agree; Decline to Answer)

28 Postdocs need to have an
engaging postdoc-faculty
advisor experience.
CS The training and development of postdocs is
incorporated into SU’s priorities and policies.
(Strongly Disagree; Disagree; Agree; Strongly
Agree; Decline to Answer)

29 Postdocs need to have an
engaging postdoc-faculty
advisor experience.
CS It is important to me to have an engaged faculty
advisor during my postdoc training. (Strongly
Disagree; Disagree; Agree; Strongly Agree;
Decline to Answer)
(Very essential; Essential; Somewhat essential;
Not at all essential; Decline to Answer)
30 Postdocs need to have an
engaging postdoc-faculty
advisor experience.
CS How often do you meet with your advisor to
discuss your progress toward meeting your
career goals? (I plan to meet, but have not met
with my advisor to discuss my career plans;
Once a year; Once a semester; A couple times a
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 128

semester; Several times a semester; I don’t plan
to meet with my advisor to discuss my career
plans; Decline to Answer)

31 Postdocs need to have an
engaging postdoc-faculty
advisor experience.
CS My faculty advisor helps me to (check all that
apply):
• Become an independent investigator
(Strongly Disagree; Disagree; Agree;
Strongly Agree; Decline to Answer)
• Develop a plan that considers my
personal, family, or life goals (Strongly
Disagree; Disagree; Agree; Strongly
Agree; Decline to Answer)
• Develop an Individual Development
Plan (IDP) so I have a clear path
towards career independence (Strongly
Disagree; Disagree; Agree; Strongly
Agree; Decline to Answer)
• Develop high profile publications
(Strongly Disagree; Disagree; Agree;
Strongly Agree; Decline to Answer)
• Develop high quality research from the
lab/research setting (Strongly Disagree;
Disagree; Agree; Strongly Agree;
Decline to Answer)
• Network with my peers (Strongly
Disagree; Disagree; Agree; Strongly
Agree; Decline to Answer)
• Learn about new professional
development resources (Strongly
Disagree; Disagree; Agree; Strongly
Agree; Decline to Answer)
• Think about my career progress and
goals (Strongly Disagree; Disagree;
Agree; Strongly Agree; Decline to
Answer)
• Think about my personal, family, or
life goals (Strongly Disagree; Disagree;
Agree; Strongly Agree; Decline to
Answer)
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 129

• Think about my research progress and
goals (Strongly Disagree; Disagree;
Agree; Strongly Agree; Decline to
Answer)

32 Reliability NA (TABLE) How would you rate your overall
satisfaction with each of the following, using a
scale of Not At All Satisfied to Very Satisfied?

• SU postdoc training and experience
(Not at all satisfied; Slightly satisfied;
Somewhat satisfied; Very satisfied;
Decline to Answer)
• SU professional development offerings
(Not at all satisfied; Slightly satisfied;
Somewhat satisfied; Very satisfied;
Decline to Answer)
• Your faculty advisor (Not at all
satisfied; Slightly satisfied; Somewhat
satisfied; Very satisfied; Decline to
Answer)
• Your academic department/school (Not
at all satisfied; Slightly satisfied;
Somewhat satisfied; Very satisfied;
Decline to Answer)
• SU as an academic institution (Not at
all satisfied; Slightly satisfied;
Somewhat satisfied; Very satisfied;
Decline to Answer)

33 Demographics – Sample
Description; Reliability –
Sample Confidence
NA What is your postdoc job title on your offer
letter?
(Postdoctoral Scholar – Research Associate;
Postdoctoral Scholar – Teaching Fellow;
Postdoctoral Scholar – Fellowship Trainee;
Postdoctoral Research Associate; Decline to
Answer)
34 Demographics – Sample
Description; Reliability –
Sample Confidence
NA In what year did you earn your Ph.D. or other
doctoral degree? (2018, 2017, 2016; 2015;
2014; 2013; 2012; 2011 or earlier – please
specify year; Decline to Answer)
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 130

35 Demographics – Sample
Description; Reliability –
Sample Confidence
NA I am in my ____ year as a SU postdoc? (1
st
,
2
nd
, 3
rd
, 4
th
, 5
th
, Other- please specify; Decline
to Answer)
36 Demographics – Sample
Description
NA How many postdoctoral positions have you
held prior to your current position (outside of
changes to your postdoc status)? (0; 1; 2; 3 or
more- please specify ___; Decline to Answer)
37 Demographics – Sample
Description
NA What is your current individual gross (pre-tax)
income?
• Less than $48,432
• $48,433- $53,433
• $53,434- $58,434
• $58,435 - $63,435
• $63,436 - $68,436
• Greater than $68,436
• Other (please specify)
• Decline to Answer
38 Demographics – Sample
Description
NA Which School do you belong to at SU?
• School List
• Decline to Answer
39 Demographics – Sample
Description
NA Name of SU Department
• Department List
• Decline to Answer
40 Demographic NA Please identify your primary reason for
choosing your faculty advisor/mentor at SU
• Renown PI (academic reputation)
• Success of previous trainees
• Prospects of working with others in the
lab or in the field
• Location requirements or access to
specific resources
• Expertise in specific field/topic
• Other -please specify
• Decline to answer

41 Demographics – Sample
Description
NA What year were you born? (Drop-down;
Decline to answer)
42 Demographics – Sample
Description
NA What is your gender? (Male; Female; Non-
Binary; Decline to Answer)
43 Demographics – Sample
Description
NA What is your residency status in the U.S.?
(U.S. Citizen; Permanent Resident; H1B visa;
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 131

J1 visa; F1 Visa; Other – please specify;
Decline to Answer)
44 Demographics – Sample
Description

NA Are you Hispanic or Latino?

Yes
o Mexican/Mexican American/Chicano
A person of Mexican culture or origin
regardless of race.
o Latin American/Latino
A person of Latin American (e.g. Central
American, South American, Cuban, Puerto
Rican) culture or origin regardless of race.
o Other Spanish/Spanish American
A person of Spanish culture or origin, not
included in any of the Hispanic categories
listed above.
No
Decline to state

45 Select one or more of the following racial-
ethnic categories that best describe you, if
applicable.
American Indian or Alaskan Native
A person having origins in any of the original
peoples of North and South America (including
Central America) who maintains cultural
identification through tribal affiliation or
community attachment.
Indigenous people from South America,
Central America, or North America
A person having origins in any of the original
peoples of North and South America (including
Central America) who maintains cultural
identification through tribal affiliation or
community attachment. American Indian or
Alaskan Native
ASIAN
o Chinese/Chinese American
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 132

A person having origins in any of the
original peoples of China.
o Filipino/Pilipino or Malaysian
A person having origins in any of the
original peoples of the Philippine Islands.
o Japanese/Japanese American
A person having origins in any of the
original peoples of Japan.
o Korean/Korean American
A person having origins in any of the
original peoples of Korea.
o Pakistani/East Indian
A person having origins in any of the
original peoples of the Indian
subcontinent (e.g., India and Pakistan).
o Vietnamese/Vietnamese American
A person having origins in any of the
original peoples of Vietnam.
o Other Asian
A person having origins in any of the
original peoples of the Far East or South
East Asia (including Cambodia, Malaysia
and Thailand).
Black or African American
A person having origins in any of the Black
racial groups of Africa.
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
A person having origins in any of the original
peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa or other
Pacific Island.
WHITE
o European
A person having origins in any of the
original peoples of Europe.
o Middle Eastern
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 133

A person having origins in any of the
original peoples of the Middle East.
o North African
A person having origins in any of the
original peoples of North Africa.
o White (not specified)
A person having origins in any of the
original peoples of Europe, the Middle
East, or North Africa (region not
specified).
Decline to State

46 Demographics – Sample
Description

NA Do you identify with one or more of these
categories? (please select all that apply)
● Underrepresented
● Disabled
● LGBTQ
● Veteran / Active Duty Military
● Other-please specify
● Decline to answer
47 Demographics – Sample
Description
NA What is your country of citizenship? (List of
most represented countries based on SU
postdoc database; Other- please specify)
48 Additional comments
Please feel free to make any final comments
regarding any of the topics covered or not
covered in this survey

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 134

Appendix II: Recruitment Email
Dear current SU Postdocs,
Please consider participating in a study evaluating SU postdoc satisfaction by completing the
brief survey below. As a note, the Office of Postdoctoral Affairs is not affiliated or sponsoring
the study. The data will solely be viewed and analyzed by the student researcher.
Sincerely,
SU Office of Postdoctoral Affairs
______________________________________________________________________________
Dear current SU Postdocs,
My name is Donna Garcia and I am a doctoral student in the Rossier School of Education
Organization Change and Leadership Program studying the overall satisfaction of current SU
postdocs. Your participation will provide valuable feedback important to improving the SU
postdoc experience. Let your voice be heard.
The survey is divided into six sections. The instrument is expected to take no longer than 15
minutes to complete. Your responses are voluntary and will be anonymous. Responses will not
be linked to any personal information. Upon full completion of the survey, you will be
redirected to a web site where you may enter your contact information for a chance to win one of
three $100 research or travel awards (your choice of an Amazon or travel gift card). The
winners of the drawing will be notified at the end of the study in spring 2019.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at dlgarcia@SU.edu or 310-489-5896.
Thank you for your time, as well as your helpful comments and suggestions.
Sincerely,
Donna Garcia
Ed.D. Candidate 2019

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 135

Appendix III: Immediate Evaluation Instrument
Postdoc Resources Training Survey
Instructions: Thinking about the training you just completed, please indicate your agreement
with the following statements using a 4-point scale from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.
Level One: Reaction
1. I was engaged with the topic for this training session.
2. I think the topic for this training session will be essential for my postdoc experience and
career goals.
3. I would recommend this training session to other postdocs.
Level Two: Learning
1. I know what postdoc resources are available to me at the university to achieve my career
goals.
2. I know how to navigate the university resources for postdocs to achieve my career goals.
3. I expect that the knowledge gained in this session will help me become more successful
as a postdoc.
4. I feel confident applying what I have learned to my postdoc training.
5. Based on what I have learned, I will draft a plan to improve my postdoc training.

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 136

Appendix IV: Blended Evaluation Instrument
Postdoc Resources Training Survey
Instructions: Thinking about the training you completed last semester, please indicate your
agreement with the following statements using a scale from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.
Level One: Reaction
1. What I learned during the postdoc resources training session has helped me improve my
postdoc training experience.
2. I increased my productivity because of the postdoc resources training session.
Level Two: Learning
1. I was able to complete a more informed IDP after completing the postdoc resources
training session.
2. My participation in the postdoc resources training session increased my confidence in
reaching my career goals.
Level Three: Behavior
1. I increased my participation in professional development opportunities to achieve my
career goals.
2. I increased my utilization of postdoc support services.
Level Four: Results
1. My participation in the postdoc resources training has increased my overall satisfaction
with my postdoc training.
2. My participation in the postdoc resources training enabled me to have a more engaging
discussion with my faculty advisor about my professional development.

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 137

Appendix V: Data Analysis Chart

Figure 1. Number of postdocs attending professional development events.

Figure 2. Number of postdocs using postdoc support services.
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 138

Figure 3. Overall satisfaction with postdoc training experience.

Figure 4. Overall satisfaction with postdoc-faculty advisor relationship

SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 139

References
Åkerlind, G. (2005). Postdoctoral researchers: roles, functions and career prospects
Alberts, B. (2013) Am I wrong? Sci 339(6125):1252–1252.
Alberts, B., Kirschner, M. W., Tilghman, S., & Varmus, H. (2014). Rescuing US biomedical
research from its systemic flaws. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
111(16), 5773-5777.
Aschwanden, C. (2006).Professionalizing the Postdoctoral Experience. 124: 3.445-447.

Baker, L. (2006). Developmental differences in metacognition: Implications for metacognitively
oriented reading instruction. Metacognition in Literacy Learning, , 83-102.
Banasik, M.D. & Dean, J.L. (2016). Non-Tenure Track Faculty and Learning Communities:
Bridging the Divide to Enhance Teaching Quality. Innovative Higher Education, 41: 333.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Bankston, A., & McDowell, G. S. (2018). Chapter 2 - A review of postdoc reforms in the united
states and the case of the fair labor standards act updates of 2016. In A. Jaeger, & A. J.
Dinin (Eds.), The postdoc landscape (pp. 15-48).
Benderly, B. L. (2005). Not your father's postdoc: in today's scientific labor market, just doing
good science is no longer enough. Postdocs need realistic expectations, good information,
and an entrepreneurial attitude toward their careers. Science, 308(5722), 717+.
Benjamin, E. (2015). Over-reliance on Part-Time Faculty: An American Trend. International
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 140

Higher Education Quarterly. 21, 7-9. How postdocs benefit from building a union.
Blau, Francine D., Janet M. Currie, Rachel T. A. Croson, and Donna K. Ginther. 2010. "Can
Mentoring Help Female Assistant Professors? Interim Results from a Randomized
Trial." American Economic Review, 100 (2): 348-52.Cain, B., Budke, J., Wood, K.,
Sweeney, N., & Schwessinger, B. (2014). eLife 3: e05614.
Callier, V., & Vanderford, N. L. (2014). Mission possible: Putting trainees at the center of
academia's mission. Nature Biotechnology, 32(6), 593-4.
Cantwell, B., & Lee, J. (2010). Unseen Workers in the Academic Factory: Perceptions of
Neoracism among International Postdocs in the United States and the United Kingdom.
Harvard Educational Review, 80 (4), 490-516..
Cavanaugh, N. A. (2018). Chapter 3 - institutional support, programs, and policies for
postdoctoral training. In A. Jaeger, & A. J. Dinin (Eds.), The postdoc landscape (pp. 49-68)
Academic Press.
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications,
Inc.Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wilhoit, G., & Pittenger, L. (2014). Accountability for college and career
readiness: Developing a new paradigm. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(86).
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 141

Davis, G. (2009). Improving the Postdoctoral Experience: An Empirical Approach. In R.B.
Freeman and D.L. Goroff (eds), Science and Engineering Careers in the United States: An
Analysis of Markets and Employment, pp. 99-127.
Deans for Impact (2015). The Science of Learning. Austin, TX: Deans for Impact.
Dembo, M., & Eaton, M. (2000). Self-Regulation of Academic Learning in Middle-Level
Schools. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 473-490.
Desrochers, D.M. and Wellman, J.V. (2011) Trends in College Spending 1999–2009,
Washington DC: The Delta Cost Project.
Diascro, J. S. (2011). The job market and placement in political science in 2009-10. PS, Political
Science & Politics, 44(3), 597-603.
Diaz, M.G. (2012) Unintended effects of changes in NIH appropriations: challenges for
biomedical research workforce development, electronic. M.Sc. Thesis, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington, DC:
Albert Shanker Institute.
Faupel-Badger, J.M., Raue, K.M., Nelson, D.E., & Tsakraklides, S.P. (2015). Alumni
Perspectives on Career Preparation during a Postdoctoral Training Program: A Qualitative
Study. CBE life sciences education.
Figlio, D. N., Schapiro, M. O., & Soter, K. B. (2015). Are tenure track professors better
teachers? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 97(4), 715.
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 142

Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks:
SAGE.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36(1),
45–56.
Gewin, V. (2010). The spread of postdoc unions. Nature, 467(7316), 739-741.
Gibbs, K. D., McGready, J., & Griffin, K. (2015). Career development among American
biomedical postdocs. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(4), ar44.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In
Becomingqualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.)(pp. 162-183). Boston, MA:
Pearson
Grinstein, A. & Treister, R. (2018). The unhappy postdoc: a survey based study [version 2;
referees: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not
approved]. F1000Research 2018, 6:1642
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. London: SAGE.
Haley, K. J., Hudson, T. D., & Jaeger, A. J. (2018). Chapter 6 - career coherence, agency, and
the postdoctoral scholar. The postdoc landscape (pp. 121-142) Academic Press.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. USC Urban Ed.
Spring/Summer, 17-19.
Hokanson, S. C., & Goldberg, B. B. (2018). Chapter 5 - proactive postdoc mentoring. In A.
Jaeger, & A. J. Dinin (Eds.), The postdoc landscape (pp. 91-120) Academic Press.
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 143

Horta, H. (2009). Holding a post-doctoral position before becoming a faculty member: Does it
bring benefits for the scholarly enterprise? Higher Education: The International Journal of
Higher Education and Educational Planning, 58(5), 689-721.
Hur H, Ghaffarzadegan N, Hawley. (2015). Effects of Government Spending on Research
Workforce Development: Evidence from Biomedical Postdoctoral Researchers. PLoS ONE
10(5): e0124928
Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2011). The Impact of NIH Postdoctoral Training Grants on
Scientific Productivity. Research Policy, 40(6), 864–874.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Chapter 9.
Kahn, S., & Ginther, D. K. (2017). The impact of postdoctoral training on early careers in
biomedicine. Nature Biotechnology, 35(1), 90-94.
Kezar, A., Maxey, D., & Holcombe, E. (2016). The professoriate reconsidered: A study of new
faculty models. Thought & Action, 32(1), 65-88.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. (2016) Evaluation blunders and missteps to avoid. Training
3 3 and Development, November, 36-40.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Chapter 2: Planning the focus group study. In Focus
groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed.) (pp. 29-31). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 144

Larson, R. & Gomez Diaz, M. (2012). Nonfixed retirement age for university professors:
Modeling its effects on new faculty hires. Research Gate, 1, 69-78.
Mahdavi M. (2014). An Overview: Metacognition in Education. International Journal of
Multidisciplinary and Current Research. Vol.2 (May/June 2014 issue).
Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making
in education (RAND Education occasional paper). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE. McAlpine, L. (2018). Chapter 8 - postdoc trajectories: Making visible the
invisible. In A. Jaeger, & A. J. Dinin (Eds.), The postdoc landscape (pp. 175-202) Academic
Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McAlpine, L. (2010). Fixed-term researchers in the social sciences: Passionate investment, yet
marginalizing experiences. International Journal for Academic Development, 15(3), 229-
240.
McAlpine, L. (2018). Chapter 8 - postdoc trajectories: Making visible the invisible. In A. Jaeger,
& A. J. Dinin (Eds.), The postdoc landscape (pp. 175-202) Academic Press.
McAlpine, L., & Emmioğlu, E. (2015). Navigating careers: Perceptions of sciences doctoral
students, post-Ph.D. researchers and pre-tenure academics. Studies in Higher Education,
40(10), 1770-1785.
McConnell, E., Westerman, E., Pierre, J., Heckler, E., Schwartz, N. (2018). Career Choice,
Gender, and Mentor Impact: Results of the U.S. National Postdoc Survey. bioRxiv The Pre-
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 145

Print Server for Biology, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information Processing Theory. Psychology of classroom
learning: An encyclopedia, 493-49.
McGee, H. M., & Johnson, D. A. (2015). Performance motivation as the behaviorist views
it. Performance Improvement, 54(4), 15–21.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, J. M. & Feldman, M.P. (2015) Isolated in the Lab: Examining Dissatisfaction with
Postdoctoral Appointments, The Journal of Higher Education, 86:5, 697-724.
Morris, L. V. (2009). Faculty redefined. Innovative Higher Education; New York, 34(3), 131-
132.
Müller, R. (2014). Postdoctoral Life Scientists and Supervision Work in the Contemporary
University: A Case Study of Changes in the Cultural Norms of Science. 52: 329.
National Academy of Sciences. (2014). The Postdoc Experience Revisited. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2015). Doctorate recipients from
U.S. Universities. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation
National Postdoctoral Association & Sigma Xi (2017). Supporting the Needs of Postdocs: 2017
National Postdoctoral Association Institutional Policy Report.
National Postdoctoral Association (2007). NPA Core Competencies.
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 146

National Postdoctoral Association (2014). Recommendations for Postdoctoral Policies and
Practices.
National Research Council. (1969). Invisible University: Postdoctoral Education in the United
States. Report of a Study Conducted Under the Auspices of the National Research Council.
[Richard B. Curtis, Study Director]. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2005). Bridges to independence: Fostering the independence of
new investiagtors in biomedical research. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
Ott, M., & Cisneros, J. (2015). Understanding the changing faculty workforce in higher
education: A comparison of non-tenure track and tenure line experiences. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 23, 90.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/
article/self-efficacy-theory/
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Selecting samples and administering surveys. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries,
and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18,
315–341.
Pema, E. (2010). The effect of age discrimination laws on age-earnings profiles of postsecondary
faculty. Atlantic Economic Journal, 38(1), 65-80.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 147

Pomeroy, C. (2014). A call to action: Invest in biomedical research now to secure a healthier
future. Surgical Oncology, 23(1), 1-4.
Powell, K. (2015). The Future of the Postdoc. Nature, 520(7546), 144-147.
Puljak, L. & Sharif, W. D. (2009). Postdocs' perceptions of work environment and career
prospects at a US academic institution. Research Evaluation, Volume 18, Issue 5, 1 Pages
411–415.
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162-183). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.) (pp. 85-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Rybarczyk, B., Lerea, L., Lund, P.K., Whittington., D., Dykstra, L. Postdoctoral Training
Aligned with the Academic Professoriate, BioScience, Volume 61, Issue 9, 1 September
2011, Pages 699–705.
Salkind, N. J. (2014). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Using Microsoft
Excel. (5th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Scaffidi, A. K., & Berman, J. E. (2011). A positive postdoctoral experience is related to quality
supervision and career mentoring, collaborations, networking and a nurturing research
environment. Higher Education, 62(6), 685.
Schein, E. H. (2004). The concept of organizational culture: Why bother? In E. H. Schein,
(Ed.), Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed., pp. 3–24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 148

Bass.
St Clair, R., Hutto, T., MacBeth, C., Newstetter, W, Melkers, J. ,McCarty, NA & Melkers, J.
(2017). The “new normal”: Adapting doctoral trainee career preparation for broad career
paths in science. PloS One 12:e0177035.
Su, X. (2011). Postdoctoral Training, Departmental Prestige and Scientists’ Research
Productivity. The revised version appears at: Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 36, no. 3:
275-290.
Su, X., & Alexander, M. (2018). Chapter 4 - postdoc scholars in S&E departments: Plights,
departmental expectations, and policies. In A. Jaeger, & A. J. Dinin (Eds.), The postdoc
landscape (pp. 69-90) Academic Press.
Teitelbaum, M. (2008). Structural Disequilibria in Biomedical Research. Science, 321, 644-645.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). NCES statistical
standards. Washington, DC: Author.
van der Weijden, I., Teelken, C., de Boer, M., & Drost, M. (2016). Career satisfaction of
postdoctoral researchers in relation to their expectations for the future. Higher
Education, 72(1), 25-40.
Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Thomas Shanks, S. J., & Meyer, M. J. (2011). Thinking ethically: A
framework for moral decision making.
Wei, T. E., Levin, V., & Sabik, L. M. (2012). A referral is worth a thousand ads: Job search
methods and scientist outcomes in the market for postdoctoral scholars. Science and Public
Policy, 39(1), 60-73.
SUNSHINE UNIVERSITY POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM 149

Xue, Y.; Larson, R. (2015). STEM Crisis or STEM Surplus: Yes and Yes. Monthly Labor
Review 138(5), 1-14.
Yi, G., & McMurtrey, M. E. (2014). The impact of academic inflation on the labour market: If
everyone has a PhD, who will be the custodian? International Journal of Electronic Finance,
7(3-4), 250-262
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. Retrieved from http://www.
education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study is to evaluate the overall satisfaction of postdoctoral scholars (postdocs) as it relates to training and career preparation at Sunshine University. Using a quantitative survey administered to all current SU postdocs, the study will focus on knowledge, motivation and organizational influences related to postdoc satisfaction. The questions that guide the study are: 1) To what extent is the Postdoctoral Scholar Program meeting its goal of all postdocs feeling satisfied with their postdoctoral training and preparation at the university?

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Managers’ learning transfer from the leadership challenge training to work setting: an evaluation study

PDF

Leadership in an age of technology disruption: an evaluation study

PDF

Customer satisfaction with information technology service quality in higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

Partnerships and nonprofit leadership: the influence of nonprofit managers on community partnerships

PDF

Adaptability characteristics: an evaluation study of a regional mortgage lender

PDF

An evaluative study on implementing customer relationship management software through the perspective of first level managers

PDF

Manager leadership skills in the context of a new business strategy initiative: an evaluative study

PDF

Pre-deployment training effectiveness for Army National Guard units mobilized to deploy in support of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan: an evaluation study

PDF

Effects of mentoring on public school administrators: an evaluation study

PDF

Dream deferred? Understanding the effects of educational debt on marginalized college professionals

PDF

Evaluating the teacher residency model: a new first way

PDF

Impact of study abroad on student openness to diversity: an evaluation study

PDF

Developing global competence in a Sino-US joint university: an evaluation study

PDF

Understanding and preventing small business failure: a gap analysis of the Utah American Legion Baseball organization

PDF

To be young, global, and Black: an evaluation of African-American college students’ participation in study abroad programs

PDF

Educating hearts and minds through high-quality service learning curriculum in U.S. high schools

PDF

Maintaining alignment between strategic and tactical goals in an innovative healthcare organization

PDF

A legacy of resilience: the experiences of African-American female attorneys: a case study

PDF

An application of Clark and Estes gap analysis model to improve training transfer at a midsize pharmaceutical company

PDF

Initial and continuing physical and behavioral health and wellness education in the fire service: an innovation study on heart attack, suicide, and cancer prevention for Howard County Fire and Rescue

Asset Metadata

Creator Garcia, Donna (author)

Core Title Evaluation of the Sunshine University postdoctoral program

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 07/29/2019

Defense Date 06/10/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag career,mentoring,OAI-PMH Harvest,postdoc,postdoc satisfaction,postdoc training,postdoctoral researchers

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee chair), Canny, Eric (committee member), Sinatra, Gale (committee member)

Creator Email dlgarcia@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-197498

Unique identifier UC11663179

Identifier etd-GarciaDonn-7663.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-197498 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GarciaDonn-7663.pdf

Dmrecord 197498

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Garcia, Donna

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA