Postdoctoral Fellowships in Physical Education and Sport Sciences/Kinesiology: An International Investigation of Structures and Experiences

ABSTRACT

Postdoctoral fellowships (PDFs) are becoming increasingly common yet remain nebulous to many. The purpose of this research has been to investigate the structures and experiences of PDFs for fellows and supervisors in physical education and sport sciences/kinesiology (PESSK) internationally. Fourteen fellows and five supervisors participated in one-to-one semi-structured interviews. Data were thematically analyzed and interpreted through Dewey’s theory of experience. Findings revealed participants understood PDFs in relation to doctoral education and as preparation for academic careers. Reasons for engaging included ambitions for new contexts and mentorship, unprepared or unable to secure faculty employment, and facilitating professional learning. Challenges related to low salaries, family considerations, structural and institutional obstacles, international barriers, and high turnover. Perceived values included professional and personal growth and fellows as a learning, relationship, and productivity resource for supervisors. This research holds important implications for postdocs, supervisors, institutions, and funding agencies in supporting early-career scholarship in PESSK.

KEYWORDS:

• Early career
• higher education
• professional learning
• academia
• Dewey

Postdoctoral fellowships (PDFs) are becoming increasingly common in academia. For instance, a 2020 survey estimates the current number of postdoctoral fellows (henceforth postdocs) in Canada to be well over 10,000, a fifty percent increase over estimates from 2009 (Sparling et al., 2023; Stanford et al., 2009). While PDFs have a long tradition in the natural sciences, more recently, the prevalence of PDFs in other disciplines, including social sciences, has increased exponentially (Jadavji et al., 2016). One reason for the growth in PDFs is that the number of doctoral degrees being granted is increasing, while permanent, tenure-track academic positions are simultaneously decreasing (McAlpine & Austin, 2018). Despite this growth in the number of PDFs, research has found that understandings of PDFs remain nebulous to many, especially those outside the natural sciences (Woolston, 2020).

In higher education literature, a PDF is generally described as a temporary contract (e.g., one to three years) of mentored academic research and training undertaken by an individual who has recently completed their doctoral degree (National Academy of Sciences, 2014). A frequently described goal of PDFs is to support postdocs in conducting independent research and developing professional skills, while simultaneously contributing to the research output of the institution (e.g., Burke et al., 2019). Funding for PDFs can be accessed in a variety of ways, with the most common pathways including: (a) self-initiated/funded fellowships in which postdocs apply for and secure funding themselves through an agency, foundation, or university; or (b) being hired onto a position advertised by a principal investigator, typically to contribute to a specific funded project (Smyth, 2023). While definitions of PDFs are relatively similar across contexts, the structures and experiences postdocs report are rather varied, compounding confusion over what a PDF is and/or should be (Åkerlind, 2009).

The lack of clarity concerning PDFs has often resulted in insufficient institutional support and structures for postdocs. For instance, in many institutions there remains confusion and a lack of consistency regarding classifying postdocs as either students or staff, with postdocs missing out on the support that is offered to either of these groups (Sparling et al., 2023). Further, institutions rarely outline requirements or expectations for the PDF mentorship relationship, resulting in a wide range of mentorship experiences (Davis, 2009). Indeed, supervisors themselves have expressed concerns over how to offer mentorship and support to postdocs (McAlpine et al., 2017), with limited research providing insight into supervisors’ experiences.

To date, the vast majority of research published in English on PDFs has: (a) centered around appointments in natural sciences (e.g. Burke et al., 2019); (b) been conducted within North America (e.g. Jadavji et al., 2016; Yalcin et al., 2023); (c) focused exclusively on the experiences of postdocs and not supervisors (e.g. Patt et al., 2022); and (d) been conducted in isolated contexts, for instance, with postdocs in a single university department (e.g. Burke et al., 2019) or across a single nation (e.g. Share & Loxley, 2023). Furthermore, our search revealed no research focused on the topic of PDFs in physical education and sport sciences/kinesiology¹ (PESSK) more specifically. While previous research on early-career experiences in PESSK has highlighted some of the key challenges and values associated with the transition to an academic career (e.g., Enright et al., 2017), such research is not focused on the unique and uncertain nature of a PDF specifically. There remains a need for further research that can provide insight into how to better support PDF experiences at the personal, supervisory, and institutional levels.

As recent or current PESSK postdocs ourselves who have engaged in PDFs in different national contexts and with differing structures, we have experienced the ambiguities associated with these positions firsthand. As such, the question we address in this research is: what are the structures and experiences of PDFs for postdocs and supervisors in PESSK internationally?

Theoretical framework

Given our interest in the PDF experiences of postdocs and supervisors, we draw on Dewey’s (1938) theory of experience. Dewey argued that all genuine education – which he suggested can be understood in terms of growth – comes about through experience, yet not all experiences are equally educative. Rather, Dewey argued that the educative value of an experience depends on its quality or “the direction in which growth takes place” (p. 36). An experience is miseducative if it “has the effect of arresting or distorting the growth of further experience” (p. 25) by, for example, engendering callousness and producing a lack of sensitivity and responsiveness. In contrast, an experience is educative if it promotes future growth by, for example, arousing curiosity, strengthening initiative, and fostering desires. In making this distinction, Dewey discriminated between (a) the immediate agreeableness or disagreeableness of an experience and (b) its influence upon later experience; with the former being easy to judge and the latter less so. We provide examples relevant to this topic paraphrased from Dewey. A postdoc on a hired PDF may be assigned simple tasks from their supervisor and find the PDF experience easy and immediately enjoyable, yet through this experience they may develop a slack attitude which may prevent them from getting out of themselves what they have to give. Alternatively, a postdoc on a self-initiated PDF may find the experience of designing and leading their project incredibly challenging and disagreeable as they work, but through this experience they may develop strong interests, skillsets, and motivation. In the first example, the experience may be described as immediately agreeable yet miseducative, while the second example outlines an experience that is immediately disagreeable but educative. Ultimately, Dewey argues that the value of any experience “can only be judged on the ground which it moves toward and into” (p. 38).

To discriminate between experiences that are educationally worthwhile and those that are not, Dewey (1938) outlined the criteria of continuity and interaction. The basis of the principle of continuity is that a person’s existing habits and attitudes influence an experience they enter, and, in turn, that experience modifies those habits and attitudes through the creation of particular preferences and aversions. This then functions to affect the quality of subsequent experiences as it is a somewhat different person who enters them. Therefore, “continuity of experience means that every experience both takes up something from those which have gone before and modifies in some way the quality of those which come after” (p. 35). The concept of interaction describes the situation between an individual and their environment at the time of an experience. In this way, “an experience is always what it is because of a transaction taking place between an individual and what … constitutes his environment” (p. 43). The environment, also known as the objective conditions, includes anything that interacts with the internal conditions of a person’s needs, desires, purposes, and capacities, such as the physical space, materials, subject matter, or people. Importantly, Dewey assigned equal status to objective and internal conditions and argued for the importance of both being adapted to one another for educative experiences to occur.

Dewey outlined that the criteria of continuity and interaction are to be taken together as “the longitudinal and lateral aspects of experience” (p. 44), and from this he prompted considerations for the pursuit of educative experiences. One such consideration is that educators – which, in the case of a PDF, may include the postdoc, supervisor, and institution – have the responsibility to carefully attend to the conditions giving each present experience a worthwhile meaning. He was critical, for example, of instances in which only the objective environment is taken into consideration and not the other critical factor of the individual’s personal capacities and purposes. When this happens, Dewey argued the educational or growth process becomes accidental, as those for whom the conditions happen to be suitable will manage to grow, and the rest will only get along as best they can. As such:

it is not enough that certain materials and methods have proved effective with other individuals at other times. There must be a reason for thinking that they will function in generating an experience that has educative quality with particular individuals at a particular time. (Dewey, 1938, p. 46)

In other words, there is no environment that is in and of itself inherently educative, but rather it always also depends on the individual engaged. The question for the postdoc, supervisor, and institution then becomes “how to utilize the surroundings, physical and social, that exist so as to extract from them all that they have to contribute to building up experiences that are worthwhile” (p. 40) for these particular individuals at this particular time.

Another consideration prompted by Dewey is the importance of considering the future throughout the educational process without making the misguided assumption that “by acquiring certain skills and by learning certain subjects which would be needed later in life … [learners] are, as a matter of course, made ready for the needs and circumstances of the future … ‘preparation’ is a treacherous idea” (p. 47). One reason for this is that learning that happens in isolation can be so detached from reality that it is not later available under the actual conditions of practice. Another reason is collateral learning, that is, the notion that one does not only learn the content they are studying, but also forms lasting attitudes, preferences, and aversions that can be more important than the content, as these are what shape their future. He described, “The most important attitude that can be formed is that of desire to go on learning” (p. 48). There is no point, Dewey argued, to learn any content if one loses interest in, appreciation for, and desire to apply what they have learned and “above all, the ability to extract meaning from [their] future experiences as they occur” (p. 49). As such, he warned that when preparation is the controlling end, the potential of the present is sacrificed to the supposed future. Thus, for Dewey, the real meaning of preparation is for a person to extract out of their present experience all that is in it for them at the time, such that they will be prepared to do the same thing in the future.

We acknowledge that our use of Dewey’s theory of experience is perhaps unconventional in that it is typically applied to formal education experiences. While we understand PDFs as distinct from formal education experiences (e.g. undergraduate and graduate degree programs), we consider PDFs as providing an opportunity for personal and/or professional growth and thus seek to make sense of PDF experiences through this theoretical lens.

Research design

This research was conducted using qualitative research, which is particularly appropriate for gathering rich descriptions of participants’ lived experiences and informing researchers’ interpretations of those experiences (Punch, 2009). This study constitutes a form of insider research in which the researchers are also participants (Probst et al., 2016). As postdocs ourselves at the time of this research, and in line with similar qualitative studies (e.g. Buys et al., 2022; Probst et al., 2016), we each also chose to participate (constituting three of the 14 postdoc participants). Therefore, the results of the paper must be read with the understanding that some of the findings reflect the authors’ own words and experiences.

Participants

Individuals were eligible to participate if they were currently or previously (within the last 10 years) involved as a postdoc or PDF supervisor in PESSK. Following ethical approval, initial recruitment involved (a) sending personalized e-mails to individuals we knew met the criteria and (b) posting open invitations via Twitter (now “X”).² Subsequently, we used a snowball recruitment method, asking those who had agreed to participate to share the invitation with others who might meet the criteria.

In total, 14 postdocs (10 females [F], 4 males [M]) and 5 supervisors (3F, 2 M) participated. Participants were from the following disciplinary areas: PE (9 postdocs, 3 supervisors), sport psychology (1 postdoc, 1 supervisor), motor learning (1 postdoc) and health sciences (3 postdocs, 1 supervisor). We asked postdocs to provide demographic information about themselves that they felt was relevant to this topic and which they felt comfortable sharing (e.g. age, gender, location, marital/family status, nationality). Here we provide summarized information to avoid identification. Six postdocs reported having children. Four identified as being a person of color and ten identified as white. Ten described taking time out of academia at some point (e.g., to work in industry, career break), while four reported no breaks. Eleven were in their thirties and the rest in their forties (at the time of the research and not necessarily during their PDF). In terms of their PDFs, seven fellows secured their own funding, six were hired by a principal investigator, and one engaged in an unpaid PDF. Nine had engaged in a single postdoc and five in more than one. Eight were currently in PDFs, while six had moved on (four to tenure-track positions, one to a non-tenure track teaching role, and one outside of academia). The PDFs that participants engaged in ranged in length from a few months to five years. Supervisor participants reported having supervised between two and 12 PDFs, and none of the supervisors had participated in a PDF themselves. Four were full professors and one associate professor at the time of the research. Postdocs and supervisors reported originating from Asia (n = 1), Europe (n = 5), North America (n = 11), and South America (n = 2). Five postdocs and 1 supervisor did not speak English as a first language, while the remainder did. The location of where the PDFs were held included Australasia (n = 1), Europe (n = 7), and North America (n = 11). In the case that postdocs had engaged in multiple PDFs, we refer to the location of the most recent here.

Data gathering

Following receipt of informed consent, each postdoc and supervisor participated in an approximately 30-minute, semi-structured, recorded interview via Zoom or Microsoft Teams with one of the three authors between December 2022 and March 2023. Our own participation mirrored that of the other postdoc participants in that each of us was interviewed one-to-one by one of our coauthors. These interviews were audio recorded and transcribed by one of the authors and analyzed alongside the rest of the postdoc participant data. Postdocs were asked: (1) how they defined PDFs; (2) their reasons for engaging in a PDF; (3) the application process, structure (e.g., funding, length, supervision); (4) benefits, challenges, and overall quality of their PDF(s); (5) if they would recommend PDFs to others; and (6) their experiences navigating career pathways post-PDF, when relevant.

Supervisors were asked: (1) about the structure of the PDFs they had supervised; (2) the nature of those supervision experiences, including benefits and challenges; (3) why they agreed to supervise PDFs; (4) how PDF supervision differed from PhD supervision; (5) supports available to postdocs in their contexts; and (6) reasons they would or would not recommend PDFs to others. As interviews were transcribed, participants were assigned pseudonyms. The pseudonyms reflect the names of trees, with the “Dr” prefix and deciduous tree names used for postdocs to represent their individual and PDF diversity, and the prefix “Prof” alongside coniferous tree names symbolizing the long-lasting wisdom shared by supervisors.

Data analysis

We engaged in a reflexive thematic analysis of the data guided by Braun and Clarke’s (2019) phased approach. Analysis began with the writing of familiarization notes as each author read and re-read the transcripts. Initial codes were then generated independently by each author, after which we met to discuss our initial coding and to begin generating initial themes. At this meeting, we decided to code inductively within four content categories of PDF understandings, and the rationales, challenges, and benefits of engaging in or supervising PDFs, as we felt this organization of the data was most relevant to our aim. We then independently returned to the data for a second round of coding and to develop and review the themes, including a list of sub-themes with examples from the data to support each. In subsequent meetings, we reviewed the sub-themes and supporting quotes and together refined, defined, and named the themes.

Once themes were determined, we interpreted them through Dewey’s (1938) theory of experience. Specifically, we began by considering the themes in terms of their educative and miseducative quality, looking for detail on how the criteria of continuity and interaction shaped that quality. Then we reflected on the data in terms of Dewey’s considerations of attending carefully to (a) the conditions of each experience, and (b) the future. Themes are reported in the findings section and our theoretical analysis in the discussion.

We again wish to acknowledge our experience as previous or current postdocs and our participation in the research, which inevitably influences our interpretation of the data. However, the thematic data analysis process just described allowed us to ensure the trustworthiness of our findings. As such, the themes are representative of ideas discussed by multiple postdocs and none of the themes or sub-themes were derived exclusively from data we (the three authors) contributed. Further, all 14 postdocs and 5 supervisors are cited in the paper. We refrain from identifying specific excerpts of data that are our own to prevent making other participants in a relatively small sample more identifiable – a request that was made by numerous participants. We have endeavored to present findings that capture the breadth of unique PDF experiences as well as some common themes amongst them.

Findings

(Mis)Understandings of PDFs

In many cases, and in line with literature on PDFs in other fields, participants expressed uncertainty or a lack of understanding around definitions of PDFs: “It was kind of an enigma to me, and something that I didn’t really understand” (Dr. Oak, F). While supervisors working in sport science/kinesiology departments were accustomed to hiring postdocs, those working in social science departments, such as education, described postdocs as being “relatively new” (Prof. Spruce, M). As a result, many postdocs often had no point of reference for understanding PDFs apart from what they knew of the types of appointments that might be common in the natural sciences. For instance, Dr. Maple (M) shared: “When I thought of a postdoc, I thought of people in a lab doing science – like traditional, hardcore science.”

When participants did express understandings of PDFs, these related to (a) PDFs as an academic holding pen for postdocs; (b) differences by the nature of PDF funding; and (c) comparison to experiences as doctoral students. Each sub theme will be discussed in turn.

An academic holding pen for postdocs

In attempting to define PDFs, several postdocs’ descriptions resonated with Dr. Willow’s (F), who described it as “a non-fixed period of time to deepen knowledge, generally on some point of your previous work.” While there was some sense of the PDF as being an extension of the doctoral experience and, in this way, an opportunity for personal growth, this was often tied to the perception of PDFs serving as a “bridge” (Dr. Linden, F) or “holding pen” (Dr. Chestnut, F) between the doctoral degree and permanent employment in academia (ideally, a tenure-track position). Dr. Ivy (F) described the experience by saying: “You’re just a little bit in limbo, trying to find a[n academic] job but helping other people out while you do it.” Given that most postdocs were intent on pursuing a career in academia, both fellows and supervisors expressed some concern around the general structure of PDFs as solely research-intensive positions which lacked opportunities for teaching: “I do think for those … going into 40-40-20 [research, teaching, service] kind of universities, it would be nice to see, in Education, a PDF that includes teaching. But I’m not aware of any of those” (Prof. Cedar, M). Some postdocs were able to negotiate a minimal amount of teaching, yet this was often a function of the supervisor allowing some teaching on the side rather than teaching being an intentional part of the PDF structure. In this sense, for some postdocs there was a misalignment between what they felt a PDF should be (i.e., preparation for a tenure-track career in academia) and the PDF structure (i.e., a focus on research to the exclusion of teaching).

Differences by nature of postdoc funding

Perspectives of PDFs seemed to be influenced by the nature of the PDF funding sources. Self-initiated PDFs were typically seen as including more opportunities to explore one’s own research interests and professional development compared to positions that involved being hired by a principal investigator to work on a project that was designed without input from the postdoc. For instance, Dr. Hawthorn (M) described his self-initiated fellowship as: “a way to conduct research that is my own” and “to be leading or co-leading those projects.” However, Dr. Ash (F), who was hired to support an existing project, struggled with the lack of autonomy the position held: “I was just always at someone else’s beck and call [… Whatever] they needed done, that’s what I had to do.” For Dr. Ash, being asked to perform time-consuming, monotonous research tasks, rather than contributing to the project in meaningful ways, shaped her perception of the PDF as negative: “So it goes with the PDF … You get all the crap jobs.”

Comparisons to experiences as doctoral students

Some postdocs made sense of PDFs in relation to the similarities and differences from their former experiences as doctoral students. Dr. Hawthorn (M) explained that being a postdoc is “kind of like being a student, but without all the benefits of what students would get, like all the discounts and lack of responsibility.” Similarly, Dr. Ivy (F) outlined a key difference between her experience of being a postdoc and being a doctoral student as having to “pay [more] taxes now.” In this way, the increased responsibilities associated with the PDF were sometimes perceived to be incommensurate with the potential benefits, at least initially. In making these comparisons, several postdocs articulated a desire for a greater distinction between the PDF and doctoral experience, not wanting to be considered or treated as students any longer. Dr. Elder (F) described an experience in her first PDF, where she was assigned simple research tasks she had performed as an undergraduate research assistant and, thus, was eager to leave her PDF. However, in her second PDF, Dr. Elder felt she was treated as a colleague and an independent researcher in her institution, which challenged her initial, negative perceptions of the PDF. Several supervisors also described the value in distinguishing between postdocs and students. For instance, Professor Larch (F) spoke of the importance of treating postdocs as expert colleagues with potential to bring about breakthroughs in their field:

There is training involved in [a PDF], but it’s not like a PhD. A PhD is a training exercise. A fellowship is a whole new level of expertise, a whole new level of trying to grow the field, a whole new level of moving beyond the state of the art in relation to the research questions that you have.

Drawing comparisons, positive or negative, to the doctoral experience, provided both supervisors and postdocs with context for considering, articulating, and enacting PDFs.

Reasons for engaging in and supervising PDFs

There were several reasons postdocs engaged in PDFs, which generally fit into two broad categories: (a) gaining new context and mentorship experiences; and (b) feeling unprepared for or unable to secure tenure-track employment. Supervisors’ reasons for engaging in PDF supervision revolved around the notion of facilitating learning.

Postdocs gaining new context and mentorship experiences

Two types of new experiences were often mentioned by postdocs as key motivations for pursuing PDFs. First, the opportunity to research and work abroad was important for several postdocs. For those who did not speak English as their first language and were interested in finding permanent employment in an English-speaking country, the PDF was viewed as providing an important opportunity to “develop [one]self with languages” (Dr. Willow, F). For others, the allure of going abroad was related to the opportunity to broaden horizons in other ways. For instance, one postdoc described the value of a PDF abroad as “a unique opportunity to discover another research environment, which is really important from my perspective, to develop a new network and experience something different than the PhD that you have done” (Dr. Hazel, F).

Second, for some postdocs, the location of their PDF was less significant than gaining the experience of working with a specific supervisor whose area of expertise they were keen to draw from. One fellow shared:

I knew that the person that I was going to come and work with is a really great mentor, supervisor, and she’s a fantastic scientist herself and doing amazing work in this area. And I knew that I could learn a lot with her. (Dr. Hawthorn, M)

While some of these postdocs did relocate for their PDFs, the location itself was secondary to the mentorship experience they were seeking. In each of these cases, the opportunity to gain a new experience (whether international or supervisory) was often viewed as a means to another end: providing the opportunity for the postdoc to develop skills and gain experience that would further their professional learning and, ultimately, their career prospects.

Postdocs unprepared for or unable to secure tenure-track faculty employment

The second reason postdocs frequently articulated for engaging in a PDF related to their pursuit of an academic career. Some postdocs were looking for opportunities to further prepare for such careers. Dr. Oak (M) described how the PDF “sounded like this stepping stone between doctoral work and faculty work, and part of me didn’t know if I was 100% ready to step into a faculty role. And so having that transition felt good; it felt comfortable.” For postdocs who were experiencing some apprehension around beginning the “tenure clock,” the PDF provided an opportunity to get one’s feet wet in academia without having to balance the breadth of responsibilities a faculty role can entail.

Conversely, some postdocs felt fully prepared and confident to step directly into faculty roles following the completion of their PhDs and expressed frustration over the lack of available permanent positions that suited their personal situations. Female participants in particular noted an inability to find positions in places that best suited their families, often requiring relocation: “[Having to move for a permanent position] doesn’t jive with my life goals, and I’m not willing to make those sacrifices for a job” (Dr. Poplar, F). In these cases, a PDF tended to serve as a position that temporarily allowed them to stay in their desired field and location while they sought more permanent employment: “It’s kind of like I’m sitting here waiting for a job that might actually suit my family – whether that’s something remote, or something local” (Dr. Elder, F). For several female postdocs, this was a source of great stress. The lack of jobs available during this time frame was exacerbated by hiring freezes and other obstacles related to the COVID-19 pandemic. One supervisor shared:

[The] second postdoc [I supervised] finished her PhD right after COVID. There were no jobs. So I said to her, “Well, why don’t we do an unpaid postdoc as a way to keep you connected to an institution, so that as you are applying for jobs, you don’t have a gap year?” And so, it was a means to an end. (Professor Hemlock, F)

Similarly, for other participants who hoped to relocate for faculty positions in new countries, the PDF was a placeholder in a local institution until national borders reopened and opportunities to accept permanent positions abroad became available again. While engaging in PDFs in these contexts served a purpose and allowed the postdoc to stay in their field while waiting for permanent employment, this was not without a cost. Most notably, we highlight the issue of postdocs engaging in work without compensation (as described in the quote above), regardless of how temporarily, in order to stay in academia.

Supervisors as facilitators of professional learning

A key reason supervisors stated for choosing to supervise PDFs was facilitating the professional learning (and eventual permanent academic employment) of early career researchers in the field. For instance, one supervisor shared:

For me, it’s about mentorship. It’s about helping position young scholars, and in particular young women scholars, to have something that goes beyond their PhD, because it looks good, and it’s important, and they need it. And as a full professor, I don’t need any of this. (Prof. Hemlock, F)

While this idea of facilitating mentorship and career advancement was a common thread, for some supervisors there was a sense that the most successful supervisor-postdoc connections were those with the potential to be mutually beneficial: helping the postdoc while also bringing some value to the supervisor. In many cases, supervisors were looking for postdocs who could “bring something that is a bit new or a bit different” (Prof. Spruce, M), such as experience with a new methodology or theory, while at the same time being conscious of their responsibility to consider what they can offer the postdoc and how they can support them in moving into an academic role.

Challenges of engaging in and supervising PDFs

Challenges comprised the most evident and discernible theme of PDF experiences amongst postdocs. While many challenges were discussed, here we highlight the most prominent including PDF salaries, family considerations, structural and institutional challenges, and international barriers. In addition, supervisors spoke of the challenges of the high turnover rate amongst postdocs and some negative experiences associated with the supervisor-postdoc relationship.

Low PDF salaries

In some contexts, postdocs described feeling they were underpaid for their work, making little, if any, more than they had as doctoral students, and far less than they expected to with a completed PhD. One postdoc said: “I could probably work full time at McDonald’s [for the same salary]” (Dr. Poplar, F). This led to some postdocs having to take on multiple, piecemeal jobs in addition to their full-time PDFs to support themselves and, in some cases, their families. In these contexts, postdocs were often left feeling “undervalued” (Dr. Ivy, F) and spoke of PDF salaries as being “hugely problematic” (Dr. Poplar, F), especially when postdocs had completed four degrees (e.g., BPhEd, BEd, MA, and PhD). Salaries seemed to vary across international contexts. For instance, one postdoc described having to leave her postdoc in a North American institution, as the salary was insufficient for supporting her family. After moving to a postdoc position abroad, she said of her transition: “I do get a much better salary now that I’m in [Europe] than I was getting in [North America]” (Dr. Elder, F).

Postdocs’ family considerations

The impact of PDFs on family was described as a significant challenge, particularly for female postdocs. For example, some female postdocs expressed concerns that they (and others) felt pressure to delay pregnancy due to financial considerations, lack of job security, and concerns over the impact parental leave may have on their ability to have a career in academia, all of which occurring at a time when “[the] biological clock is ticking” (Dr. Ivy, F). One postdoc explained:

It’s problematic that there’s no good time to have a child when it should be something that’s very exciting and celebrated, and [for some] people in [some] other jobs, it doesn’t matter. You just go on mat[ernity] leave. […] And that’s not typically what takes place [for postdocs]. (Dr. Poplar, F)

Family considerations were also a challenge, at times, for female participants who already had children. A postdoc who is a single mom spoke of the frustration of being unable to sustain a PDF while trying to support her children:

Trying to support four kids on a PDF salary is ridiculous […] My kids are like “I thought once you were done [your PhD] it was going to get better.” That’s what I kept telling them, and it’s not better. So it’s really disheartening. (Dr. Ash, F)

The seemingly disproportionate impact of these challenges on female postdocs points to a need to consider (at least in some contexts) the scaffolding of academic employment and promotion structures, to ensure they foster equity and inclusion.

Structural and institutional challenges for postdocs and supervisors

Postdocs articulated frustration with some of the institutional structures of their PDFs (e.g., the duration of the PDF). For instance, Dr. Linden (F) suggested: “The challenge or tension [of a PDF] is knowing that it’s not permanent.” The short-term nature of postdocs was perceived as problematic in two ways: first, it made it challenging to engage in and finish a major research project, especially when you had to concurrently engage in constant job searching, and second, it produced a lack of job security which was often frustrating:

I’m pretty sick of contract work. I’m pretty sick of finding a new job every few years. […] Even if I’m going to leave my next job in two years, I’d like to decide that, and I’d like to not have to [leave]. (Dr. Chestnut, F)

This feeling of having to engage in short-term work undermined the autonomy and sense of security some postdocs felt they would have after completing their PhDs.

Further, in many cases, universities were ill-prepared to support postdocs. For example, some participants described the frustrations of simple organizational shortcomings, such as not being provided library or e-mail access within their institutions. In other cases, institutions were unsure if postdocs should be classified as staff or students. One supervisor spoke extensively of the challenges this lack of organization creates:

duplication in the system and lack of centrality in relation to who deals with postdocs… There are so many different people that we’ve been to in relation to trying to get staff numbers, trying to get ID numbers, trying to get visas, etcetera. There doesn’t seem to be a centralized hub for that. So, I think that’s one of the biggest challenges, the positioning of postdocs within an organization. (Prof. Pine, F)

In addition to being inefficient and time-consuming for the postdoc, supervisor, and institution, these challenges led to some postdocs experiencing a lack of clarity concerning their position: “I didn’t see myself having a clear role […] so I didn’t really fit” (Dr. Hickory, M). While postdocs appreciated the need to carve out their own role or niche within a department, these challenges also led several to describe the postdoc as a lonely and isolating experience.

International barriers for postdocs

There were unique challenges for postdocs who engaged in an international PDF. First, postdocs from developing countries described having fewer opportunities to apply for and engage in local and self-initiated PDFs, and, therefore, in some cases chose to pursue PDFs in another country, sometimes without any funding. One postdoc spoke of selling possessions to be able to afford to take an unpaid PDF due to the lack of opportunities available to her in her home country. She described her journey as “always being about suffering” (Dr. Willow, F). Second, postdocs moving to new countries sometimes experienced language and cultural barriers:

[It’s] a new country, new regulation, new tax, new everything, new way of eating… You just learn the cultural and the social habits, and I would say, so far I’m not sure I’m really into [the local] culture. I know the words, and I know also some of the habits they have, but I still don’t have them […] Yeah, that’s a big challenge. (Dr. Hazel, F)

While language and culture were primary reasons some postdocs chose to go abroad, they were also challenging to navigate, particularly when they intersected with other challenges such as relocating the whole family or balancing a heavy PDF workload.

Turnover and fit as challenges for supervisors

Several supervisors mentioned the high turnover rate of postdocs as a challenge: “I would say we lose between 40 and 50% of postdocs in our faculty before they even finish their term because they have the opportunity for a permanent appointment either in the university or elsewhere” (Prof. Pine, F). While there was a general sense that preparing postdocs for permanent employment was a key role of the supervisor and, thus, they were happy when postdocs found permanent positions, the challenges of incomplete projects and filling gaps in research groups remained. Further, some supervisors spoke of having negative supervisory experiences, which typically resulted from a perceived incompatibility in the supervisor-postdoc relationship: “That first [PDF I supervised] was an absolute disaster. […] And one of the things I learned [was] I will never take a postdoc that I don’t know their doctoral supervisor in some way, because it has to be the right fit” (Prof. Cedar, M). Supervisors pointed to the importance of not making assumptions about the capacity/capability of a postdoc on the basis of a completed PhD. It was described as critical to ensure the supervisor felt they could work well with the postdoc before agreeing to supervise them, in order to avoid a negative experience for themselves and the postdoc.

Perceived values of engaging in and supervising PDFs

Despite the numerous challenges shared, nearly all postdocs also described their experiences as being valuable in relation to developing their professional skills and profiles and experiencing personal growth. Supervisors spoke of the values of learning with and from postdocs, building new relationships, and experiencing increased productivity levels.

Postdocs developing professional skills and profiles

Postdocs often characterized PDFs as facilitating opportunities for their professional learning by, for instance, providing “time to explore and broaden perspectives” (Dr. Alder, F) and to “learn a different skill set” (Dr. Oak, M), such as working with a new methodology or theory. An important aspect of this was that the PDF should stretch the postdoc in new academic directions: “I think PDFs should be outside your own comfort [zone]” (Dr. Alder, F). While this was viewed as being important for postdocs’ learning, it was also seen as a key aspect in helping the postdoc to build their curriculum-vitae, and ultimately their employability. In this sense, postdocs highlighted the importance of being intentional in structuring and selecting a PDF that would facilitate future career goals and ambitions:

I was very strategic of who I wanted to work with […] someone that would understand my lived experiences and support my goals [… I told my supervisor] “Here are the things that I want to develop as a person and as a researcher the next three years,” and we kind of set out the three-year plan and worked to support those things. Again, a lot of that was teaching, mentorship, grantsmanship. (Dr. Poplar, F)

This type of strategic planning allowed postdocs to develop a broad array of skills which might be needed for a faculty career. In addition, several participants who had completed their PDFs and moved into tenure-track positions spoke of the value of the PDF for assisting in that transition, particularly through providing dedicated research and writing time. For instance, Dr. Maple (M) shared that the number of publications he was bringing into his tenure-track position from his PDF allowed him to start his position with a lighter research load, which he described as being “a game changer” in navigating his new role. For others, having several manuscripts written during their PDF but published during their first years as a faculty member allowed them to focus on their new teaching and service responsibilities until they were well-adjusted and ready to engage in new research projects and publications.

PDFs as personal growth for postdocs

Along with professional development, PDFs were described as a time for personal growth. Despite the challenges postdocs faced in their various contexts, some spoke of the PDF as providing opportunities for them to learn more about themselves: “I think I learned more about […] who I really am, because I had to define myself a lot of times within a new environment” (Dr. Hazel, F). Dr. Elm (F) highlighted the key value of her PDF experiences as helping her to realize that she was not interested in pursuing a career in research, and, in this way, it helped her to understand herself and her ambitions more clearly. While this might be perceived as a negative experience, the postdoc described the experience as valuable in that it opened new possibilities that were not previously considered.

Postdocs as a learning, relationship, and productivity resource for supervisors

One of the most valued aspects of the supervisory experience was the opportunity to learn with and from postdocs: “You have somebody here who has a carved out space in a particular area of expertise […] It’s actually a learning opportunity for me” (Prof. Pine, F). Given the nature of PDFs, the postdoc was viewed as having the time and opportunity to invest deeply in a particular area and, in many cases, learning more on the topic than the supervisor. Supervisors also spoke of more personal benefits associated with supervising postdocs, particularly around the relationships that were built. As the only PE faculty member in her department, Prof. Hemlock (F) viewed supervising PE postdocs as serving the benefit of fostering a community in which to learn together and simply enjoy one another’s company. While often seen as less important than learning and relationship-building, supervisors also spoke to the very practical benefits associated with having postdocs, such as being able to “punch out a bunch of papers on work that needs to be done” (Prof. Cedar, M). However, this was viewed as a convenient by-product of PDFs rather than a rationale for choosing to supervise postdocs.

Discussion

Our key findings regarding the structures and experiences of PDFs for PESSK postdocs and supervisors in various international contexts resonate with the findings of existing literature on PDFs generally. For example, one of the primary concerns postdoc participants discussed regarding the structures of PDFs in their respective locations related to the amount of funding they received, with some postdocs feeling they were unfairly compensated. This is not a particularly new insight, with previous research highlighting similar concerns around postdocs’ salaries in some places, especially North America (e.g., Yalcin et al., 2023 in the USA; Sparling et al., 2023 in Canada). In addition to concerns over low salaries, this research has also pointed to a lack of access to self-initiated/funded PDFs for postdocs in developing countries, who described facing undue hardships in accessing and funding their PDFs. Thus, our research echoes previous calls for funding agencies and institutions to consider whether PDF salaries are appropriate and/or keeping pace with those in other countries (Sparling et al., 2023) and the extent to which PDF structures may inadvertently disadvantage scholars from developing countries and/or those who learn English as an additional language (Burke et al., 2019). Another key finding highlighted postdoc’s family and personal situation as being perhaps the most influential factor in the quality of the PDF experience. This is also resonant with the broader body of literature on experiences of PDFs in the social and natural sciences. For instance, similar challenges around motherhood and pregnancy (Burke et al., 2019) and a vast array of family and personal factors (Chen et al., 2015) have previously been articulated by postdocs as influencing the quality of their PDF experience.

Given the parallels between our findings and the existing literature, we aim to offer a new perspective by making sense of the findings through Dewey’s (1938) theory of experience. Specifically, we consider the quality of postdocs’ PDF experiences through Dewey’s criteria of continuity and interaction and his considerations to take the future into account at every stage and to carefully attend to the conditions of each experience.

We begin with the two key ways in which continuity appeared to shape postdocs’ PDF experiences and resultant attitudes toward future growth. First, postdocs made sense of PDFs in relation to prior learning experiences, most notably, the similarities and differences between their PDF and their experiences of their doctoral programs. For example, when experiences of PDFs were too similar to their doctoral experiences, postdocs tended to feel bored and even undervalued. Yet, when experiences were too dissimilar, the lack of structure and consistency was sometimes problematic. Thus, there was a need for postdocs to experience a sense of progression in moving from PhD to PDF in a way that was neither stagnant nor jarring. Second, and of particular consequence, was that postdocs seemed to define PDFs generally, and their PDFs specifically, as preparation for a future academic career (i.e., PDFs as a bridge, stepping stone, or holding pen to academia). In other words, for participants in this research, preparation appears to have been the controlling end of the PDF experience. As Dewey argued in his consideration to attend to the future always, when preparation is made the controlling end of an experience, the present experience is rarely appreciated for its growth opportunities and the potential value of the experience is inadvertently sacrificed to a supposed future. This may explain why the postdocs in this research placed overwhelmingly greater emphasis on the challenges of their PDF in comparison to the benefits. Thinking further along Deweyan lines, given the PDF structure that most participants described, that is, a narrow research-only workload, it may be contradictory to think that most PDFs, as currently configured, prepare one for an academic career, as the PDF structure is not reflective of the broader research-teaching-service workload of a traditional tenure-track faculty position, or the increasingly common teaching-intensive faculty positions. Thus, we interpret that Dewey would suggest the potential transfer of skills developed during the PDF to a future academic career is limited, given the learning happens largely in isolation.

What might this mean for supervisors of postdocs considering or currently engaged in PDFs? Perhaps the guidance for PDF supervisors is, if they want to facilitate the professional learning of early career scholars in the field, which our supervisor participants suggested was a primary motivation for their engagement in PDFs, they should ensure PDFs are not pigeonholed as preparation for the tenure track. And for those postdocs considering or currently engaging in a PDF, the recommendation may be to try to view and shape the PDF as a learning opportunity. We appreciate, however, that doing so fully is not without its challenges, as viewing the PDF as a learning opportunity is at odds with current structures in many places and is a luxury many early career scholars cannot realistically afford. At the same time, we also wish to note that while the postdocs in our research who were engaged in self-initiated PDFs appeared to more readily interpret their PDF as being “about” professional learning, some postdocs in hired PDFs were also successful in strategically shaping their PDFs to their professional learning needs. Therefore, the recommendation to those in hired PDFs may be to negotiate with their supervisor to ensure their professional learning needs are met as much as possible.

Fortunately, some contexts are beginning to recognize the need to reframe the PDF, taking the onus off the postdoc to negotiate. For example, the Irish Universities Association (2023) has recently launched the Research Career Development and Employment Framework. This framework was created with the recognition that, amongst other things: (a) “the majority of HEI [i.e., higher education institution] researchers will ultimately continue their careers outside the HEI” (p. 12); (b) teaching is “an essential means for the structuring and dissemination of knowledge and therefore … a valuable option within researchers’ career paths” (p. 12); and (c) “varying levels of learning and development opportunities” (p. 4) exist within HEIs for those engaged in research. Therefore, the framework sets out that all PDF appointments shall offer postdocs the opportunity to engage not only in research, but also in opportunities for teaching and their own development. As such, the framework outlines expectations and contractual entitlements for various actors. For example, it is expected that the principal investigator or head of department and the postdoc will engage in a planning, review, and feedback process regarding the postdocs’ professional learning needs and development and that institutions will offer a professional learning curriculum for postdocs and ensure protected time for them to engage in that learning (i.e., 5 days per annum).

In relation to the principle of interaction, the most notable factor influencing the quality of the PDF experience was the interaction between: (a) a postdoc participants’ internal condition of their personal/family situation; and (b) the objective environmental condition of the PDF structures. Furthermore, we observed a key distinction along gender lines, that is, many female participants spoke frequently of tension between these factors, while, male participants rarely did.³ The interaction between internal and objective conditions had the potential to influence both the agreeableness and educative value of the PDF experience. By way of example, Dr. Ash, a single mother who was struggling to feed her family on a postdoc salary, spoke of an immediately disagreeable PDF experience. While the work and learning within her PDF was enjoyable, she was constantly frustrated by policies put in place by her institution and funding agency which prevented her from being able to provide for her family, for instance, by restricting her ability to work outside of the PDF for additional income. Ultimately, this produced a miseducative experience for Dr. Ash, who was adamant about discouraging other early career scholars from engaging in PDFs. On the contrary, Dr. Oak, who was relatively young (i.e., went directly from undergraduate, to masters, to PhD, to PDF) and single at the time of his PDF, spoke of a demanding work environment in that he often worked 60 or more hours a week, yet he considered his PDF to be the most productive year of his career, finding it both immediately agreeable and educative. While both postdocs found the work of their PDFs to be valuable, the interaction between internal (personal) and external (structural/institutional) conditions ultimately determined the quality of the experience.

In line with Dewey’s (1938) recommendation to attend to the objective and internal conditions of an experience, and as evidenced in the examples above, this research highlights the importance of postdocs, supervisors, institutions, and funders taking responsibility for carefully considering and structuring the PDF. Importantly, when a one-size-fits-all approach to PDFs is taken, the structure and environment tends to facilitate growth only for those to whom it is best suited (i.e., often younger, male, postdocs without children or other family responsibilities, and from developed nations). While it may be common in natural sciences for individuals to move directly from master’s to PhD to PDF to career, in the context of this research, we found that it was relatively common for individuals in PESSK to take breaks from their educational trajectory to engage in practical professional work (e.g. teaching in the context of physical education) before going on to graduate and post-graduate work. This trend of career breaks highlights concerns that traditional PDF structures (particularly those which require long hours for minimal pay while offering little job security) may unduly disadvantage postdocs who are seeking secure employment that also suits their personal and familial lives. At the same time, we point to the need for postdocs to know and understand themselves and their specific needs and, together with their supervisors, seek opportunities which might align with their ambitions and life stage. Supervisors, institutions, and funding agencies can better support postdocs by facilitating flexible PDF structures which account for and accommodate individual differences (Burke et al., 2019).

Conclusion

In light of the findings of our research, we close with our imperatives for the future. We advocate for the development of policies that will ensure more equitable access to and funding of PDF opportunities across international contexts. We also advocate for the development of more flexible PDF structures in PESSK which can accommodate the needs of postdocs in various life stages. Future research should seek to clarify differences and similarities between experiences of PDFs and other early career positions (e.g. research associateships, research assistantships) and should take a longitudinal approach, following postdocs’ transitions into subsequent phases of their career paths, including those who find permanent employment outside of academia.

Acknowledgements

We wish to sincerely thank Dr. Doug Gleddie for his support and facilitation of this research, which would not have been possible otherwise.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. We are using this term to refer to the academic discipline related to human movement which encompasses such sub-disciplinary areas as human anatomy, human physiology, exercise physiology, biomechanics, motor learning and control, psychology of physical activity, physical education pedagogy, health, adapted physical activity, sociology of sport, sport history, sport management, and sport philosophy (Canadian Council of University Physical Education and Kinesiology Administrators, n.d.). While this discipline is widely termed “kinesiology” within North America, elsewhere in the world (e.g., Europe, Australasia) variations of “sport sciences” and “human movement studies” are more commonly used terms. Thus, we have elected to use physical education and sport sciences/kinesiology here to reflect the international context of this research.

2. All the coauthors are from the physical education pedagogy sub-disciplinary area of PESSK, thus, while our recruitment was open to all PESSK sub-disciplines, we acknowledge that we are better connected within the social science, rather than natural science, sub-disciplines and this may have influenced the participant pool accordingly.

3. We recognize the possibility that male participants may have felt similar tensions but were perhaps uncomfortable sharing with the female interviewers.