Abstract
Since implementing the postdoctoral system in China, the number and quality of postdocs have improved greatly. Under the policy of creating world-class universities, most universities have focused unprecedentedly on recruiting postdoctoral fellows, and the management regulations for postdocs have become increasingly diverse. Through in-depth interviews with postdoctoral fellows at three universities in a metropolitan city, we found that postdoctoral roles have been multidimensional and sometimes conflicting, including the quasi-role of university teacher, the rigid role of independent researcher, the inertial role of student and the unofficial role of associate supervisor. Sociocultural norms, institutional contexts, and professional community shape these role identities.
Introduction
In the wake of a thriving global postdoctoral community, postdoctoral careers and working environments are increasingly discussed internationally. The existence of postdocs at universities means that PhDs who graduated in recent years choose to have temporary work to transition to academic tenure positions. In a growing body of literature, researchers have examined postdocs’ career experiences, including faculty expectations and the treatment of international postdocs (Cantwell & Lee, 2010; Cantwell & Taylor, 2013); career satisfaction (van der Weijden et al., 2015); minority postdocs’ career experiences (Yadav et al., 2020); the transition of university postdocs to non-academic careers (Dorenkamp & Weiss, 2018; Hayter & Parker, 2019); the choice, selection, and recruitment of postdocs (Herschberg et al., 2018; Knaub et al., 2018); academic career prospects and postdocs’ motivation (Fitzenberger & Schulze, 2014; Sauermann & Roach, 2016); research training and attaining faculty careers in the social sciences and STEM fields (Wang & Main, 2021); postdocs’ experiences with faculty and student mentoring relationships (Blaney et al., 2020; Noel et al., 2021) and published outcomes (Ahmed et al., 2015; Cerca, 2016). Furthermore, some research shows concern for postdocs’ well-being and support, such as salaries and other factors (Main et al., 2021; McDowell et al., 2018), the supporting environment and policies (Alund et al., 2020; McAlpine et al., 2017; Puljak & Sharif, 2009; Schneider & van Leeuwen, 2014; Yadav & Seals, 2019), and the relationship between postdocs’ employment and research funds (Cantwell & Taylor, 2015). Compared to the numerous studies on the postdoctoral career experience, few studies mention postdocs’ roles. Postdocs are regarded as managers and helpers, researchers and apprentices (Laudel & Gläser, 2007), educators and researchers (Cantwell, 2011), scientists (Hudson et al., 2018), or a cheap labor force (Zubieta, 2009). However, few studies have been conducted on postdoctoral role identities from the psychological and sociocultural perspectives.
Due to the imbalanced global workforce for postdocs, postdocs in Western developed countries, especially America and Europe, dominate higher education institutions; therefore, most of the literature about postdoctoral career experiences concerns postdocs in Western economies while the research concerned with postdocs in developing countries, particularly in China, is silent. The World-Class University policy is driving China’s move from a peripheral status in the global higher education market toward the center (Gao & Li, 2022). As a significant strategy to enhance universities’ reputations, recruiting a large number of postdocs with short employment contracts is increasingly common (Huang et al., 2016), and the role identity and academic experience of postdocs in China are not given the priority they deserve. Furthermore, the policies supporting postdocs at universities should be evaluated regarding the process of constructing role identities.
In this study, we employed a qualitative approach to focus on the perception of postdoctoral role identities at universities in China. We selected three universities in the same city, and we interviewed 21 postdocs. The main research questions included how the postdoctoral fellows perceive their roles and what factors affect the role identity shaping. With the main question driving the research, postdocs’ role identity is mapped under the framework of the cognitive, emotional, and sociocultural dimensions (Ezer, 2016). Furthermore, the factors affecting the construction of postdoctoral role identity are presented, along with the conflicts that arise.
Literature Review and Theoretical Framework
Postdocs’ role identity is always reflected in their academic experience, mainly in their research, teaching, and additional work. For most postdocs, research is their main work, and their research achievements have been a core value in the research community, which has greatly squeezed out other work in academic citizenship (Alleman & Haviland, 2016; Macfarlane, 2005). As a result, it has become more important for young researchers to pay more attention to productivity instead of academic pursuits (Tong, 2016). Although universities have multiple expectations and working descriptions of postdocs, the postdocs’ research contributions to their universities’ performance is most important for their working assessment (Lai & Li, 2020). Young postdocs should have more publications and stronger competitiveness to obtain academic jobs (Bauder, 2015). To gain research funding or contracts, postdocs sometimes have to act as managers or assistants in teams or laboratories (Robinson & Lewith, 2011). Most postdocs have to spend the majority of their time writing for publication; however, highly competitive research competition frustrates and depresses most postdocs (Xu, 2019).
Apart from research work, the heavy teaching workload makes postdocs doubt their academic roles (Dorenkamp & Weiß, 2018). At present, postdocs are undergoing a transformation from researcher to traditional academics, which means that postdoctoral fellows will take on other work, such as teaching and social service in institutions (Åkerlind, 2009). Some senior professors ask their postdocs to supervise postgraduate and doctoral students; therefore, postdoctoral researchers feel a value conflict between engaging in research and educating students (Laudel & Gläser, 2007). Heavy teaching workloads make postdoctoral researchers spend inadequate time on research; therefore, they may consider teaching tasks additional and cumbersome, further confusing them regarding their identities (Laudel & Gläser, 2007).
Some postdocs think they spend most of their time on additional work, such as student supervision, lectures, tutorship, and organizing meetings. Many young postdocs argue that they are treated as a cheap labor force due to the continuously prolonged duration of work (Zubieta, 2009). Some postdocs are regarded as regular employees rather than students under universities’ policies, but they do not consider themselves as such. Considering a postdoctoral position is seen as a springboard to get a permanent or tenured position at a university (Huisman et al., 2016), postdocs go through three stages from apprentices to peer researchers and from dependent to independent researchers (Laudel & Gläser, 2007).
Identity, including the self-perception of roles, greatly affects shaping one’s personal profession. Identity perception is a process that individual experience and professional practice create (Antonek et al., 1997). Identity refers to self-image, self-reflection, or self-assessment (Clarke et al., 2013). Each person constructs a professional community to define who they are through their participation in the outside world and social experiences (Tsui, 2007). Identity is dynamic, hybrid, conflicting, and not singular (Farrell, 2000) and can be defined as the source of a person’s meaning and experience (Castells, 1997). In addition, identity tends to carry forward deep-rooted values for providing an action framework for people to adapt to society (Billot, 2010).
In sociological theory, identity comprises three elements: social identity, role identity, and personal identity. Regarding role identity, “role” refers to social institutions and organizations’ construction of norms; therefore, role recognition stems from internalizing an organizational role, which reflects internalized meanings or expectations related to social status (Castells, 1997). Role identity leads to personal attitudes and behaviors and are shaped in a personalized process (Stets & Burke, 2000). In general, role identity has multiple aspects in various contexts in which individuals tend to play the most valuable or important role (Smith, 2001).
Individual role identity is created from three dimensions: cognitive, emotional, and sociocultural (Ezer, 2016). The cognitive dimension mainly concerns individuals’ awareness and understanding of their work because the nature of work is the most fundamental factor affecting individuals’ perceptions of their roles. The emotional dimension permeates the personal role through a person’s feelings, how they handle emotions and their likes and dislikes of surrounding factors. The sociocultural dimension highlights that the individual role is reconstructed in a social relationship with others. Based on the above three-dimension framework, we conducted in-depth interviews to explore academic roles and self-identity from their coded meanings in work, emotions, and social relationships at three universities.
Significance of the Study
The postdocs’ training system was established in China in 1985, and universities generally recruited a small number of postdocs in the STEM field and for returnees in the early stage. The original purpose for setting postdoc positions in China was to attract excellent returnees and improve scientific innovation. Generally, only a few top universities have provided postdoc positions throughout a long historical period. However, with the effects of global universities’ rankings and competitive knowledge production in recent years (Allen, 2019), especially after the World-Class University policy was launched in 2017, the number of postdocs experienced a sharp increase at universities, and the research field has extended tremendously from STEM to almost all of the disciplines. In past decades, almost all graduates with a PhD degree directly received formal academic positions at Chinese universities, which is called the “iron bowl” in Chinese society, as there is nothing to worry about in terms of being termination of employment due to insufficient research performance. This situation has totally changed since Chinese universities began to learn the Western personnel system with the aim of achieving world-class status like Western elite universities (Wei & Johnstone, 2019). Driven by the periphery-center ambition, part of the “borrowed experience” from Western countries is the tenure position system which means “publish or perish,” and in order to achieve a research reputation and strong financial resources, universities are entering into the performance data game that forms the unhealthy academic utilitarianism and vicious competition among institutions (Gao & Li, 2022). Recruiting lots of postdocs has been the significant strategy for universities to improve their research performance rapidly and efficiently (Zhao & You, 2019). According to China Postdoctoral Science Foundation statistics, the number of postdocs at universities has experienced more than a 10% increase annually in recent 5 years since 2017. However, the national guidance policy is also not adequately prepared to respond timely to postdocs’ sharp growth.
Postdocs in Chinese universities are regarded as temporary work, and the community is always drifting away from “academics” and “students.” Traditionally, researchers in domestic higher education pay more attention to academics and students’ development, but the professional development and career experience of postdocs are ignored due to the fact that they are always regarded as “the third party” or “marginalized men or women” in academia. Moreover, in the pilot field study, some stereotypes or stigmatization for postdocs are apparent in Chinese society; for example, postdocs are seen as “inadequate” because they cannot get the tenure position directly after graduation, they are misunderstood as a “diploma” higher than “PhD,” or they are regarded as “academic wanderers” because they may change the work field more than once. Therefore, this study aims to reveal the authentic experience and challenges of postdocs at universities under the World-Class University policy background, and the perspective of role identity is able to analyze the external surroundings and internal consciousness affecting postdocs’ career development in the changing Chinese universities’ contexts. Identity orientation determines the social, political, and economic status of a group, so the significance of this study is to elaborate on the postdocs’ supporting policy system from diverse stakeholders in China and is expected to destigmatize the postdocs in society by presenting their perceptions and working practices. What’s more, the research of postdocs’ role identity in Chinese society can further extend the comparative study for this community globally and present the particularly political, social, cultural, and institutional contexts shaping postdocs’ identity.
Research Methods
University Contexts: Case Study Design
Inspired by Yin (2018) application of the case study research method, two components are necessary before choosing a case study strategy: a case study’s questions and its case(s). Case study research is most likely appropriate for questions of how and why. The main research question in this study is, “How do postdoctoral fellows perceive their roles in academic work and why?” As for the cases, two steps are necessary: defining the case and bounding the case. Classic case studies usually focus on an individual person as the case. In this study, each postdoc is the case. Next, bounding the cases should tighten the connection among cases, research questions, and propositions. Due to organizational contexts’ strong influence on personal roles, we bounded this study and conducted it at three universities. Because different cities have different postdoctoral funding programs, we selected and bounded these case universities at the same city to avoid the influence of city policies on role identity. Generally speaking, universities in China can now be classified as three types from the top down: world-class universities, research universities with world-class disciplines, and ordinary universities. Consequently, we selected three universities based on this classification to explore the similarities and differences within postdoctoral role identity. University A is a top elite research university that the Chinese World-Class University initiative supports. It has recruited many returnees as postdoctoral fellows to improve its international ranking in recent years. University B is a research-oriented university that the World-Class Disciplines scheme supports under the domestic second-tier universities ranking. University C is a local ordinary comprehensive university. The Ministry of Education administrates both University A and University B and the local city educational authority administrates University C. Because universities’ research reputations affect their number of postdoctoral positions, University A has the most postdocs and University C has the least; the postdoctoral research centers in the three universities are not in full accord.
Data Collection: Qualitative Interview Approach
To explore the perception of postdocs’ role identity and the meanings of phenomena, we employed a qualitative method to explore postdocs’ interpretations about how experiences produce their reality in a naturalistic manner (Berkovich, 2018). Qualitative research is defined as “an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied” (Aspers & Corte, 2019). Therefore, we employed the qualitative method in this study to understand deeply the postdocs’ community from their role identity at various universities.
First, we conducted a pilot study to examine the interview questions’ integrity and permutation, which helped form the basic impression of postdocs’ role identity. Pilot study, as a type of feasibility study, can be used in full-scale investigation either by qualitative or quantitative methods (Baldeh et al., 2020). Our pilot study in qualitative research aims to collect data that guide the substantive study by improving the research instruments and procedures, as well as assess the efficacy and feasibility of a theoretical framework together with data collection methods (Malmqvist et al., 2019). “Data from pilot studies is of great value to researchers for identifying and correcting problems which might otherwise compromise acceptability and delivery of interventions in the full study” (Baldeh et al., 2020). Due to the fact that few studies have been done on the role identity of postdocs at Chinese universities, a pilot study is needed to form the comprehensive interview questions by means of probing some local knowledge or meanings that may be blind for researchers, and investigators can reduce the misuse of interview questions and inappropriate interview structures in formal investigations (Ioannidis et al., 2014). The pilot study included informal interviews based on simple draft interview outlines with six postdocs, and their responses are helpful in shaping the final interview questions and research plan.
Next, we purpose-selected the interviewees, using a snowball strategy, taking into consideration discipline, learning experience, and contract status. Because the research centers at the three universities are not unified, we roughly classified the disciplines as natural sciences (NS) and humanities and social sciences (HS). Regarding academic background, we classified the postdocs as domestic PhDs and overseas returnees. According to whether the PhDs were in position or have completed their scientific research work, we divided the postdocs into “on-the-job” and “exit” states. We first found the postdocs through a network of acquaintances and then performed snowball sampling with the interviewees among their teams, schools, and friends. In this way, we interviewed 21 postdocs, and each interview lasted about 40 to 80 minutes. According to the data saturation theory in qualitative research (Cobern & Adams, 2020; Guest et al., 2006; Hennink et al., 2017), we ended the sampling when no new themes emerged. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted most of the interviews through online virtual meetings, and we conducted a few of them face-to-face. We encoded and anonymized all the information related to the universities and interviewees (Table 1).
Information and Coding of the Interviewees.
The interview questions followed mainly from the three-dimensional role identity framework under the main two research questions (Table 2).
Interview Questions.
Data Analysis: The Strategy for Coding Themes
We recorded all of the interviews on tape and transcribed them. We employed Next Nvivo software to analyze the qualitative data. We used a three-level theme-encoding strategy by Attride-Stirling (2001) to analyze the interviews’ contents. First, we formed basic themes from interview statements to find local knowledge focusing on postdocs’ role identity, and we deleted useless data. Second, following the theoretical framework, we classified the data from each interviewee into three parts, cognitive, emotional, and sociocultural perceptions of the interviewee’s role identity, to explore the factors affecting postdocs’ role identity construction. At this stage, we summarized the basic themes as organizing themes. Finally, we presented the global themes, meaning the conceptualization and summarization of postdocs’ role identities, as the main arguments (Table 3).
Examples of Coding Strategy.
Findings: Postdocs’ Multidimensional Roles
From the cognitive, emotional and sociocultural perceptions of postdoctoral work, we found that postdocs at universities mainly have four roles: university teacher, independent researcher, student, and associate supervisor.
Quasi-Role Identity: University Teacher
Considering universities have different regulations for postdoc positions, their management systems are correspondingly different. The daily work postdocs undertake further strengthens this role identity. We found that the postdocs who had undertaken teaching tasks identified more with the role of university teacher whereas those with only research work had identity ambiguity, seeing themselves as neither teachers nor students (B-NS-1). In addition, salutation from others and postdocs’ own teaching willingness greatly affected how the university teacher role was shaped.
Teaching Work
We found that the three universities instituted different types of postdoc jobs. University C has researcher postdocs and teacher postdocs who must undertake certain teaching tasks to cultivate potential university teachers with strong research capacity and teaching skills. However, University A and University B have less detailed regulations on postdocs’ teaching tasks, and they do not have teacher postdoc positions. Most teacher postdocs can adapt to the role of teacher quickly due to certain teaching tasks, and they show stronger role identity as university teachers or university members (C-HS-2). Teacher postdocs at University C can transfer into assistant professor positions after 2 years if they meet postdoc regulations, which they find attractive (C-NS-2). Therefore, these teacher postdocs have a stronger sense of belonging and deeper experiences as university teachers:
I feel teacher postdocs like us are the real teachers of the university, and the little difference is that we have not gotten the title of teachers yet. We will get the formal position if we pass the postdoctoral evaluation. It seems that there is little difference from ordinary research postdocs . . . . We have many classes to teach every day, and our program center lacks teachers in my field. (C-HS-1)
In addition to the position regulations on teacher postdocs at universities, postdocs’ daily work—that is, the nature of their work—also determines their sense of identity as university teachers. There are also various role identities for postdocs that they perceive as being related to university teaching, expressed in such ways as “a reservoir of outstanding young teachers” (B-NS-3), “a short-term transition towards university teaching” (B-NS-3), an important platform to “accumulate teaching experience” (C-HS-3) and an indispensable link to “experiencing how to be a teacher” (A-NS-3).
Teaching Attitudes
Notwithstanding cognitive perceptions, postdocs’ positive emotional attitudes toward teaching can also greatly accelerate their adaptation to the university teacher role. Some teaching postdocs show great enthusiasm for teaching, and some of them even allocate most of their time and energy to teaching regardless of the imbalance between their research targets and teaching tasks, although they clearly know that such behavior is not cost effective from the utilitarianism perspective.
I prefer teaching to research. I like teaching, although I am a new teacher and my classes may not be as good as others’ classes. However, I am quite interested in teaching, and I am willing to communicate more with students. I also enjoy the feeling of teaching. I spend much time on my classes and prepare for my courses carefully. (C-NS-3)
Some non-teacher postdocs have also undertaken a small amount of teaching with active and responsible attitudes in response to the universities’ request for this work. These postdocs will more likely acquire the university teacher role.
With their lack of teaching experience restricting them, most of the non-teacher postdocs have little sense of the university teacher role. However, quite a few research-oriented postdocs recognize that role because acquiring it comes from their strong desire to cultivate students along with spontaneous teaching behaviors.
Sociocultural Cognition
Regarding social culture, we designed a series of interview questions related to cognition and others’ evaluations. Examples of questions include, “What do your colleagues call you?” “What do your leaders call you?,” and “What do your students call you?” In addition to self-cognition, information from the outside world and cognition and others’ evaluations can also intensify the individual role, which can eventually enhance recognizing the role and conforming behaviors more to social expectations.
The postdocs I know will greet me by calling me teacher . . . . I adapt to the role of a teacher and I do not feel it is abnormal. In addition, this year, our university organized training for our new staff, and the managers told us that we were teachers. (B-NS-3)
Without continuous stimulation from the outside world, such types of research postdocs rarely have a sense of belief in the university teacher role.
We are different from those teacher postdocs because we rarely communicate with students. There are a few students who call us teacher. It is likely that some students will call research postdocs teacher; however, there is no continuous stimulation of repeatedly calling us teacher several hundred times a day. (A-HS-3)
Rigid Role Identity: Independent Researcher
Research Work
First, postdoctoral scholars’ daily work obviously intensifies their role as independent researchers. Indeed, the independent researcher role is self-evident when that researcher faces heavy research tasks. Second, while fully immersing themselves in scientific research, they suffer from significantly increasing stress. The source of stress for postdocs and how they address that stress will further highlight the role identity of independent researcher. Third, postdocs’ relationship with their coordinating supervisors can also reveal the independence of postdocs’ scientific research. The postdocs’ bumpy journey to independence in research is evident in the interviews.
Although the evaluation requirements for postdocs at the three universities slightly differ from each other, they all have high requirements for scientific research outcomes, some of which postdocs find greatly challenging. According to the interviewees, to pass the final evaluation, they have to publish several papers as first author or corresponding author in high-index international journals with a high impact factor. Meanwhile, they have to gain national, provincial, or ministerial funding for their research programs over two contract years. Those listed in high-level talent-support programs need further distinguished research outcomes to meet contract requirements.
To stay in the university after postdoc work, we must undertake a national funding program, such as the program funded by the National Natural Sciences Foundation, and we must publish at least five papers in top journals on the Science Citation Index. (B-NS-4)
Due to either their research interest or the universities’ performance indicators, all the postdoctoral researchers we interviewed identified their roles as independent researcher. In particular, the research-type postdocs without teaching tasks have clearer role identities as independent researchers. Most of the postdocs of this kind are from University A, which positions itself as a world-class university pursuing higher research performance than the other two universities.
We are somewhat like pure researchers. We conduct our own research, so the postdoc position is like other research posts. (A-HS-1)
Research Emotion
Obviously, all the interviewees clearly feel research pressure in their roles as independent researchers. One interviewee states, “There is rarely a time when there is less stress” (A-NS-1); other postdocs suggest that research tasks with time limits cause certain psychological stress because it seems that there is “a clock ticking all the time” (A-HS-1), “there is a knife behind me” (C-NS-1), and “there is a small whip whipping me” (C-HS-3). When research progress lags or enters the bottleneck stage, or when important experiments encounter obstacles, postdocs prominently will feel increasingly depressed and anxious.
For science and engineering postdocs who engage in cutting-edge research, it is likely that continuous trial and error will become an ordinary state because they have no predecessors who have conducted similar research. However, when they spend a lot of time but achieve little, they tend to have strong negative emotions. In addition, scientific research costs them too much time in their own lives, which is another perception that greatly upsets them. A small number of postdocs have no clear boundaries between scientific research and their private lives. Postdocs increasingly face an embarrassing situation in which they fail to balance their family and scientific research.
If there is a cake that should be divided into 10 pieces, five pieces will be given to my own scientific research program, about three pieces will be given to supervising students in the laboratory, one piece will be given to other affairs of the laboratory and only the last piece will be given to my family. (A-NS-3) If my life is divided into ten pieces, three will be given to teaching and seven to scientific research. I feel I don’t have any time left for myself. (C-NS-1)
Relationship with Supervisor
Another example of the independent researcher role comes from postdocs’ relationships with their supervisors. Postdocs with little dependence on their supervisors during their doctoral studies have more independence in their postdoctoral period:
During my PhD studies, my supervisor didn’t interfere with me much. Basically, I did everything by myself. As for my postdoctoral research, my supervisor also allows me to do everything. (A-NS-4)
We designed a number of interview questions about how postdoctoral researchers apply for postdoctoral funds and what role their supervisors play in this process. Their role as an independent researcher or their development toward becoming an independent researcher is presented during the process.
Inertial Role Identity: Student
Although the interviewees clearly state that the postdoc is a job position and not a student position, when asked if they still felt like they were students, some interviewees admit that they occasionally feel they are students.
Supervisor–Postdoc Relationship
In general, both NS postdocs and HS postdocs show varying degrees of dependence on their supervisors in scientific research, which is actually an explicit reflection of the student role. Most of the research topics they select align with their supervisors’ research directions. When mentioning their experiences in applying for funding and in their research innovation processes, these postdocs often mention their supervisors, saying that their support in guiding the program, grasping the program’s topic, modifying papers, and solving problems are of great importance for them. Statements such as, “It is our supervisors who determine the direction” (B-NS-4) and “Supervisors teach us carefully” (B-NS-1) show that regarding scientific research, their relationship with supervisors is similar to that between students and teachers. From the perspective of the postdocs’ self-recognition, they remain the driving force of self-learning and create the impetus for further study. The driving force of self-learning reflects the characteristics of a student’s role identity. The behavior of learning remains unchanged, although learning content and the scope expand.
I forced myself to learn how to conduct a quantitative study in my postdoctoral period. If the university or the dean didn’t give me such an opportunity to explore quantitative study, I wouldn’t have such a good opportunity to learn quantitative research methods in my life. (B-HS-1)
By asking the postdocs about their relationships with their supervisors, other students in labs and colleagues, we found that the laboratory culture in natural sciences was also an important factor influencing a student’s role identity. In the process of getting along with supervisors, the postdocs’ role as student is heavily concentrated and intense. When relating with supervisors, the postdocs’ role as student will be more prominent. Regarding their relationship with supervisors, some natural sciences postdocs report that they should present their work progress to their supervisors regularly, maintain respect for their supervisors as authorities and identify themselves as students.
In fact, it seems that we are equal with our supervisors; however, when getting along with our supervisors, we feel we are still students. I always think that we are different, and we shall respect our teachers (supervisors). Standing in front of our supervisors, we still recognize ourselves as students. (A-NS-4)
If the postdoc’s supervisor is also their doctoral supervisor, the interviewee’s role identity as student will be stronger. During their doctoral study, a teacher–student relationship was established, generally speaking, and once that relationship formed, it would not change easily. After graduating with their doctoral degrees, postdocs will feel more strongly that they are students while getting along with their original supervisors from their doctoral stage.
I used to be his student, and now I feel like I’m still a student. (B-NS-4) Whether I am a doctor or a postdoc, I am always a student in front of my supervisor. (A-NS-4)
Postdoc–student relationship
While getting along with undergraduate, masters and doctoral students in the labs, natural sciences postdocs tend to identify as students. In the field of natural sciences in China, the traditional apprenticeship culture generally prevails, with the older member guiding the younger member in the laboratory. The postdocs would like the students in the same experiment group to call them “senior brothers or sisters” because they believe these titles will be more convenient for communication. Thus, postdocs consider themselves other students’ peers.
The students in the lab or those I teach usually call me senior sister. I will prevent them calling me teacher in lab because I think it will make our communication inconvenient. I like to be called senior sister. (A-NS-1)
What other members of the university call postdocs will influence their role identity. A relaxing and straightforward way of getting along with colleagues will make postdocs feel as if they are students.
My role has not yet been fully transformed. Sometimes when someone meets me, he will think that I am a student. Many teachers also call me a student. (C-NS-4)
Unofficial Role Identity: Associate Supervisor
Natural sciences postdocs generally believe they fill the role of associate supervisor, which is an informal role subordinate to the formal supervisor (major supervisor, cooperating supervisor) and not regulated in written documents. The postdocs believe that the associate supervisor is a “young boss” (A-NS-1), a “bridge” (A-NS-2), and a “translator” (A-NS-1), indicating that the associate supervisor is a role between the formal supervisor and the student.
In fact, it’s somewhat like I am an associate supervisor, namely a young boss. Although I’m a postdoc with no qualification to recruit students, I’m actually the first supervisor of him [the graduate student]. (A-NS-1)
The postdoc associate supervisor role is mainly reflected between students in the same labs and their supervisors in work and experimentation. Associate supervisors differ from students. Instead of merely studying under teachers’ guidance, they play the role of supervisor and manager of other undergraduate, masters, or doctoral students on the team, and they sometimes even carry out timely psychological construction for students.
For example, we will help a master’s candidate to determine the direction of his master’s program, periodic planning and specific ideas. Sometimes we must help him conduct experiments, analyze what he can solve by himself and what we can handle for him so that he can restore his self-confidence. (A-NS-1)
The meticulous guidance that associate supervisors provide undergraduates, master’s students and doctoral students runs through all aspects of the students’ programs. Regarding guiding students, they undertake the work of supervisors. No formal policy at the national or university level clearly indicates the associate supervisor position, and no regulations exist that stipulate how postdocs must guide students. Natural sciences postdocs commonly spend too much time working as associate supervisors, which is conducive to their role identity as an associate supervisor. However, associate supervisors differ from formal supervisors. They provide guidance in the direction that the formal supervisors have provided. When facing crucial problems, formal supervisors decide how to proceed. In the process, associate supervisors need to report to the formal supervisors their mentoring work at each stage. Thus, formal supervisors mainly decide what to do while associate supervisors mainly provide guidance on how to do it.
In confirming the postdoc associate supervisor role, formal supervisors act as catalysts. Postdocs’ cooperating supervisors are often very busy, and they guide quite a few students at various levels. Undoubtedly, a single person can hardly handle all such affairs. Postdocs’ supervisors want and need associate supervisors to help them navigate certain issues. Therefore, they lead the postdocs with the most research experience to accept the associate supervisor role.
Postdocs can also cooperate with our supervisors to communicate with the students that the supervisors guide. Our supervisors call us “associate supervisor,” and we play a role of associate supervisor. (A-NS-2)
Postdocs have a clear understanding of their role as associate supervisors, and they believe this role is important in their work because they serve as the bridge or translator that connects formal supervisors and students; they not only convey what formal supervisors have said but also explain points that may cause confusion among students. However, a few postdocs also express dissatisfaction with the role of associate supervisor, saying that they face a “relatively large difficulty” (B-NS-4) at the postdoctoral stage.
It is such an embarrassing situation that so little time is spent on both myself and others (the students I guide). Nevertheless, I have to adjust. In other words, transitioning from a doctoral student to a postdoc is quite difficult. If they need my help after I guide them, I sometimes feel that it is also a waste of time for me. (B-NS-4)
Discussion: Factors Shaping Postdocs’ Role Identity
Sociocultural Norms
The sociocultural norms in China shape postdocs’ role tasks, perceptions and attitudes. Firstly, the postdocs’ role identity is influenced by Confucian norms, which include a cluster of values such as moral sentiments and rituals advocating respecting teachers and teaching (Jin, 2021). Confucianism as the ethical value provides a dominant philosophical foundation in Chinese workplaces (Kang et al., 2017). Confucian values always determine much of Chinese traditional outlooks and hence practices. The teacher’s role in Confucian values is a sacred profession that possesses a higher position in society to shape students’ souls. Meanwhile, teaching is seen as a priority profession in the employment market. Additionally, Confucian ethics in organizations for individuals means there are trade-offs between profit and ethics, and the crucial role of self-cultivation among organizational members (Yuan et al., 2022). Therefore, different from some Western postdocs who seeing teaching as a type of workload (Åkerlind, 2005; Dorenkamp & Weiß, 2018), most of the Chinese postdocs have less negative attitudes on the teaching tasks; some even desire to have teaching experience in research-oriented universities. The attitude to additional work, such as students’ supervision and office affairs, also differs from the international counterparts. In the international studies, the research work is seen as a burden in postdocs’ academic experience (Laudel & Gläser, 2007; Zubieta, 2009). However, postdocs at Chinese universities rarely regard this type of work as a burdent, but rather an opportunity for career development. Most of the postdocs consider the additional workload of research positively or voluntarily, partly because they respect supervisors. Postdocs rarely refuse to do the work their supervisors and the authoritative academics require, which the Confucian value of pursuing collective harmony and being “a good person” in organizations influences.
Furthermore, the dominating hierarchical culture in China is reflected in universities, which affects postdocs’ role identity. Similar to global postdocs’ career roadmap, most of the postdocs want to obtain tenure academic positions (Fitzenberger & Schulze, 2014; Sauermann & Roach, 2016). For this purpose, postdocs strive to comply with the requirements for tenure position attainment. In hierarchical culture, except for the research outcome and academic standards, the administrative power is another significant factor affecting postdocs’ future position. Hierarchical power means obedience; therefore, most of the postdocs choose to comply with the explicit and implicit rules, such as excessive research outcomes and students’ tutorship. Personal role identity is shaped passively in a hierarchical culture that emphasizes a supervisor–subordinate relationship and that low autonomy characterizes (Romzek, 2000). Meanwhile, hierarchical management may lead to power abuse and decrease the individuals’ motivation (Christensen & Lægreid, 2015). As a result, postdocs’ potential professional demands are not well identified in the universities’ bureaucracy culture, and hierarchical orders format uniaxially their identities as teacher, researcher, student, or associate supervisor. Postdocs’ agency to shape who they are is weak in the repressive environment.
Institutional Contexts
Some previous studies reveal that the departmental prestige shapes early career researchers’ productivity (Su, 2011), together with structural characteristics, organizational behaviors, and peer group characteristics (Kim et al., 2020). Institutional factors also affect how members’ identities develop through cultural norms and behaviors (Hayter et al., 2021). The institutional contexts shape the postdocs’ role identity deeply. Firstly, different institutional missions result in postdocs’ different roles. In this study, we selected three case universities. Obviously, the quasi-role identity of university teacher received higher recognition of postdocs in teaching–research University C than other two universities, while the role of independent researcher was more prominent for postdocs in research–oriented University A and B. As Tsui (2007) suggested, individuals define their role identity by participating in the outside world. Hence, the organizational context shapes postdoc’ role perception through position setting and working practice. Secondly, the institutional capacity as a core dimension for practicing good governance affects the consistency of postdocs’ role identity. The higher the research reputation and prestige, the stronger the capacity in governance (Shin et al., 2022). University C’s capacity is inferior to the other two universities; therefore, postdoctoral fellows at University C felt they were insiders when they were called teacher and outsiders when excluded from the research awards system. The dissociated sense of postdocs’ role identity is more prevalent and stronger at a university characterized by inadequate governance capacity.
The more homogeneous environment limits postdocs’ professional development choices. Generally, if complying with external pressures would enhance individuals’ legitimacy in organizations, they tend to respond positively to these pressures and adapt to the role well. In this study, all three universities placed the research outcome as key assessment standards for postdocs; therefore, the role of “independent researcher” was internalized indistinguishably. This is the same as in international discussions that academic career prospects are highly based on research performance (Fitzenberger & Schulze, 2014; Sauermann & Roach, 2016). Chinese postdocs strive to gain their legitimacy in academia by complying the institutional pressures, and even increase the external pressure by intense competition. Furthermore, this makes universities focus more on research outcomes and they try to become more homogeneous, where the postdocs may lose a diverse working environment or professional development resources. For example, University C is evolving from teaching–research oriented to research oriented, which means the appropriate institutions for the postdocs who have a teaching passion are decreasing. Although postdocs’ experiences are viewed as transitory for academic positions, they are not given enough capacity building for future employment but they are more “claimed” for supporting universities’ performance.
Professional Community
The professional community for postdocs also shapes the postdocs’ role identity, including the discipline culture, postdocs’ self-organized associations, and the international academic labor market. Different discipline culture shapes postdocs’ different roles, such as the natural sciences postdocs have more role of apprentice because of their mentoring relationship while the humanity and social sciences postdocs feel less of an apprentice and more of a teacher. The postdoc roles of manager and helper (Åkerlind, 2005), researcher and apprentice (Laudel & Gläser, 2007), educator and researcher (Cantwell, 2011), scientist (Hudson et al., 2018), and cheap labor force (Zubieta, 2009) are mostly discussed in natural sciences or STEM fields. This study reveals that discipline greatly affects postdocs’ role identity. In addition to the independent researcher role, NS postdocs more often identify as associate supervisor or student. Compared with HS postdocs, NS postdocs have closer relationships with their supervisors regarding scientific research, which imperceptibly strengthens the postdocs’ role identity as a student. The role identity of student was scarcely seen in the interviews with HS postdocs, and they had little opportunity to fill the role of associate supervisor. The HS teacher postdocs have significantly more classes than NS teacher postdocs do. Consequently, HS teacher postdocs have a stronger role identity of university teacher than NS postdocs do.
The weak self-organized professional community blurred the postdocs’ identity. A self-organized association of postdocs can enhance their role identity and give cognitive or emotional support when needed. Developing a network is vital for a postdoc’s career options and their opportunities to collaborate (Scaffidi & Berman, 2011). However, the interviewees rarely mentioned the professional community due to a lack of the associations at the universities. The case universities sometimes treated postdocs as tenure professionals but sometimes as outsiders; therefore, the postdocs’ associations were absent because of the lack of institutional support. More broadly, the academic competitive labor market negatively shapes most of the postdocs’ roles. As Cantwell and Taylor (2013) noted, globalization is shaping the academics’ employment and constraining the agency of each university. We found various motivations for positive and passive choices when choosing to become a postdoc. With the saturation and inflation of the global academic labor market, the direct channels for PhD graduates to become tenure academics at universities have narrowed. More universities in China have made the postdoctoral experience a probation period before postdocs can become regular employees, which is described in Bégin-Caouette et al. (2020) study as the “bottleneck deferral.” The mutual trust between universities and PhD graduates has gradually decreased. On the contrary, the rigid corporate culture and contract culture have become stronger in the recruitment of postdoctoral fellows, and universities have paid more attention to cost saving and risk management in personnel matters. Many postdoctoral fellows passively choose postdoctoral positions to obtain a tenure position. Hence, the unequal relationship between postdoctoral fellows and universities has intensified, and the professional community support for postdocs is not enough.
Implications for Practice
Firstly, governments and universities should clearly position the postdocs’ identity properly. In this study, the postdocs believed their role identity was indefinable partly because the role identity in legislations and policies is vague or even absent, and partly because the conflicts during postdocs regulations recontextualize the process. Therefore, the legislations or ministerial policies in higher education, especially for human resources, should well define the postdocs’ role, rights, and obligations, which the universities can follow to make university-based regulations and echo to postdocs’ expectations for teaching versus research (Yang & Webber, 2015). In this case, the postdocs’ identity will receive legality. Meanwhile, postdocs are supposed to be well informed regarding the information about their different obligations, roles, and identities before getting in universities. Then, the postdocs can have a clearly cognitive identity that avoids self-cognition confusion and deviation during work life. Additionally, policy discourse and surrounding environment heavily influences identity construction. Universities should create a culture of respecting and valuing postdocs instead of treating them as temporary and high-productive employees. A respectful culture benefits postdocs in enhancing self-efficacy and improving the role experience.
Secondly, as Alund et al. (2020) suggested, academic ecosystems should support a sustainable postdoc workforce; it is urgently needed to change the audit and performance culture to focus on postdocs’ professional development. Most of the postdocs perceived that they were utilized in universities as “paper producers” or “temporary researchers” partly because of the unified management system (Li & Xue, 2022). The universities value their research production more while their professional development has been ignored. Due to some postdocs being seen as students or outsiders and not as tenure staff, their professional development demands are not treated as seriously as that of other academic staff. The universities need optimal governance environment and minimize data accountability. Good governance for professionals is characteristic with humanism and peer enhancement at universities. Postdoc is a special transition experience that differs from the other new academic entrants; therefore, their development roadmap and supporting resources should differ from the traditional professional framework. However, most of the universities treat postdocs as either teachers or students, and the professional development for postdocs is mismatched or even absent. Universities should support postdocs’ professional development discriminately to be consistent with the different roles, disciplines, academic backgrounds, career orientation, personalities, and so on. They need more professional resources in teaching, research, and career planning, and especially clear and supportive career guidance is highly appreciated.
Lastly, the universities should improve postdocs’ well-beings from cognitive, emotional and sociocultural dimensions. Excessive workload, pressure, and pendulous self-identity have been the main factors influencing postdocs’ physical and psychological health (Main et al., 2021; McDowell et al., 2018). The institutions are responsible for giving the young postdocs a proper workload, such as reducing administrative affairs and other irrelative tasks with academic work. Meanwhile, the postdocs should be empowered to bargain for the workload and duties rather than just being passive when entering the universities. This may need legal empowerment and labor union engagement. Furthermore, a sound social and cultural psychological support system is suggested. More psychological support is needed from mental counselors, supervisors, colleagues, and other possible university members (van der Weijden et al., 2015). Additionally, the postdocs’ society or association is highly needed, which can effectively be conducive to their common interests and sociocultural network, and further polish their role identity in the institutions.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research is sponsored by the Teacher Education Centre, UNESCO.
