Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study explores how faculty of color describe their postdoc experiences, using the theory of racialized organizations as a framework. We interviewed fifteen faculty of color who previously held postdoc positions to examine their perceptions of racism in preparing for tenure-track careers. The findings reveal that whiteness operated through two main mechanisms: likability and ideal worker norms. Organizational practices either (re)produced or disrupted racial hierarchies that dehumanized Postdocs of Color. Postdoc supervisors emerged as key agents in fostering supportive environments that honor the racial identities and cultural values of Postdocs of Color. We conclude with recommendations for research and practice aimed at reversing racial barriers for postdocs of color on their path to tenure-track roles.

Keywords

Faculty careers higher education qualitative research race

Introduction

For many early-career scholars, postdoctoral (postdoc) positions offer additional training, help shape scholarly identities, and increase competitiveness for tenure-track faculty careers. According to the National Postdoctoral Association ([NPA], n.d.), “postdocs are individuals in a defined period of mentored training following the achievement of their terminal degrees” (para. 1). However, postdocs often face inequities, including being overworked, underpaid, isolated, and experiencing imposter syndrome (Cantwell & Taylor, 2013; Gonzales et al., 2024; Patt et al., 2022). Postdocs of Color also navigate racialized socialization processes that devalue their epistemic knowledge, unlike their white counterparts (Duan et al., 2025; Gonzales et al., 2024). At Historically White Serving Institutions (HWSIs), whiteness often serves as the benchmark for socializing and assessing Scholars of Color (Patton, 2016). Whiteness refers to a social construct that legitimizes the structural and cultural valuation of skin color, defined by norms centered on white interests (Leonardo, 2009). Consequently, People of Color¹ often feel pressured to present inauthentic white versions of themselves to appease predominantly white academic communities and to prove they represent a type of diversity that does challenge the status quo (Liera, 2020; Liera & Rodgers, 2024; Vega et al., 2022).

However, these racialized structures remain understudied for Postdocs of Color wanting to pursue a faculty careers. Traditionally, postdoc positions serve as a bridge between doctoral education and the professoriate; administrator and faculty leaders increasingly use them to diversify faculty ranks (O’Meara et al., 2020; Patt et al., 2022). These roles offer Scholars of Color valuable experiences and skills to support their transition into faculty life. However, research shows that Postdocs of Color often face exclusion and discrimination in these positions (Gonzales et al., 2024; Yadav et al., 2020). Faculty frequently perceive them as less academically prepared than their white peers (S. C. Camacho, 2017; D. G. Solórzano, 1998). Despite this, little research explores how postdoc positions reproduce whiteness in preparing Postdocs of Color for tenure-track careers. Understanding these dynamics matters because postdocs offer a critical opportunity to challenge expectations that Scholars of Color must internalize whiteness to succeed as faculty.

This study focuses on postdoctoral experiences because postdoc positions are mechanisms that prepare early career scholars for faculty careers. Thus, as understudied structures in the professoriate, which has remained predominantly white since its inception at four-year universities (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021), we contribute knowledge on how postdoc positions could normalize whiteness in how Postdocs of Color prepare for academic careers. Scholars examining graduate education (Poon et al., 2023) and the professoriate (Liera & Hernandez, 2021), reveal how whiteness shapes the values and priorities of organizational stakeholders, including faculty. For example, Eaton et al. (2020) found racial and gender inequities in faculty reviews of postdoc curriculum vitas. Physics faculty rated Asian and white candidates as more hirable than equally qualified Black and Latina/x/o candidates. Biology faculty judged Asians candidates as more hirable than equally qualified Black candidates. In both disciplines, participants rated Latina/x/o candidates and Black women candidates as the least hirable. Thus, understanding postdoc positions as racialized structures helps identify organizational mechanisms that create and legitimize inequities for Postdocs of Color.

Therefore, this study examines how Faculty of Color describe their postdoc experiences to identify how postdoc mechanisms normalize whiteness in tenure-track preparation. Guided by racialized organization theory, we interviewed fifteen Faculty of Color who previously held postdoc positions. We interviewed Faculty of Color because they were successful in securing a tenure-track faculty position and could reflect on what they believed supported them and hindered their preparation for faculty life during their postdoc years. We explored how whiteness shaped their preparation for tenure-track roles. This study is guided by the following research question: How do Faculty of Color describe postdoctoral mechanisms that reproduce or disrupt racial inequities in their preparation for faculty careers?

First, we review relevant literature on the development of postdocs positions at HWSIs. Specifically, we highlight how these roles were created and used as mechanisms to exclude People of Color from academia. Then, we outline the theoretical framework and research design before presenting our findings.

Literature Review

This section begins with a focus on how postdoc positions are situated within the context of higher education. We provide a brief overview of the history and formation of postdoc roles, and then draw on existing literature to highlight how whiteness is embedded in postdoc roles. Finally, we discuss the experiences of Postdocs of Color.

Post-Doctoral Structures

As organizations, HWSIs are racialized entities with foundations in whiteness reflected in campus structures and cultures (Ray, 2019; Turner et al., 2008; Wilder, 2013). The postdoc system was originally designed within a framework of racial exclusion that privileged white scholars and excluded or limited opportunities for People of Color (Turner et al., 2008; Wilder, 2013). The professoriate itself is a structure embedded in a culture of whiteness because it centers white values and epistemologies (Patton, 2016). Eurocentric curricula dominate the educational landscape and prioritizes Western philosophical traditions, theories, and methodologies while marginalizing People of Color and their knowledge (Patton, 2016; Ray, 2019; Wilder, 2013). Matias and Boucher (2023) explained how whiteness approaches in research often prioritize quantification and replicability as markers of valid knowledge. In contrast, approaches such as critical theory and decolonial methodologies are frequently dismissed as overly “subjective” or lacking rigor, because they disrupt the racialized norms of what counts as credible knowledge in white-dominated institutions (Matias & Boucher, 2023; Wilder, 2013). These racialized norms extend into how tenure-track careers are structured and rewarded. Research agendas that draw from Eurocentric paradigms are often seen as more legitimate, while scholars engaging in community-based or social justice work are marginalized (Leonardo, 2009; Patton, 2016). An example is faculty citation practices that often favor white scholars, sidelining the scholarship of Scholars of Color, which impacts tenure and promotion decisions (Patton, 2016). Thus, as structures of HWSIs, postdoc pathways to tenure-track careers often operate as mechanisms of whiteness that have historically created racial inequities for Scholars of Color.

To better understand how whiteness is embedded in the postdoc experience, it is important to examine the historical development of postdoc roles at HWSIs and the structural conditions that shaped them. Postdoc positions emerged at elite HWSIs, which have long histories of excluding People of Color from graduate education (Harper et al., 2009; Patton, 2016) and faculty appointments (Turner et al., 2008; Wilder, 2013). During the post-World War II era, postdocs became an exploited labor source as federally funded research disproportionately benefited white men scientists at elite HWIs (Assmus, 1993; S. Camacho & Rhoads, 2015; National Research Council, 1969). These resources enabled them to secure grants, fund laboratories, and hire postdoc researchers (Assmus, 1993; S. Camacho & Rhoads, 2015; National Research Council, 1969). As S. Camacho and Rhoads (2015) note, postdocs became essential for executing major research projects. Universities relied on postdocs as full-time researchers with temporary appointments who managed labs while professors focused on securing additional funding (Assmus, 1993; Jach & Gupta, 2023; National Research Council, 1969). This arrangement provided universities with a steady supply of highly skilled researchers who worked under precarious conditions—facing low pay, little job security, and limited institutional support (S. Camacho & Rhoads, 2015; Cantwell & Lee, 2010; Jach & Gupta, 2023). As a result, postdoc structures have historically sustained racial inequities embedding whiteness in the professoriate and limiting the representation and influence of Scholars of Color in academia.

Whiteness and Postdocs Roles

Postdoc roles remain a critical mechanism to uphold whiteness in academia. They serve as gatekeeping mechanisms of racial hierarchies in academia by favoring predominately white structures (Culpepper et al., 2023). According to Gonzales et al. (2024), postdoc hiring is often informal. PIs select candidates from their networks, contributing to an overrepresentation of white men postdocs from well-known prestigious HWIs. This informal selection process reinforces existing racial and institutional inequities, limiting opportunities for Scholars of Color for postdoc roles (Gonzales et al., 2024; Rida et al., 2023). When PIs offer a position to Postdocs of Color, they often extend their own research projects and ideas instead of supporting the intellectual development of the postdocs (Herschberg et al., 2018). Many PIs rely on postdocs to run their labs and expand their scholarly output while offering little institutional support for postdocs’ independent research (Herschberg et al., 2018). For Scholars of Color, this dynamic is even more constraining. PIs may pressure their postdocs to conform to white-dominant academic norms and discourage research centering critical perspectives that challenge existing power structures (Culpepper et al., 2023; Yadav et al., 2020). As a result, postdoc positions do not function as neutral stepping stones but uphold the hegemony of white-dominated academic spaces (Gonzales et al., 2024; Yadav et al., 2020).

Furthermore, Postdocs of Color are often excluded from mentorship opportunities compared to their white peers, thus perpetuating the cycle of white dominance (Cobb et al., 2025; Gonzales et al., 2024). Leonardo (2009) explains how whiteness operates as an unmarked norm that structures access to resources and opportunities for white individuals. In the context of Postdocs of Color, Rida et al. (2023) highlight how mentoring structures favor those who are white, men, heteronormative, continuing-generation, and middle/upper class. Additionally, how postdoc roles are a system that normalizes white men hiring other white men, limiting opportunities for Postdocs of Color (S. Camacho & Rhoads, 2015; Gonzales et al., 2024). Even when Postdocs of Color are employed, their white supervisors often fail to provide resources to prepare them for the job market (Evans & Cokley, 2008; Lin & Chiu, 2016). Scholars note how Postdocs of Color frequently receive less substantive feedback on research and grant-writing, impacting their ability to secure tenure-track positions (S. Camacho & Rhoads, 2015; Evans & Cokley, 2008; Yadav et al., 2020). These exclusionary practices create a cycle of exclusion for Postdocs of Color trying to navigate academic spaces and secure tenure-track careers (S. Camacho & Rhoads, 2015; Evans & Cokley, 2008; Lin & Chiu, 2016).

Experiences of Post-Docs of Color

While the literature on Postdocs of Color is scarce, researchers offer important insights to assert how postdocs experience race and racism (Evans & Cokley, 2008; Rida et al., 2023). In a study on six Chicano/a postdoc fellows, D. G. Solórzano (1998) reported how racial and gender microaggressions were deeply embedded in their academic experiences. For example, supervisors and faculty members often question the legitimacy of their research and dismiss their scholarly contributions compared to their white or man colleagues (D. G. Solórzano, 1998). In a similar context, Yadav et al. (2020) found that Black women postdocs at HWSIs are often required to work more hours than their white men peers to prove their competence. Despite their qualifications and achievements, the additional labor was unrecognized and uncompensated, reinforcing perceptions of worth (Yadav et al., 2020). Moreover, Black women reported experiencing microaggressions in their postdoc appointments, including being interrupted, ignored in discussions, and subjected to assumptions about their intelligence and work ethic (Yadav et al., 2020).

Researchers also found that Postdocs of Color are often expected to fulfill more responsibilities than their white men peers (Evans & Cokley, 2008; Rida et al., 2023). For instance, Rida et al. (2023) argued that Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Postdocs of Color are tasked with diversity-related service work, such as mentoring students of color and serving on institutional diversity committees. This labor is often uncompensated, placing additional burdens on marginalized postdocs (Rida et al., 2023). Rybarczyk et al. (2011) also found that postdocs in STEM are not structured to include diversity within research and teaching for personal and career development. Given these dynamics, Rybarczyk et al. (2011) found that STEM postdoc programs often lack structured support for diversity, which can influence Postdocs of Color to secure faculty positions. While these studies were only within STEM, they help provide insights into how postdocs are situated in racially inequitable structures.

Theoretical Framework

Ray’s (2019) theory of racialized organizations helps examine how whiteness shapes the postdoc experiences of Faculty of Color. The theory posits that organizations are entrenched in whiteness, which can be understood by studying resource distribution (Ray, 2022; Ray & Purifoy, 2019). In the U.S., colorblind racism is the dominant racial ideology shaping perceptions of racial inequity (Bonilla-Silva, 2003; Dowd & Bensimon, 2015). Colorblind racism denies the contemporary impacts of historical and systemic racism, sustaining racial inequity in society and organizations (Bonilla-Silva, 2003). For instance, faculty may claim to treat everyone equally in their mentoring approaches, but this prevents them from acknowledging or addressing the structural inequities affecting Scholars of Color (McCoy et al., 2015; McNair et al., 2020).

Postdoc positions are among several roles impacted by racial ideologies determining resource distribution (Ray, 2022). Ray (2019) identified four interrelated tenets for analyzing racialized organizations. The first tenet describes how the unmarked whiteness of organizations shapes agency. In the academy, an often uninterrogated form of whiteness is the ideal worker image that sets (un)spoken expectations of faculty work. As Acker (2006) noted, racial, gender, and class inequities are maintained in work organizations through ideal worker norms prioritizing complete dedication to the job and performance based on output rather than emotional labor. Extensive research has illustrated how productivity expectations are shaped by white norms of the ideal worker, typically depicted as a white man who prioritizes work above all else (Acker, 2006; Ray, 2022; Wingfield & Alston, 2014). Ideal worker norms are raced because Scholars of Color have to meet productivity outcomes in the form of publications and grants (Giroux, 2014) while navigating a process where they are discriminated against (Ward & Hall, 2022) or commodified (Rodgers & Liera, 2023) because of their racial identities. For example, Scholars of Color, especially Women of Color, are often expected to handle diversity, equity, and inclusion responsibilities without adequate compensation and recognition (Griffin, 2020; Ward & Hall, 2022). Thus, as a racial ideology, the ideal worker norm in the academy could hinder the agency of Scholars of Color.

The second tenet examines organizational mechanisms (e.g., postdoc structures, policies, practices, routines, and norms) that create and normalize rules legitimizing unequal resource distribution based on racial group membership. An example is when Scholars of Color lack the same level of access to professional development resources as their white peers (Yadav et al., 2020). Within postdoctoral positions, quality mentorship is a valuable resource to prepare and support postdocs for academic careers (Liera & Ortega, 2025). However, Postdocs of Color are not provided the same level of access to quality mentorship as white postdocs (D. G. Solórzano, 1998). These examples illustrate how racialized organizational routines systematically disadvantage Scholars of Color through the unequal distribution of valued resources to prepare for tenure-track faculty careers.

The third tenet highlights how whiteness functions as an organizational credential; the more organizations embody whiteness, the more they access prestige and status. The academy often devalues the epistemic knowledge of Scholars of Color because their foundations are not typically rooted in neoliberal and Western logic (Gonzales, 2018). Consequently, whiteness as a credential devalues the qualifications of Scholars of Color who conduct research on “minority issues” using non-traditional methods and whose work appears in “non-mainstream journals” (Turner et al., 1999, p. 31), judging their scholarship as less “rigorous” compared to white candidates. From this perspective, whiteness as credential could create situations where Scholars of Color, like Postdocs of Color, could experience pressure to adopt scholarly identities and behaviors that align with neoliberalism and Western logic that is associated with whiteness.

The fourth tenet refers to the normalization of decoupling formal policies and commitments to racial equity from practice. For example, when faculty disregard organizational policies on racial equity (Liera & Hernandez, 2021) or misinterpret legislation on racial equity (Pedota et al., 2025) to (un)intentionally safeguard existing systems of power on campus. Although racialized organizational theory highlights racial exclusion, it also argues for possible organizational change (Ray, 2023). Thus, we focused on the postdoc mechanisms that the Faculty of Color perceived as preparing and hindering them from academic careers.

Methodology

We used a critical qualitative inquiry (CQI) to explore Faculty of Color postdoc experiences preparing for tenure-track positions. According to Denzin (2017), CQI is a transformative paradigm that calls on qualitative researchers to expose and critique forms of inequity to change policies and practices perpetuating injustice. Additionally, CQI helps to make meaning of the life experiences of socially marginalized individuals (Cannella et al., 2016; Denzin, 2017; Viruru & Rios, 2021). We employed CQI to investigate how and why postdoc organizational mechanisms reproduce whiteness in preparing Postdocs of Color for tenure-track faculty careers. Inspired by CQI, our data collection and analysis procedures focused on knowledge-based critiques of social settings and humanizing the racialized realities of Postdocs of Color preparing for tenure-track positions.

Positionality

CQI acknowledges the influence of the researcher’s positionality on the research design (Pasque et al., 2012). Our interest in this research stems from our experiences as postdocs. The first author identifies as a cisgender, Latino, and first-generation college student. As a former postdoc, he had the opportunity to benefit from a postdoc role that eventually led to a tenure-track career. However, he also experiences racial assumptions in his postdoc role while working at a HWSI. The second author came to this work as a working-class Latino and first-generation college student. His experiences of being negatively racialized in educational spaces informed how he frames his research on organizational change and racial equity in higher education. During his postdoc position, he had support to develop his scholarly identity authentically, which is why he was interested in understanding the organizational mechanisms that constrain or empower Postdocs of Color as they prepare for tenure-track faculty careers.

Participants and Data Collection

We used purposeful sampling to recruit participants, requiring us to recruit individuals who held postdoc positions before becoming tenure-track faculty members (Creswell & Poth, 2016). We recruited participants through social media (Facebook, Twitter(X), and LinkedIn). Participants were eligible based on the following criteria: (1) current tenure-track assistant professor, (2) former postdoctoral fellow, (3) identify as a scholar of color (See Table 1).

Table 1

Demographic Information of Each Participant

Name*	Race	Gender	Discipline	Postdoc Length
Andres	Latina/o/x	Cis-Man	Education	2-Years
Charles	Asian/Pacific Islander	Cis-Man	Psychology	2-Years
Chelsea	Black/African American	Cis-Woman	Education	2-Years
Crístina	Latina/o/x	Cis-Woman	Law	2-Years
Dani	Black/African American	Cis-Woman	STEM	5-Years
Esdee	Black/African American	Cis-Woman	STEM	2-Years
Hakeem	Black/African American	Cis-Man	Education	3-Year
Jaime	Latina/o/x	Cis-Woman	STEM	2-Years
Lionel	Latina/o/x	Cis-Man	Education	1-Year
Lisa	Black/African American	Cis-Woman	Psychology	2-Years
Lorenzo	Latina/o/x	Cis-Man	Education	1-Year
Rita	Latina/o/x	Cis-Woman	Education	1-Year
Rosa	Latina/o/x	Cis-Woman	Education	1-Year
Synergy	Black/African American	Cis-Man	Education	1-Year
Zachary	Asian/Pacific Islander	Cis-Man	English	2-Years

Note. *Pseudonym used for participants.

Given our primary concern to identify postdoc structures that reproduce or mitigate whiteness, we conducted one-on-one interviews with fifteen Faculty of Color. We decided to interview Faculty of Color so they could share their experiences as postdocs. Of the fifteen, seven participants identified as cis-men, and eight identified as cis-women. Additionally, seven participants identified as Latina/o/x, six as Black/African American, and two as Asian/Pacific Islanders. Eight of our participants were from the field of education, five from STEM, two from psychology, and one each from English and law.

We conducted 60–90-minute interviews via Zoom. After receiving consent, we recorded the Zoom interviews and transcribed the audio recordings professionally. We designed an interview protocol to focus on three main topics: (a) perceptions of how their racial identity shaped their experiences as postdocs, (b) their experiences preparing for the academic job market, and (c) experiences with their postdoc supervisors. We used Ray’s (2019) theory of racialized organizations to collect data about how whiteness shaped rules, resources, and relationships during participants’ postdoc experiences. For example, the interviews included: Did race and/or other identities impact your experience as a postdoc? and How was navigating the tenure-track job market as a postdoc of color? Additionally, we inquired if their postdoc supervisor supported their job seeking. An example of these questions included: Did your supervisor help or prepare you for the tenure-track job market as a postdoc? Since we used a semi-structured interview protocol, we relied on probing questions to get examples of postdoc practices and norms that could highlight the racialized nature of their experiences preparing for tenure-track faculty careers.

Data Analysis

In CQI, the researcher’s epistemological orientation shapes how they use qualitative methods, including the analytical procedures (Collins & Cannella, 2021; Martinez, 2023). Throughout the data analysis, we met multiple times to discuss the data and reconcile tensions in our interpretations. First, we applied open coding by having each research team member review the transcripts to familiarize ourselves with the data (Saldaña, 2016). During this coding phase, we identified and categorized excerpts related to postdocs’ experiences with supervisors, preparing for tenure-track positions, and racism. Next, informed by Ray’s (2019) racialized organization tenets, we applied a deductive coding strategy focused on identifying organizational mechanisms that (re)produced racial inequity, as well as data where Postdocs of Color described postdoc structures facilitating positive experiences in their preparation for faculty careers. Throughout this phase, we met multiple times to discuss our coded transcripts and collaboratively grouped them into broader themes (Saldaña, 2016). Finally, we met again to interpret and identify themes that helped us answer our research question.

Trustworthiness

Several steps were taken to ensure the trustworthiness of our findings. For instance, we engaged in peer debriefing throughout our data collection. According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), peer debriefing can help researchers identify potential bias in their interpretation of the data. To address potential biases during the analytical process, we engaged in collaborative discussions among researchers, ensuring that positive and negative cases of racialization were considered. Throughout this process, we remained critically reflective of our positionalities. This approach allowed us to ensure a comprehensive and equitable understanding of participants’ experiences.

Limitations

Although this study represents a considerable advancement in understanding racialization in the experiences of Postdocs of Color, limitations should be noted. First, we could only recruit participants who responded to flyers on social media. It is important to note that our study did not have any Native American/Indigenous scholars respond to our interview request. Although we included Native American/ Indigenous scholars in our call for participants, future research should consider incorporating this community to capture their postdoc experiences. Second, the social sciences were overrepresented in our dataset. While we had participants in STEM and Humanities, future research should focus on studying how whiteness operates within disciplines. Next, the current study did not differentiate participants based on the structure of their postdoc. According to Jach and Gupta (2023), postdoc experiences are not monolithic, with some focusing solely on research, teaching, or administration roles. For instance, some postdoc roles have mainly teaching responsibilities, which might require participation in faculty meetings, student mentoring, and curriculum development (Culpepper et al., 2023; Patt et al., 2022), while other postdoc roles typically concentrate on research activities and may have limited engagement in teaching opportunities (Hudson et al., 2018; Rida et al., 2023; Ruben. 2013). Finally, our study focused on the postdoc pathways to tenure-track careers. We did not focus on alternative career trajectories or the factors influencing postdocs’ decisions to pursue non-academic careers. Future research should explore understanding the broader career outcomes for postdocs beyond tenure-track positions. Despite these limitations, this study still advances our understanding of the experiences of Postdocs of Color.

Findings

We organized the findings to showcase how postdoc mechanisms connected racial ideologies, specifically whiteness, with the distribution of resources. First, we describe the sociocultural context of the HWSI that Postdocs of Color navigate as they prepare for tenure-track positions. This finding focuses on how whiteness was a credential that operated through ideal worker norms. Then, we discuss the organizational mechanisms that either (re)produced or disrupted racial hierarchies.

Whiteness as Credential

The participants’ postdoc positions were at HWSIs. During the interviews, participants’ descriptions of their postdoc experiences reflected elements of HWSIs. Although most participants identified their postdoc supervisors as the primary mechanism that facilitated how they enacted their agency, participants described the academy’s racialized neoliberal structure as the culture informing their agency. Postdocs of Color were developing their scholarly identities within the (un)spoken norms of competitive individualism, and such ideals were filtered by whiteness as credential.

Whiteness as an Ideal Worker

Faculty of Color expressed that the pressure to be seen as productive researchers was significant during their postdoc years. They felt compelled to adopt ideal worker norms rooted in whiteness to meet expectations set by supervisors and faculty search committees. During their postdoc years, most participants developed their scholarly identities in ways they believed reflected productive tenure-faculty norms. This included establishing research programs, developing routines (e.g., designing and implementing research projects, creating and managing research teams, developing research partnerships), and acquiring norms (e.g., publishing, writing). However, participants described that productivity expectations were often shaped by white norms of the ideal worker, typically depicted as a white man prioritizing work above all else. For some, this expectation was detrimental to their well-being.

Working as Postdocs of Color at HWSIs created unspoken yet visible expectations of ideal worker norms that filtered their perceptions of being a tenure-track faculty member. Participants said the ideal faculty worker was an independent and productive researcher. For example, Lionel shared that his postdoc experience reinforced the idea that research constituted legitimate tenure-track faculty work. He said, “If you’re on an R1, regardless of what they tell you about service and teaching, the main thing is research and publishing. So I think that also reinforced that for me, the postdoc, right?” Lionel’s quote highlights how the postdoc experience made him accept that research and publishing would legitimize him as a tenure-track faculty member.

Hakeem believed his white woman postdoc supervisor expected and communicated ideal worker norms. When we asked him to elaborate on what he meant about ideal worker norms, he said, “Just as a white woman, just expects more communication,” which made him “think about how much do you have to buy into whiteness in order to excel?” Although Hakeem acknowledged that he “looked[ed] good on paper to white people, because I perform in ways that whiteness dictates,” he developed unhealthy routines and norms.

So it operated at that level in terms of work expectations, ideal worker norms in which work really is the primary, and everything else is secondary, not to say that [postdoc supervisor] is not a family woman, because that’s one thing I do really look up to. She works a lot, but she also spends a lot of time with family. But this is an ideal worker norm. That came up in a way that had it been anybody else, I think she would not have gotten along with very well, but because I already accepted that that was the norm of whiteness. I had to internalize in order to seek out . . . there was a certain amount of that that I was just like, okay, I’m gonna have to play by these rules if I want a job.

Hakeem consciously adopted ideal worker norms to remain competitive for tenure-track positions. Still, he was overburdened by managing three research projects, which included traveling for data collection and feeling pressured to always be available for his postdoc supervisor. Reflecting on his experience, Hakeem acknowledged that these behaviors were detrimental to his health: “During the pandemic, I think people took a lot of deservedly concessions in their work, and you know mental health and breaks and stuff.”

Striving to embody the ideal worker image stems from the perception that being viewed as productive equates to being qualified for tenure-track faculty positions at research universities. However, some Faculty of Color expressed how being productive researchers did not necessarily mean that search committees would positively review them. According to Chelsea, there was an unspoken norm about the value of research productivity in being competitive for tenure-track faculty positions. Chelsea also emphasized that without understanding the political aspects of networking, Postdocs of Color could find themselves without academic careers regardless of their research productivity.

It’s also about when you’re on the job market, you come in with this ideal, “Oh, I’m going to get these publications and make myself look so good.” But you don’t understand the politics behind the job market. You don’t understand that these search committees have agendas, or they have their people that they look out for. So you also have to make these connections with people.

While Chelsea was preparing for tenure-track faculty positions, she learned that being a productive researcher was not enough because faculty search committees rely on their networks to inform their hiring decisions. Lorenzo shared an example about the importance of networks in legitimizing him as a productive researcher. He shared how his mentors and advisors sponsored him behind the scenes and advised him to interact with specific search committee members.

I had a whole team of people that were rooting for me. And I think that’s why I got the position, because the other thing that helped is that almost always, either my advisor or people in my team, knew people in the search committee, because [his disciplinary field] is so small, so they will give me advice of like, “Just FYI, this person researches this. So you may want to mention this project that you’re working on, so you can develop a connection with them.”

In their recollections, participants seemed aware that the ideal worker norm functioned as a credential that legitimized them as productive researchers, therefore worthy of tenure-track faculty positions. However, embodying ideal worker norms and behaviors did not necessarily manifest as resources like networks to access important information about the politics and hidden agendas regarding search committee dynamics.

Postdoc Position as Racialized Structured

Several Postdocs of Color described their postdoc positions in ways that reflected racialized structures. Specifically, Postdocs of Color who worked in unwelcoming, white, homogenous environments where they did not have postdoc supervisors, postdoc colleagues, or faculty colleagues who helped disrupt whiteness seemed to experience an unequal distribution of resources. For example, some Postdocs of Color, like Lionel and Zachary, shared how they felt isolated because their postdoc supervisors did not create supportive environments. Zachary shared how he had no support in “figuring out, [his] life now as an academic and what kinds of working habits, what kinds of strategies for doing sustainable work.” He continued:

Oh, my needs as a disabled person, as a queer person, as a person of color, these challenges are often going to be invisible to a lot of my colleagues. I was in a very White department. And I think a lot of it happened privately. And it’s a shame because I feel like if this had been more collective and that the department had created spaces for me to be better supported, I don’t think it would’ve felt as isolating.

Zachary described how his multiple identities as a disabled, queer, and person of color were ignored by his colleagues. He believed that because his predominantly white department ignored his identities, they failed to create collective spaces or provide adequate support, leaving him feeling isolated and unsupported in his role as a postdoc.

Postdocs of Color shared how an unsupportive environment was not just about limited access to material resources; it also created situations where whiteness as a credential normalized racial inequities. For example, Andres noticed that the faculty invited white postdoc scholars to faculty meetings, which provided opportunities for early career scholars to observe faculty norms and expectations, but they did not invite him.

I think that was different because there was another postdoc, but he was doing a postdoc from the equivalent of a Fulbright from Europe, a Marie Curie Fellowship, and so he had his postdoc for two years. After I left, he was invited to faculty meetings. Other postdocs were then invited to department meetings, and they were treated as part of the faculty, but I never was. It was like, “Is it because I’m a man of color, because I’m a scholar of color or what?” There were I think a lot of things that pissed my advisor off about how folks treated me, so it was just interesting dynamics.

Andres spoke about how his department created a racialized environment by not treating him the same as another postdoc. Andres rationalized the nature of these interactions as a form of being excluded within the department due to not having a prestigious metric that could serve as a credential to be considered an early career faculty colleague.

When Postdocs of Color were invited to faculty meetings, some shared how whiteness reproduced power dynamics. Rita, for example, shared how she would use a friend group as a resource to express how she felt when white research colleagues would interrupt her “In the middle of my [comments] they’re like, ‘stop, stop, stop.’ I was like, ‘What? Can I finish what I was saying?’ Not even nicely. I was just like, ‘Did that just happen?’ Yeah, there were some things that made me feel a little shut down. It made me shut down.” She said:

I recognized that I was the only person of color on this project and felt sometimes my voice was I don’t want to say shut down, but it was just a different dynamic and I was just more aware of it and more conscious of it. And then, of course, I didn’t want to step on anyone’s toes like a lot of us do when we’re trying to navigate new spaces. But doing it in a virtual environment was difficult. And sometimes I was just like, “It’s just not worth it. I’ve never seen this person, so I don’t even know.”

Rita’s quote illustrates how being the only person of color on the research team and learning to navigate new spaces created situations where she felt she had to walk a tightrope. In another example, Jaime shared that a white man professor erroneously assumed she commented during a faculty meeting. In the aftermath, he emailed her to explain why what he thought was her comment about students of color in the classroom was wrong. She said:

We were in a department meeting, because they treat us [postdocs] like faculty members, so we go to all the department meetings, and all that kind of stuff. And there was a comment, I don’t even remember what the comment was, but this faculty member assumed I said it. Because I think it had to do with students of color in the classroom. Nothing was said in the meeting, but there was an email, a lengthy email, sent to me after the meeting, really just diving deep into why I was wrong about all these things.

The white man professor erroneously accused Jaime of making what he believed were inappropriate comments. This forced her to expend additional effort and labor to mitigate the impact of microaggressions on herself while ensuring the senior professor did not feel attacked despite his actions toward her. Before responding to the white man professor, Jaime asked the women faculty members in the meeting to assess whether her response was nice enough not to upset the white man faculty member. Once she got reassurance that she was right for bringing up the microaggression, Jaime told us that she told the white man faculty member, “I didn’t even say that’. And I was like, ‘Why would you assume it was me?” . . . And their response was like, ‘I just heard a young person’s voice and I assumed it was you.’” Jaime did not “want to ruin my chances, especially if this professor, there’s only 10 of them, they’re going to have a huge weight in whether they want me to stay there or not.” In Jamie’s example, she felt pressure to maintain the status quo of whiteness because she was hoping to receive a tenure-track job offer that depended on the approval of the faculty.

Postdocs of Color also experienced the postdoc position’s racialized structure when postdoc supervisors and white faculty treated them as diverse commodities. Dani was a Black woman scientist who studied Black communities and held two postdoc positions before becoming a tenure-track faculty member. In her second postdoc position, she worked with a white woman who wanted to exploit Dani’s identity as a Black woman scientist because she studied Black communities, an area where her supervisor wanted to advance her own research. Dani stated:

Unfortunately, I think my second postdoc mentor really tried to use me as a Black scientist in order to profit, and in order to further her own research into the Black community that I had mentioned that she was trying to pull, and within two months of me being there I heard her say comments like, “oh, well, that’s where the money is.”

Dani’s experience with racial commodification created a situation where a white woman faculty supervisor exploited her racial identity as a Black woman scientist. Dani continued that she was “having meetings with members of the Black community” and asked her postdoc supervisor, “When do you want to attend a meeting,” to which her supervisor said, “When we get funded?” This response prompted Dani to ask herself, “Okay. So it’s okay for me to spend my time on this, but not for you?” As a result, Dani decided to “pull back [from the research project], and I just did my own thing, and she never came after me or anything about that.” Although Dani decided to withdraw from the research project, she felt empowered because she had funding unassociated with the research project. In Dani’s case, her funding support empowered her to leave an exploitative situation.

Postdoc Supervisors Enhancing Agency

Most of the routines and norms participants described in their preparation for the academic job market were associated with their postdoc supervisors. Most participants described their postdoc supervisor’s advising routines as supportive and collegial. This prepared postdocs for tenure-track faculty careers. Lorenzo shared that his postdoc supervisor was supportive and constantly told him, “your success is my success. So, this needs to work for both of us.”

Across the different postdoc experiences, participants identified common routines and norms that seemed to facilitate their agency. Some postdoc supervisors were intentional about disrupting whiteness in the academic hidden curriculum and instilling confidence in participants to develop their scholarly identities without compromising their identities as People of Color. According to Rosa, her postdoc supervisor outlined how to use her social networks to create opportunities effectively.

The conversation that I was having with [postdoc supervisor], it’s like uncovering that hidden curriculum for faculty because she was telling me, “This is how you get people to remember you. This is leaning into the networks that you’ve established and just following up.” That was stuff that, one, I just hadn’t considered, but then also, as someone who studies Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs), I wasn’t doing any of that even though I was connecting with people that were also studying MSIs. Do I know people in leadership positions at MSIs? No. It was just making me think of sort of marketing myself in a way that I hadn’t considered before.

In addition to marketing herself, Rosa also developed the confidence to own her “experiences and not trying to fit a mold” of what she perceived as an academic. She described how her postdoc experience gave her the confidence to enact her agency and communicate her needs. Rosa said her postdoc supervisor instilled “confidence in my voice and in owning my experiences and not trying to fit a mold of what I thought a postdoc needed to be like, I could just be myself.”

Lisa also mentioned how her postdoc supervisor had advised her about the hidden curriculum and how she met with her weekly to discuss the structures of the professoriate.

But for me there’s a couple of elements there. Being a scholar of color, especially a Woman of Color in the academy. It is so difficult, and there are so many hidden rules and structures that we don’t understand until you’re in the moment. In terms of how to be successful. And so one of the things that I absolutely love about her is that we met. We talked about my goals, my aspirations, and as I was getting closer to going back on the market in addition to the clinical supervision piece. She literally sat me down each week, and we went through different structures of academia. One week we talked about service. How to make sure you’re not doing too much service. The next week, for example, we may have talked about teaching things to consider with that. And then, of course, the research was always embedded in the postdoc, and so I always got experience there, and she always kind of walked me through my process.

Lisa’s interaction with her supervisor described a proactive relationship preparing her for tenure-track life. Lisa’s postdoc supervisor had an asset-based approach to mentoring her, cared about her as a person, and wanted her to be successful as an early-career faculty member. As illustrated below, postdoc supervisors who humanize the academic job market and tenure-track life create environments where Postdocs of Color are able to enact their agency.

Postdoc supervisors also seemed mindful of power dynamics when advising and mentoring Postdocs of Color. For example, Esdee’s postdoc supervisor connected Esdee with her partner, who broke down the hidden curriculum of negotiating salaries and high-impact resources. Esdee shared that her postdoc supervisor’s partner gave her “the scripts.” The partner told her, “here are the things you can negotiate for. They sent me a template of what a job startup package should look like. And they were like, since it’s in a med school, ask for more things.”

Crístina’s postdoc supervisor also situated her advice within the racialized and gendered systems of oppression that created challenges for Women of Color.

Because my supervisor is a Black woman, she’s like, “I know some of these barriers that exist for women, for racialized minorities.” I know how these can conflict. So here are ways that you don’t have to mold yourself to make sure that you fit their perfect view of what someone is like, but here’s how you can present yourself in a transparent way.” And then the other thing that she was fantastic about, which I’m also thankful for some other people who did this for me, was to be honest about numbers like salary or startup funds or teaching load . . . my supervisor was like, “Ask for more money, always ask for more money. Do not be sorry for asking for more money. Do not be sorry for asking for the things you want.” And that was the one thing, she was incredibly pointed with me.

Crístina explained how a Black woman supervisor empowered her to understand the power dynamic that goes into tenure-track negotiations. Crístina’s supervisor seemed aware of the organizational practices limiting opportunities for Scholars of Color during negotiations and wanted her to receive adequate support from the institution. Crístina’s supervisor empowered her to position herself in authentic ways and not apologize for doing so.

Some participants explained how their postdoc supervisors helped them reflect on their racial scholarly identities. Charles’ postdoc supervisor advised him to treat the postdoc position as a tenure-track faculty position with course buyouts. In a way, Charles’ postdoc supervisor created an academic environment where he felt safe to grow intellectually. Charles shared:

Coming into this postdoc, not only was it just a great professional steppingstone, it shaped the way I saw myself, the way I saw the world. I remember talking with another postdoc co-worker who said, “So what epistemology do you do a lot of your research from?” I was just taken aback. I was like, “I hadn’t even thought of this.” No, seriously. Then she introduced me to critical theory, and I was just like, “What?” It was really transformative. With my supervisor’s help too, he was like, “Yeah, of course psychology’s important, but one advice I want to give you is to think about your research in terms of is it an asset-based approach versus is it a deficit-based approach?” I almost felt like my postdoc was a reeducation of my values of the lens by which I view my work now and which is still evolving.

Charles’s quote highlights how his postdoc led him to express his agency in humanistic ways. For instance, Charles felt safe exploring epistemological perspectives aligned with his experiences and values. In many cases, postdoc supervisors disrupted whiteness as a credential by creating supportive and welcoming environments for Postdocs of Color to invest their time in developing their scholarly identities in an authentic manner.

Discussion

This study examined how Faculty of Color described their postdoc experiences as mechanisms that maintained and disrupted whiteness in academia at times. We interviewed Faculty of Color to explore how their postdoc positions prepared them for tenure-track roles. Our findings align with the historical function of postdocs, as participants developed their scholarly identities. Although postdocs are intended to advance career development (Herschberg et al., 2018), participants also used the experience to challenge whiteness in preparing for academic careers. Cole et al. (2017) note a limited understanding of how People of Color are prepared for tenure-track positions. Expanding these conversations is critical to supporting first-year Faculty of Color. While Cole et al. (2017) focused on doctoral students, our study highlights how postdoc positions are pivotal in preparing future Faculty of Color.

Research demonstrates that graduate education (Poon et al., 2023; Slay et al., 2019), faculty hiring (Liera & Hernandez, 2021; White-Lewis, 2020), and faculty reappointment, tenure, and promotion (Griffin, 2020; Ward & Hall, 2022) remain shaped by racial ideologies that dehumanize and marginalize People of Color in academia. This study expands our understanding of racialized organizations in higher education by examining racial mechanisms within postdoc positions. Although postdocs historically aimed to advance scholars’ research skills and identities, Scholars of Color often had to navigate and negotiate whiteness, facing pressures to develop scholarly identities misaligned with their racial and cultural values.

Most participants described their postdoc positions as opportunities to understand how whiteness functioned as a credential in shaping their scholarly identities. Several noted that postdoc roles reflected racialized ideal worker norms that prioritized research productivity. For example, Lionel observed that research and publishing were considered the primary markers of legitimacy at his HWSI, above teaching and service. Hakeem also recognized the racialized nature of postdocs, noting his efforts to be seen as an ideal worker by managing research projects and remaining accessible to his PI.

Our findings suggest that postdoc positions unequally distribute resources, often leaving Postdocs of Color isolated and unsupported. Participants described exclusion from faculty spaces and being positioned as diversity experts, with white faculty exploiting their identities and labor. For example, Dani’s supervisor capitalized on her racial identity to secure funding to support Black communities. Rather than empowering her as a scholar, this extraction of labor reinforced a system where whiteness dictates access to resources while relegating Scholars of Color to symbolic, unpaid DEI work (Acker, 2006; Griffin, 2020; Ward & Hall, 2022). Dani’s experience illustrates how postdoc roles function as racialized organizations that extract labor from Scholars of Color while reinforcing systemic inequities in resource access.

Despite the racialized constraints of postdoc positions, some supervisors played a crucial role in helping Postdocs of Color disrupt whiteness in their preparation for faculty careers. For example, Rosa’s supervisor encouraged her to leverage her professional networks, while Lisa’s supervisor provided weekly guidance on balancing teaching, research, and service to avoid excessive commitments. These supportive relationships helped participants increase their professional visibility and navigate tenure-track expectations. While Ray (2019) described whiteness as a credential granting access to resources, our findings show that supervisors attuned to racial inequities actively disrupted these dynamics. This support empowered Faculty of Color, offering them agency and recognition often denied within traditional academic structures.

Supervisors and research collaborations enhanced the agency of Postdocs of Color in developing competitive tenure-track faculty applications, countering organizational structures entrenched in whiteness that often disadvantage Scholars of Color (Ray, 2019, 2022). For example, Esdee’s supervisor connected her with an external mentor who provided negotiation scripts and startup package templates, while Crístina’s supervisor encouraged her to advocate for more resources without apology. These actions challenged the notion that Women of Color should feel merely grateful for opportunities, instead affirming their right to negotiate their worth.

Implications

The findings from our study highlight the need to adapt postdoc programs to resist anti-DEI policies. Current executive orders and state laws restricting universities’ recruitment efforts undermine opportunities for Postdocs of Color and limit opportunities to create more equitable pathways to tenure-track roles (Blake, 2025; Cobb et al., 2025). Future research should examine how universities can better support Postdocs of Color in navigating these legislative challenges to ensure that postdoc programs can address pressing racial equity issues in the professoriate.

We suggest that universities invest in workshops and training for postdoc supervisors, as they play a pivotal role in shaping the experiences of Postdocs of Color. These workshops should set clear expectations for supervisors, focusing on providing tailored career guidance and networking opportunities, and adopting asset-based perspectives that recognize Postdocs of Color as valuable scholars rather than disposable labor. Addressing race explicitly is crucial, as avoiding these discussions perpetuates systemic racism within departments (Perez et al., 2023; Ray, 2019). Additionally, postdoc supervisor training should address how color-evasive ideologies may influence mentoring practices and obscure the realities of racialized exclusion (Le & Matias, 2019; Ray, 2019). Supervisors must move beyond generic mentorship models and recognize how race, power, and organizational culture shape the academic pipeline. We recommend that supervisors actively support Postdocs of Color in navigating racialized barriers on the job market, including strategies to validate their racial and scholarly identities to foster equitable career pathways.

Beyond supervisor training, universities must assess how organizational norms and practices normalize whiteness as a credential. Given our findings, postdoc programs often uphold white ideal worker norms by sending messages to Postdocs of Color that non-stop work will improve their chances of being competitive for tenure-track faculty roles. Yet, some Postdocs of Color did not receive the resources and mentorship that helped them develop scholarly identities that felt authentic. To break this cycle, universities can offer postdoc webinars promoting a sustainable work-life balance, particularly countering the notion that nonstop work equates to competitiveness in faculty careers. These webinars can also emphasize how sustainable academic careers are built not on burnout, but in genuine and intentional scholarly identities.

We encourage future studies to examine how grant-funded versus institution-funded postdoc positions impact the experiences of Postdocs of Color. While research-focused fellowships, like those from the National Science Foundation (n.d.), aim to expand research skills, institutional programs such as Baylor University’s Postdoctoral Teaching Fellowship (n.d.) emphasize teaching and mentoring. Exploring how these different funding structures shape long-term career opportunities is essential, particularly for Scholars of Color navigating systemic barriers in academia.

Furthermore, future research should examine how Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs), which enroll some of the most diverse students and faculty in the U.S. (Ginsberg et al., 2017; Nguyen et al., 2023), enhance pathways to tenure-track roles. As White-Lewis (2021) notes, MSIs’ mission differs from HWSIs, warranting exploration of their potential to increase the representation of Postdocs of Color in tenure-track careers. Finally, future studies should also consider how gender and other identities impact the experiences of postdocs. While we only focus on race, it is important to use intersectionality to bring awareness and acknowledge how race, class, gender, and (dis)ability impact individuals’ experiences (Crenshaw, 1989).

Conclusion

As postdoc positions continue to increase across U.S. colleges and universities, limited research addresses how whiteness impacts the experiences of Postdocs of Color pursuing tenure-track roles. Guided by a theory of racialized organization as a framework, this study examined how Faculty of Color described postdoc positions as reproducing and disrupting racial ideologies, particularly in their preparation for faculty careers. Our findings reveal that Postdocs of Color often had to align their scholarly identities with white worker norms, reflecting Bonilla-Silva’s (2003) argument that whiteness in academia values race-neutral practices that minimize racism. Postdoc supervisors played a critical role in this process, with some offering mentorship while others perpetuated racial ideologies. Ultimately, we hope this study encourages colleges and universities to address and reduce the racial barriers Postdocs of Color face on their paths to tenure-track positions.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Open Practices

The interview protocol used in this study has been submitted to the AERA Open ICPSR Data Repository and will be available at: https://deposit.icpsr.umich.edu/deposit/workspace?goToPath=/ddf/233421&goToLevel=project

ORCID iDs

Guillermo Ortega

Román Liera

Note: This manuscript was accepted under the editorial team of Kara S. Finnigan, Editor in Chief.

Notes

Authors

GUILLERMO ORTEGA is an assistant professor in the College of Education at Texas Tech University. His research employs quantitative and qualitative methods to examine opportunities and outcomes for underrepresented groups. His scholarship focuses on issues related to educational access, equity, and organizational change.

ROMÁN LIERA is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at Montclair State University. He studies how organizational mechanisms offer possibilities for institutional transformation while highlighting the conditions under which racism operates to undermine organizational structures, policies, and practices designed to advance racial equity.

References

Acker

(2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society, 20(4), 441–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206289499.

Assmus

(1993). The creation of postdoctoral fellowships and the siting of American scientific research. Minerva, 31(2), 151–183. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41820900

Baylor University. (n.d.). Post-doctoral teaching fellowship program. Honors College. Retrieved January 3, 2025, from https://honors.baylor.edu/post-doctoral-teaching-fellowship-program

Blake

(2025, January 23). Trump takes aim at DEI in Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-elections/2025/01/23/how-trumps-order-targeting-dei-could-affect-higher-ed

Bonilla-Silva

(2003). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Camacho

Rhoads

R. A.

(2015). Breaking the silence: The unionization of postdoctoral workers at the University of California. Journal of Higher Education, 86(2), 295–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2015.11777365

Camacho

S. C.

(2017). Postdoctoral scholars at the University of California: Constructing a migrant identity within the workplace. University of California.

Cannella

G. S.

Pérez

M. S.

Pasque

P. A.

(Eds.). (2016). Critical qualitative inquiry: Foundations and futures. Routledge.

Cantwell

Lee

(2010). Unseen workers in the academic factory: Perceptions of neoracism among international postdocs in the United States and the United Kingdom. Harvard Educational Review, 80(4), 490–517. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.80.4.w54750105q78p451

10.

Cantwell

Taylor

B. J.

(2013). Internationalization of the postdoctorate in the United States: Analyzing the demand for international postdoc labor. Higher Education, 66, 551–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9621-0

11.

Cobb

S. A.

Boklage

Watson

Hunt

Contreras

L. M.

Borrego

(2025). Social capital development through a postdoc future faculty program: Community building and mentorship. Innovative Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-024-09757-x

12.

Cole

E. R.

McGowan

B. L.

Zerquera

D. D.

(2017). First-year faculty of color: Narratives about entering the academy. Equity & Excellence in Education, 50(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2016.1262300

13.

Collins

D. R.

Canella

G. S.

(2021). Racisms in qualitative inquiry: Recognitions and challenges. Qualitative Inquiry, 27(10), 1139–1145. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004211021802

14.

Crenshaw

K. W.

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), Article 8. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8

15.

Creswell

J. W.

Poth

C. N.

(2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.

16.

Culpepper

White-Lewis

O’Meara

Templeton

Anderson

(2023). Do rubrics live up to their promise? Examining how rubrics mitigate bias in faculty hiring. Journal of Higher Education, 94(7), 823–850. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2023.2168411

17.

Denzin

N. K.

(2017). Critical qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416681864

18.

Dowd

A. C.

Bensimon

E. M.

(2015). Engaging the” race question”: Accountability and equity in US higher education. Teachers College Press.

19.

Duan

Ali Memon

AlShebli

Guan

Holme

Rahwan

(2025). Postdoc publications and citations link to academic retention and faculty success. PNAS, 122(4), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2402053122.

20.

Eaton

A. A.

Saunders

J. F.

Jacobson

R. K.

West

(2020). How gender and race stereotypes impact the advancement of scholars in STEM: Professors’ biased evaluations of physics and biology post-doctoral candidates. Sex Roles, 82, 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01052-w

21.

Evans

G. L.

Cokley

K. O.

(2008). African American women and the academy: Using career mentoring to increase research productivity. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 2(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3918.2.1.50

22.

Ginsberg

Gasman

Samayoa

A. C.

(2017). The role of minority serving institutions in transforming teacher education and diversifying the teaching profession: A literature review and research agenda. Teachers College Record, 119(10), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811711901007

23.

Giroux

H. A.

(2014). Neoliberalism’s war on higher education. Haymarket Books.

24.

Gonzales

L. D.

(2018). Subverting and minding boundaries: The intellectual work of women. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(5), 677–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1434278.

25.

Gonzales

L. D.

Culpepper

Anderson

(2024). An analysis of academic hiring research and practice and a lens for the future: How labor justice can make a better academy. In Perna

L. W.

(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 39, pp. 381–471). Springer.

26.

Griffin

K. A.

(2020). Institutional barriers, strategies, and benefits to increasing the representation of women and men of color in the professoriate. In Perna

L. W.

(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 35, pp. 1–73). Springer Nature.

27.

Harper

S. R.

Patton

L. D.

Wooden

O. S.

(2009). Access and equity for African American students in higher education: A critical race historical analysis of policy efforts. Journal of Higher Education, 80(4), 389–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2009.11779022

28.

Herschberg

Benschop

Van den Brink

(2018). Precarious postdocs: A comparative study on recruitment and selection of early-career researchers. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 34(4), 303–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2018.10.001

29.

Hudson

T. D.

Haley

K. J.

Jaeger

A. J.

Mitchall

Dinin

Dunstan

S. B.

(2018). Becoming a legitimate scientist: Science identity of postdocs in STEM fields. Review of Higher Education, 41(4), 607–639. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0027

30.

Jach

Gupta

(2023). How Postdocs Identifying as White US Citizens Can Support Undocumented Students. Journal Committed to Social Change on Race and Ethnicity, 9(1), 155–184. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8134-8054

31.

P. T.

Matias

C. E.

(2019). Towards a truer multicultural science education: How whiteness impacts science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14, 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-017-9854-9

32.

Leonardo

(2009). Race, whiteness, and education. Routledge.

33.

Liera

(2020). Moving beyond a culture of niceness in faculty hiring to advance racial equity. American Educational Research Journal, 57(5), 1954–1994. https://doi.org/10.3102/000283121988862

34.

Liera

Hernandez

T. E.

(2021). Color-evasive racism in the final stage of faculty searches: Examining search committee hiring practices that jeopardize racial equity policy. Review of Higher Education, 45(2), 181–209. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2021.0020

35.

Liera

Ortega

(2025). Postdoctoral scholars of color and their perceptions of equity-minded mentoring practices. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000654

36.

Liera

Rodgers

A. J.

(2024). “I’m a Needed Commodity in the Academy”: Racial capitalism and the positioning of race as capital in the faculty job market. Review of Higher Education, 48(4), 547-582. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.0.a945290

37.

Lin

E. S.

Chiu

S. Y.

(2016). Does holding a postdoctoral position bring benefits for advancing to academia? Research in Higher Education, 57, 335–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9388-5

38.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.

39.

Martinez

(2023). Critical qualitative inquiry: Examining the influence of changing voices and bodies on legislative spaces. Qualitative Inquiry, 30(1), 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004231163154

40.

Matias

C. E.

Boucher

(2023). From critical whiteness studies to a critical study of whiteness: Restoring criticality in critical whiteness studies. Whiteness and Education, 8(1), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2021.1993751

41.

McCoy

D. L.

Winkle-Wagner

Luedke

C. L.

(2015). Colorblind mentoring? Exploring white faculty mentoring of students of color. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 8(4), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038676

42.

McNair

T. B.

Bensimon

E. M.

Malcom-Piqueux

(2020). From equity talk to equity walk: Expanding practitioner knowledge for racial justice in higher education. John Wiley & Sons.

43.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). Race/ethnicity of college faculty. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61

44.

National Postdoctoral Association (NPA). (n.d.). What is a postdoc? https://www.nationalpostdoc.org/page/About

45.

National Research Council. (1969). The invisible university: Postdoctoral education in the United States. National Academy of Sciences.

46.

National Science Foundation. (n.d.). Funding for postdoctoral researchers. https://www.nsf.gov/funding/postdocs

47.

Nguyen

M. H.

Ramirez

J. J.

Laderman

(2023). What counts as a minority-serving institution? Toward the utilization of a standardized and uniform definition and typology. Educational Researcher, 52(3), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X221105861

48.

O’Meara

Culpepper

Templeton

L. L.

(2020). Nudging toward diversity: Applying behavioral design to faculty hiring. Review of Educational Research, 90(3), 311–348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320914742

49.

Pasque

Carducci

Kuntz

Gildersleeve

(2012). Qualitative inquiry for equity in higher education: Methodological innovations, implications, and interventions: Association for the Study of Higher Education. John Wiley & Sons.

50.

Patt

Eppig

Richards

M. A.

(2022). Postdocs as key to faculty diversity: A structured and collaborative approach for research universities. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.759263

51.

Patton

L. D.

(2016). Disrupting postsecondary prose: Toward a critical race theory of higher education. Urban Education, 51(3), 315–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915602542

52.

Pedota

Garces

L. M.

Bentley Espin

E. M.

Cruz Ngaosi

Khalayleh

(2025). “We’re on our own out here”: Faculty member responses to legislative threats to academic freedom and scholarship on race. Journal of Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2025.2461986

53.

Perez

R. J.

Motshubi

Rodriguez

S. L.

(2023). (Mis)Alignment of challenges and strategies in promoting inclusive racial climates in STEM graduate departments. AERA Open, 9(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584231168639

54.

Poon

Lee

D. H.

Galvez

Engler

J. S.

Serrano

Raza

Hurtado

J. M.

Chun

N. K.

(2023). A möbius model of racialized organizations: Durability of racial inequalities in admissions. Journal of Higher Education, 95(3), 399–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2023.2203630

55.

Ray

(2019). A theory of racialized organization. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 26–53. https://doi.org/10.11770003122418822335.

56.

Ray

(2022). On critical race theory: Why it matters & why you should care. Random House.

57.

Ray

(2023). Racialized organizations and the interest divergence dilemma. Sociological Forum, 38(4), 1375–1381. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12950.

58.

Ray

Purifoy

(2019). The colorblind organization. In Wooten

M. E.

(Ed.), Race, organizations, and the organizing process (pp. 131–150). Emerald Publishing.

59.

Rida

Karalis Noel

Miles

M. L.

(2023). STEM postdoc mentoring: A social exchange theory-based conceptual framework. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 31(2), 208–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2023.2178708

60.

Rodgers

A. J.

Liera

(2023). When race becomes capital: Diversity, faculty hiring, and the entrenchment of racial capitalism in higher education. Educational Researcher, 52(7), 444-449. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X231175359

61.

Ruben

(2013). The postdoc: A special kind of hell. Science. https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2013/11/postdoc-special-kind-hell

62.

Rybarczyk

Lerea

Lund

P. K.

Whittington

Dykstra

(2011). Postdoctoral training aligned with the academic professoriate. BioScience, 61(9), 699–705. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0032

63.

Saldaña

(2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.

64.

Slay

K. E.

Reyes

K. A.

Posselt

J. R.

(2019). Bait and switch: Representation, climate, and tensions of diversity work in graduate education. Review of Higher Education, 42(5), 255–286. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0052.

65.

Solórzano

D. G.

(1998). Critical race theory, race and gender microaggressions, and the experience of Chicana and Chicano scholars. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/095183998236926

66.

Turner

C. S. V.

González

J. C.

Wood

J. L.

(2008). Faculty of color in academe: What 20 years of literature tells us. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(3), 139. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012837

67.

Turner

C. S. V.

Myers

S. L.

Jr. Creswell

J. W.

(1999). Exploring underrepresentation: The case of faculty of color in the Midwest. Journal of Higher Education, 70(1), 27–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/2649117

68.

Vega

B. E.

Liera

Boveda

(2022). “Hispanic Serving Institutions” as racialized organizations: Elevating intersectional consciousness to rethink the “H” in HSIs. AERA Open, 8(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221095074

69.

Viruru

Rios

(2021). Needed methodological emancipation: Qualitative coding and the institutionalization of the master’s voice. Qualitative Inquiry, 27(1), 1146–1158. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004211021814

70.

Ward

L. M.

Hall

C. N.

(2022). Seeking tenure while Black: Lawsuit composite counterstories of Black professors at historically white institutions. Journal of Higher Education, 93(1), 1012–1036. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2022.2082760

71.

White-Lewis

D. K.

(2020). The facade of fit in faculty search processes. Journal of Higher Education, 91(6), 833–857. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.0.0178

72.

White-Lewis

D. K.

(2021). Before the ad: How departments generate hiring priorities that support or avert faculty diversity. Teachers College Record, 123(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812112300109

73.

Wilder

C. S.

(2013). Ebony and ivy: Race, slavery, and the troubled history of America’s universities. Bloomsbury Publishing.

74.

Wingfield

A. H.

Alston

R. S.

(2014). Maintaining hierarchies in predominantly white organizations: A theory of racial tasks. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(2), 274–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213503329.

75.

Yadav

Seals

C. D.

Sullivan

C. M. S.

Lachney

Clark

Dixon

K. G.

Smith

M. J.

(2020). The forgotten scholar: Underrepresented minority postdoc experiences in STEM fields. Educational Studies, 56(2), 160–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2019.1702552

Postdoctoral of Color Racialized Agency Toward Tenure-Track Careers

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Post-Doctoral Structures

Whiteness and Postdocs Roles

Experiences of Post-Docs of Color

Theoretical Framework

Methodology

Positionality

Participants and Data Collection

Data Analysis

Trustworthiness

Limitations

Findings

Whiteness as Credential

Whiteness as an Ideal Worker

Postdoc Position as Racialized Structured

Postdoc Supervisors Enhancing Agency

Discussion

Implications

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Open Practices

ORCID iDs

Notes

Authors

References