Surveying the experience of postdocs in the United States before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

  1. Andréanne Morin
  2. Britney A Helling
  3. Seetha Krishnan
  4. Laurie E Risner
  5. Nykia D Walker
  6. Nancy B Schwartz

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

In the interest of advocating for the postdoctoral community in the United States (US), we compared the results of surveys of postdocs carried out in 2019 and in late 2020. We found that respondents’ mental health and wellness were significantly impacted by the pandemic irrespective of their gender, race, citizenship, or other identities. Career trajectories and progression were also affected, as respondents reported being less confident about achieving career goals, and having more negative perceptions of the job market compared to before the pandemic. Postdocs working in the US on temporary visas reported experiencing increased stress levels due to changes in immigration policy. Access to institutional Postdoctoral Offices or Associations positively impacted well-being and helped mitigate some of the personal and professional stresses caused by the pandemic.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.7554/elife.75705 on eLife
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.11.19.468693v2 on bioRxiv
  4. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.19.468693: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Word clouds were generated in Python using the wordcloud package.
    Python
    suggested: (IPython, RRID:SCR_001658)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    However, there were some limitations to our study. First, although the pandemic survey was conducted in a subset of the pre-pandemic respondents and therefore was more directly comparable, the responses were anonymized, and we are unable to do a direct one-to-one comparison of pre-pandemic to pandemic responses on an individual level. Furthermore, although we were able to assess caregivers through responses to a handful of questions, including the written responses, we did not directly ask if respondents were parents or caregivers, limiting our ability to assess those effects more directly. Lastly, because of sample sizes, we were limited in our ability to assess certain metrics for some demographics such as the LGBTQ, third gender, individuals with disabilities and certain races/ethnicities. To be able to parse out potential differences between racial and ethnic groups, we pooled all individuals into three broad groups; white, Asian and URM. Nonetheless, these data still represent a rich collection of information about the postdoctoral experience before and during the pandemic. As is apparent from our survey data, access to institutional resources is critical not only for the ability of postdocs to complete their work in safe and supportive environments - as is often the focus of institutional efforts - but also for their mental and physical wellbeing as we note in this manuscript. Along with these resources, our data indicate the importance of institutional tracking of post...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  5. Version published to 10.1101/2021.11.19.468693v1 on bioRxiv