Postdoctoral scholars' perspectives about professional learning and development: a concurrent mixed-methods study

Postdoctoral scholars typically hold short-term, mentored research positions (1–5 years) intended as a bridge to tenure-track roles, yet fewer than 20% transition into tenure-track positions. The number of postdocs far exceeds the academic job market’s capacity, pushing many toward diverse careers in industry, government, and the private sector. Consequently, postdocs require broader skill sets than research alone. While institutions often emphasize research skill development, postdocs report a need for stronger professional learning and development (PLD) opportunities that prepare them for multiple career paths. Prior work suggests PLD can enhance teaching, writing, publication, and general career skills and support peer communities and work–life balance. However, there is limited research documenting postdocs’ perceptions of available PLD, the learning they gain, and how acquired skills are applied. This study aims to explore postdocs’ perceptions, learning gains, and utilization of PLD at a large research-intensive university, and to assess the impact of current offerings and identify gaps.

Existing literature indicates that postdocs benefit from PLD across teaching and learning, academic writing, and general career skills, with additional outcomes such as peer community development, improved work–life balance, and intentional planning for development (Nowell et al., 2018). A subsequent review identified common PLD goals for postdocs, including teaching and learning, mentorship, academic writing, networking, and communication skills (Nowell et al., 2020). Despite these insights, there remains a gap in research capturing postdocs’ perceptions of PLD utility, the learning gained from participating, and the application of these skills. Broader literature on professional learning emphasizes active, contextualized, and collaborative structures to maximize effectiveness (Webster-Wright, 2009), which has implications for how PLD for postdocs should be designed and delivered.

Design: Concurrent mixed-methods design combining (1) a cross-sectional survey and (2) qualitative semi-structured interviews, with integration via triangulation. Setting: A large Canadian research-intensive university employing approximately 500 postdocs across disciplines. Participants: Voluntary participation sought from ~500 postdocs. Survey included demographics, perceptions of PLD, learning gains, and application of skills, plus open-text responses and an option to volunteer for interviews. Interviews were conducted with self-selected volunteers until data saturation. Data collection: Survey (Qualtrics) administered October 2018–January 2019; estimated completion time 5–10 minutes. Interviews lasted 15–20 minutes, were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interview prompts explored experiences with PLD, methods of seeking opportunities, perceived value, use of acquired skills, and supervisor-provided versus independently sought PLD. Data analysis: Survey data exported to SPSS v22; descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages) and Kruskal–Wallis tests examined group differences; open-ended responses thematically analyzed. Interview transcripts were coded in NVivo v12 using a six-step thematic analysis with iterative, reflective cycles and constant comparison. Integration employed an integrated data display to visually align quantitative and qualitative results and analyze relationships among variables. Validity/rigour: Survey face validity established via multidisciplinary postdoc review and revision. For qualitative data, credibility supported through prolonged engagement, data triangulation, and an audit trail to ensure transparency and dependability. Authors met regularly to confirm authenticity and trustworthiness of interpretations. Ethics: Approved by local Research Ethics Board (REB17-1795). Consent was implied by survey completion; interviewees provided written and verbal consent.

- Sample and response: 100 survey respondents, 76 complete surveys (approx. 20% response rate; 76% completion). Of completers, 65% were aged 25–34; 42% from Medicine; 57% international. Eighteen postdocs completed interviews (23 provided contact information). - Career aims: 46.8% (n=44) selected postsecondary education as their only future aim; 81.9% (n=77) included postsecondary among multiple options. No differences by gender (p=0.332), age (p=0.352), postdoc year (p=0.661), or citizenship (p=0.115) for aiming at postsecondary positions overall. However, fewer international postdocs (35%) aimed solely for academic careers compared with Canadian citizens and landed immigrants (55% and 60%). Grouping citizens + landed immigrants vs international showed a significant difference (57% vs 35%), chi-square=4.268, p=0.039; Kruskal–Wallis p=0.040. - Attendance differences: Women attended communication skills workshops more than men (p=0.034). 45+ age group had higher attendance in project management (75% attended). Postdocs in year 3+ were more likely to attend or be interested in academic writing (p=0.027) and communication skills (p=0.028). International postdocs and landed immigrants were most likely to attend networking opportunities (p=0.054). Landed immigrants were more likely to have attended or be interested in academic writing (p=0.033), project management (p=0.049), and career planning (p=0.001). Canadian citizens more often attended teaching and learning opportunities (p=0.054). - Usefulness ratings (1–10): Teaching and learning had the highest mean usefulness (mean 7.94; median 8; range 4–10). Project management (mean 7.11; median 7; range 5–10) and time management (mean 7.5; median 8; range 5–9) followed. Mentorship (mean 5.0; range 5–5), academic writing (mean 5.05; median 5; range 1–10), leadership (mean 5.83; median 6; range 2–9), networking (mean 6.53; median 7; range 1–10), and communication (mean 6.09; median 7; range 3–9) were moderate to lower. - Importance rankings (1=highest of 12 categories): Top three were academic writing (1), career planning (2), academic career skills (3). Bottom three were time management (12), industry career skills (11), networking (10). Women ranked networking as more important than men (p=0.011). The 35+ group ranked communication skills higher than 25–34 (7.80 vs 5.20, p=0.014). No significant differences by postdoc year, citizenship, or future employment aims for other categories. - Qualitative themes: (a) Awareness vs engagement: Many perceived abundant PLD options but experienced conflicts with research priorities and time; relevance increased nearing the end of postdoc. (b) Seeking PLD: Proactive searching aligned with career goals; institutional email lists were effective for discovery; local, relevant, and serendipitous opportunities encouraged participation. (c) Supervisor vs independent PLD: Supervisor support focused on research development and was discipline-specific; broader transferable skills (teaching, industry exposure, communication) were pursued independently. (d) Teaching and learning: Highly valued for academic career preparation; workshops and dossier development aided confidence and job applications. (e) Mentorship: Few formal offerings; mentoring students was common and valued for reciprocal learning. (f) Industry skills: Rated low in importance; few engaged in formal industry-focused PLD, though interest in government/private sector internships and transition workshops was noted. (g) Communication: Public speaking and English-language practice were key growth areas, often developed via seminars and conferences. (h) Personal effectiveness: Leadership developed through lab roles; project management seen as broadly transferable; work–life balance rated important but lacked dedicated offerings.

Most surveyed postdocs prioritized academic career trajectories and engaged in PLD aligned with academia (e.g., teaching and learning, academic writing, academic career skills), despite the limited availability of tenure-track positions. This indicates a misalignment between postdocs’ PLD focus and the broader labor market realities, potentially leaving many underprepared for non-academic roles. Additionally, perceived usefulness of PLD varied, with no category exceeding an average score of 8/10, suggesting room to improve relevance and quality. Interview data highlight that supervisor-provided development primarily targets research and is discipline-specific, whereas broader skills (teaching, communication, industry awareness) are obtained independently. The findings underscore the need for institutions to diversify PLD offerings beyond academia, co-develop programs with postdocs and potential employers to increase contextual relevance and uptake, and ensure high-quality, learner-centered facilitation. Enhancing supervisor capacity to mentor for diverse career trajectories could bridge gaps between research-focused mentorship and broader professional competencies. Aligning PLD with adult learning principles—active, contextualized, and collaborative—may increase impact and perceived value.

Postdocs require broad, transferable skill sets for success across academic and non-academic careers. This mixed-methods study shows that while many PLD opportunities exist, engagement is constrained by research priorities, and offerings tend to be oriented toward academic paths, despite limited academic job prospects. Teaching and learning, project management, and networking are valued, but mentorship training, industry skills, and work–life balance are underprovided. Institutions should strategically align PLD with postdocs’ needs and employment realities by co-developing offerings with stakeholders (including employers), broadening focus beyond research, and ensuring high-quality facilitation. Future research should examine the availability and effectiveness of PLD across institutions and evaluate outcomes related to career trajectories and success.

Findings stem from a single research-intensive Canadian university, which may limit generalizability to other settings. Participation was self-selected, introducing potential selection bias. The survey response rate was modest and some subgroup sample sizes were small, limiting statistical power. Nonetheless, the concurrent mixed-methods design provided both breadth and depth, and participants represented multiple disciplines. Comparative, multi-institutional studies and effectiveness evaluations of PLD approaches are needed.