research proposal sample for postdoc

Feb 20 2023

• Writing a Winning Postdoctoral Research Proposal: A Guide and Template

Eddy Haminton

Career advice

If you are interested in pursuing a postdoctoral position, one of the first steps is to write a research proposal that outlines the project you plan to undertake. A postdoctoral research proposal is an important document that can help you secure funding, support, and a position at a university or research institution. In this blog post, we will provide a guide to writing a postdoctoral research proposal, as well as a template to help you get started.

The purpose of a postdoctoral research proposal is to demonstrate your research expertise, creativity, and vision, as well as to provide a clear plan for the research you plan to undertake. A good research proposal should be clear, concise, and well-organized, and should provide a strong rationale for the proposed research. It should also outline the research objectives, methods, and expected outcomes.

Here is a basic template for a postdoctoral research proposal:

I. Introduction

• Provide a brief overview of the research area and context for your proposed research
• State the research problem or question that your project will address
• Provide a rationale for the importance of the proposed research

II. Objectives and Research Questions

• Clearly state the research objectives of your project
• Provide a list of specific research questions that you plan to address

III. Background and Literature Review

• Provide a summary of the key literature in the research area
• Discuss how your proposed research builds on and contributes to the existing research

IV. Methodology

• Provide a clear and detailed description of the research methods you plan to use
• Explain how your methodology will help you achieve your research objectives
• Discuss any potential limitations of your proposed methodology and how you plan to address them

V. Expected Outcomes and Significance

• Clearly state the expected outcomes of your research
• Discuss the potential impact and significance of your research for the research area and beyond

VI. Timeline

• Provide a timeline for the completion of the proposed research
• Break the project into specific milestones and indicate the time required to complete each milestone

VII. Budget

• Provide a detailed budget for the proposed research
• Indicate the costs associated with equipment, materials, travel, and other expenses

VIII. Conclusion

• Summarize the key points of your research proposal
• Reiterate the importance and significance of your proposed research

When writing a postdoctoral research proposal, it is important to tailor your proposal to the specific research area and institution you are applying to. It is also important to be realistic about the feasibility of your proposed research, given the time and resources available.

In conclusion, a postdoctoral research proposal is a critical document that can help you secure a postdoctoral position and funding for your research. By following the template above and tailoring your proposal to the specific research area and institution you are applying to, you can increase your chances of success. Good luck with your postdoctoral research proposal!

Tags: Writing a Winning Postdoctoral Research Proposal: A Guide and Template

A Story of Graduate PhD in Computer Science: How to...

January 28, 2023

High Quality Data Science Courses

December 17, 2022

TESLA stock: Pros and Cons of Tesla's Competitive Features

May 01, 2023

Featured Jobs

Editors' picks, recent posts.

Why Engineering Might Be the Career for You

March 29, 2024

Water Catchment Systems: An Essential Guide for Homeowners

March 27, 2024

Revolutionising Food Production Recruitment in the UK: Overcoming Challenges &...

March 22, 2024

The different settings that FNPs work in

March 18, 2024

Digital Marketing as a Career

March 17, 2024

How to Choose a Healthcare Staffing Company: Caliber Health &...

This site uses cookies to deliver our services and to show you relevant ads and job listings. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy , and our Terms and Conditions . Your use of AcademicGates’s Products and Services, is subject to these policies and terms. If you do not use the cookie, some functions may not work properly.

Slip to main content

Lex Academic®

• Blog & Resources

How to Write a Postdoc Research Proposal | Lex Academic Blog

6 December 2021

By Dr Michelle Liu (DPhil Oxon)

In an increasingly competitive job market, securing a postdoc somewhere is probably the best option many recent graduates can hope for. In the UK, where I am writing from, there are postdoc positions tied to specific research projects with restricted areas of research. There are also postdoc positions (e.g., British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowships, Leverhulme Early Career Fellowships, Mind/Analysis Studentships, various JRFs at Oxford/Cambridge colleges) where areas of research are unrestricted.

Writing a postdoc research proposal is almost nothing like writing a paper for journal publication. For a start, grant referees may not be in your subject area, in which case striking the right tone and level of technicality in your proposal is important. Moreover, some of funders may care a lot more about impact than your average journal reviewers. So, it may be essential to think about whether your research project has wider applications and ramifications.

In this blog post, I will discuss what I think might be helpful for someone writing a postdoc research proposal. Given my area is philosophy, what I am offering here is perhaps more pertinent to philosophy than other subject areas (though I hope the general tips will apply across different disciplines in the Humanities). I shall mainly focus on writing research proposals where areas of specialisation are open. Of course, two successful research proposals can look quite different. So, it’s worth looking at some successful samples, if you can, before you start.

First, what topic should you propose? You should definitely propose a topic that you are already very familiar with. This could be an extension of your PhD thesis. Alternatively, it could be a new area that you have already begun to research. Not everyone can sustain a passion for one topic for 3-4 years. It’s likely that some of you started working on other topics during your PhDs. But if it’s a new area, then it should be a topic you already formed plans to write papers on – or even better, have published in. It is not an understatement to say that writing a research proposal is often a retrospective process. Sometimes, you already have a good idea of what your research outcomes will be, though the details still need filling in. You are working backwards in your proposal, guiding your grant reviewers through how one should go about investigating the topic.

A catchy title is also a good idea.

In terms of the overall structure of the proposal, I tend to think it’s helpful to have three sections: the introduction, the main body, and the outcome.

The opening paragraph is where you introduce your research topic to your (very often) non-specialist audience. Make sure you avoid jargon and write in plain English, but in an engaging way that captivates your readers. Think about why your topic is worth pursuing.  Why should anyone care? It’s worth considering how your own research compares and contrasts with the existing research on the topic. Make sure you give the impression that your project is exciting and will make a new contribution to the field.

The main body of the proposal goes into details about your aims and methodology, and exactly how you will carry out the project. The first thing to consider is timeframe. How might you divide your research time? What issues do you want to investigate for each period? For a typical three-year research fellowship in the UK, you could, for instance, divide it into three one-year periods and focus on investigating one question for each period.

I find it very helpful to frame the research plan in terms of guiding questions, with one question naturally leading to the next. Framing it in this way helps bring out your research goals and outcomes. For each question, think how you might go about answering it. What kind of literature do you want to engage with? Is there a popular view in the literature that you would like to criticise? Is there a hypothesis you want to investigate? You might have already made up your mind that you want to argue for thesis T when answering the research question you pose. But in this case, it may still be helpful to frame T as a hypothesis that you want to investigate in order to give referees a future-orienting sense of the project. In my own experience, I often find myself unsure of how to answer a specific research question that I raised. The advice I have received is that it is better to be specific and clear about what you want to argue for, even if you are not quite sure of it. Sometimes, you might have to put things in a way that sounds more confident than you actually are. It’s okay to be speculative; you don’t necessarily need to stick to your research plan. Also, I think it is better to show ‘positive’ outcomes (e.g., arguing for a new theory T) rather than ‘negative’ outcomes (e.g., arguing against theory X).

Depending on the nature of the topic, it may be appropriate to investigate it using case studies. In my own Leverhulme-funded project on polysemy, I investigate three case studies:  gender terms, sensation terms, and emotion terms. It is worth thinking about why these case studies were chosen. How are they related to each other? What overall purpose do they serve? In my own work, the three case studies were carefully chosen to encompass three different classes of words, i.e. nouns, verbs, and adjectives, from which wider philosophical implications about polysemy are to be drawn.

In the final section of the proposal, you should lay out the specific results you aim to achieve through your project as well as its wider impact. If your research is divided in several periods, think about what your output is for each period. It might be a specific paper for each period, in which case state the provisional title of the paper and the journal you are aiming to publish in. Again, this might not be what you in fact achieve if you secure the grant. It is also worth considering where you want to disseminate your research. Are there conferences that you want to attend or organise?

It is almost obligatory to include a section in the research proposal about the wider implications of the project. What significant impact does the research promise? It would be ideal if your project has wider social ramifications, such as clarifying conceptual confusions in a popular debate or resolving issues in certain clinical or policy-making contexts. If social impact is hard to find, it is still important to talk about how the project can advance debates in your field and what potential it has for applications in related research areas.

Finally, don’t forget to include references at the end as you are bound to cite research in your proposal.

Getting Feedback, etc.

There are other aspects of a postdoc application besides writing a research proposal. Some funding bodies give generous research allowances, in which case you will need to draft a budget outlining how you want to spend the money. This can involve various things from purchasing books to organising workshops or conferences. If the latter, it is important to give a breakdown of the costs. Where do you want to host the conference? How many speakers do you want to invite? How much would it cost to host each speaker? The last question depends on whether the speaker is domestic or international.

Often, you will also be asked to summarise your past and current research experience in your application. Here, you will inevitably mention your doctoral work and the papers that you have already published, that are under review, or that are in preparation. It is important to give the impression that your existing research experience naturally leads to your proposed project. Try to convey the idea that you are ideally suited to conduct the proposed project.

If your project is tied to a host institute, it is vital to explain (either in your proposal or elsewhere) the reasons for choosing a particular institution. What are its areas of expertise and how are they related to your research project? Mention members of the department whose work is relevant to yours. Also, how does your research contribute to the teaching and research in the host department?

Now that you have a draft for your research proposal, it is important to get a second opinion. In most universities, there are research offices dedicated to helping academics secure grants. Writing a grant application is a meticulous and formal process that involves peer reviews – something I was utterly unaware of when I was fresh out of my DPhil. However, graduate students or graduates who have not yet secured a university position are unlikely to have access to the expertise in the research office. In these cases, it would be wise to seek help from your supervisors as they are likely to offer useful insights.

Just as there are general tips that one can give to improve one’s chances for journal publication, I believe there are patterns that converge in successful grant applications. Like others, I am slowly figuring out both cases through experience and the helpful advice I’ve received from others over the years. Of course, it is undeniable that luck often plays a decisive role in grant success. My Leverhulme project on polysemy didn’t make it through the internal selection round at one institution, but I was lucky enough to apply at the last minute and eventually secure funding with my current institution. I hope that what I offer here may be helpful to some recent graduates, and I welcome others to share their successful experiences.

Dr  Michelle Liu is a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow at the University of Hertfordshire. Her project is titled ‘The abundance of meaning: polysemy and its applications in philosophy’. Liu completed her DPhil at the University of Oxford in 2019 and was a Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Hertfordshire from 2019 to 2021.

Be notified each time we post a new blog article

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process
• How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

Published on October 12, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on November 21, 2023.

A research proposal describes what you will investigate, why it’s important, and how you will conduct your research.

The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:

Introduction

Literature review.

• Research design

Reference list

While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organized and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.

Table of contents

Research proposal purpose, research proposal examples, research design and methods, contribution to knowledge, research schedule, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research proposals.

Academics often have to write research proposals to get funding for their projects. As a student, you might have to write a research proposal as part of a grad school application , or prior to starting your thesis or dissertation .

In addition to helping you figure out what your research can look like, a proposal can also serve to demonstrate why your project is worth pursuing to a funder, educational institution, or supervisor.

Research proposal length

The length of a research proposal can vary quite a bit. A bachelor’s or master’s thesis proposal can be just a few pages, while proposals for PhD dissertations or research funding are usually much longer and more detailed. Your supervisor can help you determine the best length for your work.

One trick to get started is to think of your proposal’s structure as a shorter version of your thesis or dissertation , only without the results , conclusion and discussion sections.

Download our research proposal template

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We’ve included a few for you below.

• Example research proposal #1: “A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management”
• Example research proposal #2: “Medical Students as Mediators of Change in Tobacco Use”

Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:

• The proposed title of your project
• Your supervisor’s name
• Your institution and department

The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.

Your introduction should:

• Introduce your topic
• Give necessary background and context
• Outline your  problem statement  and research questions

To guide your introduction , include information about:

• Who could have an interest in the topic (e.g., scientists, policymakers)
• How much is already known about the topic
• What is missing from this current knowledge
• What new insights your research will contribute
• Why you believe this research is worth doing

As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review  shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.

In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:

• Comparing and contrasting the main theories, methods, and debates
• Examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches
• Explaining how will you build on, challenge, or synthesize prior scholarship

Following the literature review, restate your main  objectives . This brings the focus back to your own project. Next, your research design or methodology section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.

To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasize again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.

For example, your results might have implications for:

• Improving best practices
• Informing policymaking decisions
• Strengthening a theory or model
• Challenging popular or scientific beliefs
• Creating a basis for future research

Last but not least, your research proposal must include correct citations for every source you have used, compiled in a reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use our free APA citation generator .

Some institutions or funders require a detailed timeline of the project, asking you to forecast what you will do at each stage and how long it may take. While not always required, be sure to check the requirements of your project.

Here’s an example schedule to help you get started. You can also download a template at the button below.

Download our research schedule template

If you are applying for research funding, chances are you will have to include a detailed budget. This shows your estimates of how much each part of your project will cost.

Make sure to check what type of costs the funding body will agree to cover. For each item, include:

• Cost : exactly how much money do you need?
• Justification : why is this cost necessary to complete the research?
• Source : how did you calculate the amount?

To determine your budget, think about:

• Travel costs : do you need to go somewhere to collect your data? How will you get there, and how much time will you need? What will you do there (e.g., interviews, archival research)?
• Materials : do you need access to any tools or technologies?
• Help : do you need to hire any research assistants for the project? What will they do, and how much will you pay them?

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Methodology

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement .

Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.

I will compare …

A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.

Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.

A PhD, which is short for philosophiae doctor (doctor of philosophy in Latin), is the highest university degree that can be obtained. In a PhD, students spend 3–5 years writing a dissertation , which aims to make a significant, original contribution to current knowledge.

A PhD is intended to prepare students for a career as a researcher, whether that be in academia, the public sector, or the private sector.

A master’s is a 1- or 2-year graduate degree that can prepare you for a variety of careers.

All master’s involve graduate-level coursework. Some are research-intensive and intend to prepare students for further study in a PhD; these usually require their students to write a master’s thesis . Others focus on professional training for a specific career.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

The best way to remember the difference between a research plan and a research proposal is that they have fundamentally different audiences. A research plan helps you, the researcher, organize your thoughts. On the other hand, a dissertation proposal or research proposal aims to convince others (e.g., a supervisor, a funding body, or a dissertation committee) that your research topic is relevant and worthy of being conducted.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, November 21). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved April 18, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-proposal/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, what is your plagiarism score.

• Search This Site All UCSD Sites Faculty/Staff Search Term
• Meet the Team
• Postdoc Listserve
• News and Updates
• Health, Vision, and Dental Insurance
• Additional Insurance
• Leaves & Time Off
• Benefits & Services
• Retirement, Welfare, & Financial Planning
• Health & Wellness
• Childcare Reimbursement & Dependent Care Programs
• Other Benefits & Services
• Taxability of Salary & Benefits
• UCPath Preparation Tips
• Appointment & Guidelines
• PX Contract
• Move Reimbursement
• Postdocs Data
• Postdoc Coffee Connection
• Essential Training
• EPIC Bootcamp
• Ethical Challenges of Research
• New Postdoc Orientation
• Individual Development Plan
• Foundational Training
• Specialized Training Paths
• Calendar of Events
• Mentoring Award
• Postdoctoral Scholar Award
• National Postdoc Appreciation Week
• Postdoctoberfest
• Finding Funding Opportunities
• Selecting a Funding Opportunity
• Writing the Proposal
• Writing Groups
• Proposal Submission and Award Administration
• UCSD Fellowships
• Schmidt AI in Science Postdocs Program

Fellowships & Funding

Successful funding applications present reviewers with a strong research plan in an engaging and logical manner. They take commitment and time to craft. Below are events, strategies, and resources to help you during the writing stage of your proposal. Start writing your proposal early to take advantage of these resources!

   ✔ Establish a timeline for completion of proposal segments

   ✔ Start a writing group for peer-reviewing, accountability, and encouragement (See Successful Writing Groups )

   ✔ Follow the solicitation instructions exactly & use sponsor templates

UC San Diego Postdoc Proposal Development Events

Postdoc fellowship forum.

Monthly workshops with Professor Mark Lawson to answer all your questions and review your fellowship applications. This is a great way to meet fellow postdocs who are also developing proposals. Generally the 4th Tuesday of the month from 12-1:30pm.

Funding your Future Events

Funding workshops tailored to UC San Diego Postdocs. Check the website and your emails for upcoming events.

Funding Fest

Funding Fest is an annual series of funding workshops held in the spring/summer. Find the workshop right for you and your proposal!

Writing Resources

Opsa grant writing resource library.

• How to Write a Lot: A Practical Guide to Productive Academic Writing , Paul J. Silvia, PhD.
• They Say, I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing , Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein
• Guide to Effective Grant Writing: How to Write an Effective NIH Grant Application , Otto O. Yang
• Everything You Wanted to Know About the NCI Grant Process But Were Afraid to Ask , The National Cancer Institute
• Writing Science: How to write papers that get cited and proposals that get funded , Joshua Schimel
• The Complete Writing Guide to NIH Behavioral Science Grants , Lawrence M. Scheier, William L. Dewey
• NIH 101 , Grace C.Y. Peng, PhD
• Writing the NIH Grant Proposal: A Step-by-Step Guide , William Gerin

UC San Diego Research Development

Explore the Research Development website for proposal writing resources, early career award guidance, and access to the Research Development & Grant Writing News articles.

New Faculty Guide to Competing for Research Funding

Strategies for identifying and competing for research grants. Geared towards new faculty, but includes tips applicable for postdoc grant writers. 

EMU Handbook for Proposal Writers

Helpful tips for grant development, maintained by Eastern Michigan University.

Agency-Specific Resources

National institutes of health.

• Write your Application
• Planning & Writing
• National Cancer Institute Preparing Grant Applications
• National Institute of General Medical Sciences NRSA Postdoctoral Fellowships FAQs
• National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Fellowship (F) Advice

Environmental Protections Agency

• Tips for Writing a Competitive Grant Proposal  

National Science Foundation

• Advice for Proposal Writers

Useful Links

• Postdoc Funding (FR)
• Office of Research Affairs (ORA)

More Resources

• Postdoc Community
• Listserve - Postdocs
• Listserve - Staff
• Search for a Position
• Advertise a Position

Postdoctoral Fellowship Research Statements: What I Wish I Knew Before Writing

Written by Andrew Feldman

Of course, the odds of receiving postdoctoral fellowships are not high (typically single digit percentages). Knowing these odds, I applied for eight fellowships: four through university departments and four through government agencies. I initially felt like I had no idea how to be successful, especially since I received none of the 12 doctoral fellowships I had previously applied for. I also had a rough start: my first postdoctoral fellowship application was rejected a month after submission for being slightly out of scope. It certainly required mental fortitude to continue through this application process.

After speaking with colleagues in my field, common themes emerged in how they approach proposals, especially in how to write a stand-out research statement. At this point starting the fifth year of my PhD, I understood the importance of conveying a strong vision in my research statement: it is essential for getting and staying funded regardless of how stellar one’s publication record is. While I knew the motivation and methodology well, my colleagues taught me that conveying my vision in a convincing, focused, and exciting way for other scientists is a different matter. I believe their collective advice was pivotal to improving my research statement and ultimately getting me on the “funded” pile for three of the eight fellowships. I share some of these insights here.

1) Why now? Why me? When formulating your idea, focus on ensuring that your proposal answers why this research should be completed right now, as opposed to anytime. Many committees strongly weigh how much of a priority your research question is. The best introductions will extend beyond an informative literature review and directly state why answering your question is necessary and urgent.

They also want to know: why are you the best person to address this problem as opposed to someone else? Explicitly sell your fit to your research problem and your vision. Lean on your PI choice here – PIs can fill in any technical knowledge gaps and provide complementary tools to those learned during your PhD.

Most surprising to me is how much focus you need place on “why now? why me?” in your motivation. There is no fixed number, but be sure you spend more real estate motivating why the problem and approach is so amazing rather than on addressing every pitfall with your research question and approach.

2) Your audience is broader than you think. Many proposal writers will incorrectly assume (like I initially did) that their committee will include that harsh reviewer of their journal articles who can identify all methodological shortcomings. Rather than trying to defend against this omniscient and unlikely reader, keep the focus on convincing a researcher of an adjacent field that your questions and approach are spectacular. An excellent research statement will ultimately excite any researcher enough to fund the work.

Another nuance to consider: postdoctoral fellowships are mainly offered through federal government agencies (i.e., NSF, NIH, etc.) and specific university departments. Government-based fellowships will be reviewed by researchers closer to your field (but not quite as close as that of a journal article review). In this case, lean slightly towards convincing them that you understand the limitations of the approach and that your background fits the problem. By contrast, university departmental fellowships will typically have committees of professors that will not be in your exact field. For this audience, lean towards exciting them with an accessible, clear problem motivation, provide only a broad overview of the methods you would use, and be very brief.

3) Spend time just thinking: resist the urge to open Microsoft Word and start typing. Spend time purely thinking and schematically charting out your research problem and anticipated results. If you sufficiently plan, the statement will write itself.

4) Less is more: your reviewers are just as busy as you are. They want to see your main idea fast. You may see a ten page limit and feel an urge to cram in as much material as possible. I did this initially, but the statement will quickly become noisy. Instead, prioritize reader friendliness. This means more pictures and less walls of text. Reviewers are thankful for 1.5 spacing, 12 point font, and schematic figures with question marks and arrows that clearly convey your research questions. Use parsimony in discussing methods – mention only the essential methods and main anticipated challenges.

5) Start early: I started formulating my research statement in June 2020. My first deadline was in early August 2020. While this seems early to start, it was not! Give yourself at least two months before your first fellowship deadline to formulate a problem with your prospective PI (or any co-PIs) and write your statements. Provide adequate time for your PI(s) to provide feedback on your ideas and statements. If applying to multiple fellowships with different PIs and/or different project topics, start even earlier.

Lastly, I encourage asking your colleagues for help. Folks around you regardless of career stage have likely spent a significant portion of their time writing research statements. The MIT Communication Lab was a great source of help for me that I used multiple times! Don’t be afraid to ask for help. I was always glad I did.

Loading metrics

Open Access

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Postdoctoral Fellowship

Affiliation Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America

Affiliation Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford Neuroscience Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America

Affiliation Division of Hematology, Oncology, Stem Cell Transplantation, and Cancer Biology, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States of America

* E-mail: [email protected] (LM); [email protected] (CMB)

Affiliation Asian Liver Center and Department of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America

Affiliation Stanford Biosciences Grant Writing Academy, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America

• Ke Yuan, 
• Lei Cai, 
• Siu Ping Ngok, 
• Li Ma, 
• Crystal M. Botham

Published: July 14, 2016

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004934
• Reader Comments

Citation: Yuan K, Cai L, Ngok SP, Ma L, Botham CM (2016) Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Postdoctoral Fellowship. PLoS Comput Biol 12(7): e1004934. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004934

Editor: Fran Lewitter, Whitehead Institute, UNITED STATES

Copyright: © 2016 Yuan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: Dr. Ke Yuan is supported by American Heart Association Scientist Development Grant (15SDG25710448) and the Pulmonary Hypertension Association Proof of Concept Award (SPO121940). Dr. Lei Cai is supported by Stanford Neuroscience Institute and NIH NRSA postdoctoral fellowship (1F32HL128094). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Postdoctoral fellowships support research, and frequently career development training, to enhance your potential to becoming a productive, independent investigator. Securing a fellowship sends a strong signal that you are capable of conducting fundable research and will likely lead to successes with larger grants. Writing a fellowship will also increase your productivity and impact because you will learn and refine skills necessary to articulate your research priorities. However, competition is fierce and your fellowship application needs to stand out among your peers as realistic, coherent, and compelling. Also, reviewers, a committee of experts and sometimes non-experts, will scrutinize your application, so anything less than polished may be quickly eliminated. We have drawn below ten tips from our experiences in securing postdoctoral fellowships to help as you successfully tackle your proposal.

Rule 1: Start Early and Gather Critical Information

Crafting a competitive fellowship can take 6–9 months, so it is imperative that you start early. You may even want to start looking for postdoctoral fellowships before you finish your doctoral degree. Compile a comprehensive list of fellowships that you can apply to. This list should include key information to organize your game plan for applying, including Sponsor (agency sponsoring the fellowship) name; URL for funding information; Sponsor deadlines; and any other requirements or critical information.

To find suitable fellowships, start by asking your faculty mentor(s), laboratory colleagues, and recent alumni about their experiences applying for fellowships. Federal agencies in the United States, such as the National Institute of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF); foreign governmental agencies; and other organizations, such as societies, foundations, and associations, often solicit fellowship applications. Additionally, many institutions offer internally supported fellowships as well as institutional research training grants.

Once you have an exhaustive list of fellowships you are eligible for, start gathering critical information that you can use to inform your writing. Read the fellowship instructions completely and identify the review criteria. Investigate the review process; NIH’s Center for Scientific Review reviews grant applications for scientific merit and has a worthwhile video about the Peer Review Process [ 1 ]. Sometimes Sponsors offer notification alerts about upcoming funding opportunities, deadlines, and updated policies, so make sure to sign up for those when offered. Also, gather previously submitted applications and reviewers’ comments for the fellowships you will to apply to. Both funded and unfunded applications are useful. Sometimes Sponsors make available funded abstracts like NIH’s Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT), and these provide critical information about the scope of funded projects.

Many institutions have internal policies and processes that are required before a proposal can be submitted to a Sponsor. These requirements can include waivers to assess eligibility and internal deadlines (five business day internal deadlines are standard), so make sure you also gather relevant information about any internal policies and processes required by your institution.

Rule 2: Create a Game Plan and Write Regularly

Writing a compelling fellowship takes time, a lot of time, which is challenging to balance with a hectic laboratory schedule, other responsibilities, and family obligations. To reduce stress, divide the fellowship requirements into smaller tasks by creating a detailed timeline with goals or milestones. Having a game plan with daily and/or weekly goals will also help you avoid procrastination. Make sure you are writing regularly (i.e., daily or every other day) to establish an effective writing practice. This will increase your productivity and reduce your anxiety because writing will become a habit. It is also important to make your writing time non-negotiable so other obligations or distractions don’t impede your progress.

Rule 3: Find Your Research Niche

It is crucial that you have a deep awareness of your field so you can identify critical knowledge gaps that will significantly move your field forward when filled. Keep a list of questions or problems inherent to your field and update this list after reading germane peer-reviewed and review articles or attending seminars and conferences. Narrow down and focus your list through discussions with your mentor(s), key researchers in your field, and colleagues. Because compelling projects often combine two seemingly unrelated threads of work to challenge and shift the current research or clinical practice paradigms, it is important to have a broad familiarity with the wider scientific community as well. Seek opportunities to attend seminars on diverse topics, speak with experts, and read broadly the scientific literature. Relentlessly contemplate how concepts and approaches in the wider scientific community could be extended to address critical knowledge gaps in your field. Furthermore, develop a few of your research questions by crafting hypotheses supported by the literature and/or preliminary data. Again, share your ideas with others, i.e., mentor(s), other scientists, and colleagues, to gauge interest in the significance and innovation of the proposed ideas. Remember, because your focus is on writing a compelling fellowship, make sure your research questions are also relevant and appropriate for the missions of the sponsoring agencies.

Rule 4: Use Your Specific Aims Document as Your Roadmap

A perfectly crafted Specific Aims document, usually a one-page description of your plan during the project period, is crucial for a compelling fellowship because your reviewers will read it! In fact, it is very likely your Specific Aims will be the first document your reviewers will read, so it is vital to fully engage the reviewers’ interest and desire to keep reading. The Specific Aims document must concisely answer the following questions:

• Is the research question important? Compelling proposals often tackle a particular gap in the knowledge base that, when addressed, significantly advance the field.
• What is the overall goal? The overall goal defines the purpose of the proposal and must be attainable regardless of how the hypothesis tests.
• What specifically will be done? Attract the reviewers’ interest using attention-getting headlines. Describe your working hypothesis and your approach to objectively test the hypothesis.
• What are the expected outcomes and impact? Describe what the reviewers can expect after the proposal is completed in terms of advancement to the field.

A draft of your Specific Aims document is ideal for eliciting feedback from your mentor(s) and colleagues because evaluating a one-page document is not an enormous time investment on part of the person giving you feedback. Plus, you don’t want to invest time writing a full proposal without knowing the proposal’s conceptual framework is compelling. When you are ready to write the research plan, your Specific Aims document then provides a useful roadmap.

As you are writing (and rewriting) your Specific Aims document, it is essential to integrate the Sponsor’s goals for that fellowship funding opportunity. Often goals for a fellowship application include increasing the awardee’s potential for becoming an independent investigator, in which case an appropriate expected outcome might be that you mature into an independent investigator.

We recommend reading The Grant Application Writer’s Workbook ( www.grantcentral.com ) [ 2 ] because it has two helpful chapters on how to write a persuasive Specific Aims document, as well as other instructive chapters. Although a little formulaic, the Workbook’s approach ensures the conceptual framework of your Specific Aims document is solid. We also advise reading a diverse repertoire of Specific Aims documents to unearth your own style for this document.

Rule 5: Build a First-Rate Team of Mentors

Fellowship applications often support mentored training experiences; therefore, a strong mentoring team is essential. Remember, reviewers often evaluate the qualifications and appropriateness of your mentoring team. The leader of your mentoring team should have a track record of mentoring individuals at similar stages as your own as well as research qualifications appropriate for your interests. Reviewers will also often consider if your mentor can adequately support the proposed research and training because fellowship applications don’t always provide sufficient funds. It is also useful to propose a co-mentor who complements your mentor’s qualifications and experiences. You should also seek out other mentors at your institution and elsewhere to guide and support your training. These mentors could form an advisory committee, which is required for some funding opportunities, to assist in your training and monitor your progress. In summary, a first-rate mentoring team will reflect the various features of your fellowship, including mentors who augment your research training by enhancing your technical skills as well as mentors who support your professional development and career planning.

As you develop your fellowship proposal, meet regularly with your mentors to elicit feedback on your ideas and drafts. Your mentors should provide feedback on several iterations of your Specific Aims document and contribute to strengthening it. Recruit mentors to your team who will also invest in reading and providing feedback on your entire fellowship as an internal review before the fellowship’s due date.

You also want to maintain and cultivate relationships with prior mentors, advisors, or colleagues because fellowships often require three to five letters of reference. A weak or poorly written letter will negatively affect your proposal’s fundability, so make sure your referees will write a strong letter of recommendation and highlight your specific capabilities.

Rule 6: Develop a Complete Career Development Training Plan

Most fellowships support applicants engaged in training to enhance their development into a productive independent researcher. Training often includes both mentored activities, e.g., regular meetings with your mentor(s), as well as professional activities, e.g., courses and seminars. It is important that you describe a complete training plan and justify the need for each training activity based on your background and career goals.

When developing this plan, it is helpful to think deeply about your training needs. What skills or experiences are missing from your background but needed for your next career stage? Try to identify three to five training goals for your fellowship and organize your plan with these goals in mind. Below are sample activities:

• Regular (weekly) one-on-one meetings with mentor(s)
• Biannual meeting with advisory committee
• Externship (few weeks to a few months) in a collaborator’s laboratory to learn a specific technique or approach
• Courses (include course # and timeline) to study specific topics or methods
• Seminars focused on specific research areas
• Conferences to disseminate your research and initiate collaborations
• Teaching or mentoring
• Grant writing, scientific writing, and oral presentation courses or seminars
• Opportunities for gaining leadership roles
• Laboratory management seminars or experiences

Rule 7: STOP! Get Feedback

Feedback is critical to developing a first-class proposal. You need a wide audience providing feedback because your reviewers will likely come from diverse backgrounds as well. Be proactive in asking for feedback from your mentor, colleagues, and peers. Even non-scientists can provide critical advice about the clarity of your writing. When eliciting feedback, inform your reviewer of your specific needs, i.e., you desire broader feedback on overall concepts and feasibility or want advice on grammar and spelling. You may also consider hiring a professional editing and proofreading service to polish your writing.

Some fellowships have program staff, such as the NIH Program Officers, who can advise prospective applicants. These individuals can provide essential information and feedback about the programmatic relevance of your proposal to the Sponsor’s goals for that specific fellowship application. Approaching a Program Officer can be daunting, but reading the article “What to Say—and Not Say—to Program Officers” can help ease your anxiety [ 3 ].

Rule 8: Tell a Consistent and Cohesive Story

Fellowship applications are often composed of numerous documents or sections. Therefore, it is important that all your documents tell a consistent and cohesive story. For example, you might state your long term goal in the Specific Aims document and personal statement of your biosketch, then elaborate on your long term goal in a career goals document, so each of these documents must tell a consistent story. Similarly, your research must be described consistently in your abstract, Specific Aims, and research strategy documents. It is important to allow at least one to two weeks of time after composing the entire application to review and scrutinize the story you tell to ensure it is consistent and cohesive.

Rule 9: Follow Specific Requirements and Proofread for Errors and Readability

Each fellowship application has specific formats and page requirements that must be strictly followed. Keep these instructions and the review criteria close at hand when writing and revising. Applications that do not conform to required formatting and other requirements might be administratively rejected before the review process, so meticulously follow all requirements and guidelines.

Proofread your almost final documents for errors and readability. Errors can be confusing to reviewers. Also, if the documents have many misspellings or grammar errors, your reviewers will question your ability to complete the proposed experiments with precision and accuracy. Remove or reduce any field-specific jargon or acronyms. Review the layout of your pages and make sure each figure or table is readable and well placed. Use instructive headings and figure titles that inform the reviewers of the significance of the next paragraph(s) or results. Use bolding or italics to stress key statements or ideas. Your final documents must be easy to read, but also pleasing, so your reviewers remain engaged.

Rule 10: Recycle and Resubmit

Fellowships applications frequently have similar requirements, so it is fairly easy to recycle your application or submit it to several different funding opportunities. This can significantly increase your odds for success, especially if you are able to improve your application with each submission by tackling reviewers’ comments from a prior submission. However, some Sponsors limit concurrent applications to different funding opportunities, so read the instructions carefully.

Fellowship funding rates vary but, sadly, excellent fellowships may go unfunded. Although this rejection stings, resubmitted applications generally have a better success rate than original applications, so it is often worth resubmitting. However, resubmitting an application requires careful consideration of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. If available, speak to your Program Officers because he or she may have listened to the reviewers’ discussion and can provide a unique prospective or crucial information not included in the reviewers’ written comments. Resubmitted fellowships are many times allowed an additional one- to two-page document to describe how you addressed the reviewers’ comments in the revised application, and this document needs to be clear and persuasive.

The ten tips we provide here will improve your chances of securing a fellowship and can be applied to other funding opportunity announcements like career development awards (i.e., NIH K Awards). Regardless of funding outcomes, writing a fellowship is an important career development activity because you will learn and refine skills that will enhance your training.

• 1. National Institutes of Health. NIH Peer Review Reveal—a front-row seat to a review peer review meeting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBDxI6l4dOA .
• 2. Stephen W. Russell and David C. Morrison. The Grant Application Writer’s Workbook–National Institutes of Health Version. Available: www.grantcentral.com .
• 3. Spires MJ. What to Say—and Not Say—to Program Officers. The Chronicles of Higher Education. 2012. Available: http://chronicle.com/article/What-to-Say-and-Not-Say-to/131282 .

Postdoc Best Practices Proposal

UW CSE's original CI Fellows Best Practices proposals are posted below.

Taking Collective Responsibility for the Postdoc Experience at the University of Washington

At the University of Washington’s Department of Computer Science & Engineering (UW CSE), as at other major programs across the nation, we have experienced a dramatic growth in the number of postdocs in recent years. And, as is the case with most of our peers, we have failed to develop processes by which the department as a whole—vs. individual faculty members—assumes a reasonable measure of responsibility for the experiences that these scholars have while they are members of our community and for their success in moving on to the next stage of their careers.

UW CSE faculty involvement in the Computing Innovation Fellows Project—in the conception of the project, serving as a PI, serving on the steering committee, serving as a source of CIFellows, serving as the host of CIFellows, and reflecting upon the unique attributes of the program that made it so successful—has made it clear to us that we can, and must, do a far better job of taking collective responsibility for our postdoctoral scholars.

Three of the five Co-PIs on this proposal are themselves postdocs. The UW CSE postdoc community took responsibility for reflecting on their experiences—good and bad—and working with the faculty to formulate a set of sustainable practices that we believe will result in a significant improvement in the postdoc culture in UW CSE and elsewhere.

We are eager for, and fully committed to, wholehearted participation in a distributed experiment coordinated by CCC that we expect will have tremendous benefit for our field.

1 Introduction

The University of Washington’s Department of Computer Science & Engineering (UW CSE), like many programs nationwide, has experienced a dramatic growth in the number of postdocs. Ten years ago, we had but 2. Today, we have 27. To place this growth in context, over the same period our faculty has increased by 24%, student enrollment by 50%, technical staff by a factor of 2.5, and research expenditures by a factor of 3. Growth in postdocs blows away these otherwise significant increases.

Exponential growth—whether in technologies, companies, or academic programs—almost always catches us unaware, and is thus accompanied by processes that lag by several years, and therefore by several orders of magnitude. This is undeniably the case with (UW CSE) postdocs.

In the case of our Ph.D. students, we pride ourselves on taking collective responsibility for their experiences and success. We have a full-time staff advisor, an annual two-day orientation, an annual welcoming party, weekly receptions (“TGIFs”) with the faculty, monthly lunches with the Chair, an active graduate student organization with specific activities and responsibilities, an annual Review of Progress for all students involving the full faculty, an annual autumn faculty meeting at which all graduating students are discussed (so that all faculty can assist in placing these students), a clear roadmap for progress through the program, a well understood set of expectations for faculty regarding how students are to be mentored and treated, careful consideration of mentoring when faculty members undergo annual reviews, reappointment or promotion, and a habit of trumpeting the successes of our Ph.D. alums.

In the case of our postdocs, little of this exists.

Postdocs are not the same as Ph.D. students, of course—they and their mentors can be expected to have considerably greater independence. However, the gap in our processes is far too great.

This proposal aims both to bring UW CSE’s support for postdocs in line with recently-developed community best practices and to experiment with several new proposed best practices. We will follow up our implementation of these practices by evaluating their effectiveness using surveys, interviews, and quantitative evaluation of postdocs and their collaborators, and report to the community on the results.

This proposal is a collaborative effort between UW CSE’s faculty and postdocs, and was in large part crafted by postdocs themselves. Three of the five Co-PIs are postdocs. Our proposed activities are informed by a series of discussions between postdocs and faculty and a recent survey of the department’s postdocs.

One of the key findings of our survey is that postdocs are generally satisfied with the support they receive from their postdoc mentors, but a significant fraction are not satisfied with the level of support from the department. There is currently no department-level support infrastructure for postdocs (in contrast to junior faculty and graduate students), leaving mentoring largely at the discretion of individual faculty. This proposal includes several steps towards building such an infrastructure. These include appointing a faculty member as a program coordinator to act as a third-party ombudsperson and ensure that each postdoc is receiving adequate support from their mentors, and conducting periodic reviews of postdoc progress.

A second part of our proposal is based on the observation that, in addition to mentoring, postdocs need an environment in which they can develop an independent research program. Towards this end, we plan to experiment with a program under which postdocs can apply for small grants from a pool of department funding, giving them experience with managing and funding their own research. We will also attempt to improve postdocs’ access to undergraduate and graduate research collaborators.

In the final part of our proposal, we present a plan for implementing these practices sustainably—with adjustments as necessary—should the evaluation throughout the grant period show evidence that their continued implementation is merited.

2 Current Practices and Their Effect

To gain an understanding of what needs to change for postdocs within the UW CSE community, we examine the current practices proposed and/or implemented for postdocs in UW CSE and how their effect is perceived by the postdoc community.

We do this in three steps:

1. We summarize previously published best practices for postdocs in Computer Science and other fields. We identify what they cover and to what extent they make sense to the growing postdoc community in UW CSE.

2. We conduct a case study of the postdoctoral position in UW CSE and compare it to the existing ideal.

3. We report on a survey conducted among current UW CSE postdocs to gauge how the currently implemented practices are perceived by the individuals most directly affected.

  2.1 Published Best Practices

Two existing documents outline suggestions for best practices for postdocs in the sciences [3] and, specifically, in computer science [1]. Concern about postdocs in computer science is very recent and is largely a reaction to the large recent growth in postdoc positions in this field [2].

The existing publications lay out a high-level description of the postdoctoral experience, by treating topics such as position and benefits, goals and expectations, performance evaluation, and career development. These are not necessarily specific to the field of computer science. In fact, even the more specific proposal [1] is generic enough to be applicable to any postdoc. We survey each of these to provide an overview of the proposed practices.

2.1.1 Position and Benefits

Current best practices call for the postdoctoral position to be created such that institutional recognition, status, and compensation commensurate with the expected contributions of the postdoc are awarded. Access to health insurance and retirement benefits should be provided, regardless of the mentor’s funding sources.

We believe this call includes that the salary and other benefits should be reasonable to support a family and meet expectations for a minimum salary after five or six years of graduate studies, so that one is not forced to choose other career options for these reasons.

Most proposals call for a limit (of approximately five years) to be set for the total duration of postdoctoral appointments including time served in the same position at any previous institution). The intended benefit is to advance the postdoc’s career early and effectively; a prolonged appointment can hurt the postdoc’s prospects, rather than benefit them.

In addition, the duration of an appointment shall be adequate for the successful achievement of its intended goals. A minimum duration of two to three years is typically adequate. Contracts shall not be unnecessarily limited to a term less than the adequate amount of time. At the same time, the postdoc should be given the opportunity to terminate his or her appointment early, should career advancement necessitate a move.

The department shall invite the participation of postdocs when amending further standards or conditions to the appointment. A postdoc appointment should be a desirable training opportunity, instead of merely a holding place for the next career step, or, worse, cheap labor. It is important to make the postdoc feel that his or her position is valued, and to allow the postdoc’s participation in the terms of his or her own appointment.

A significant fraction of the postdocs at top US universities are international scholars - some are graduates from US universities and some are graduates from universities in other countries. Under a temporary contract, many of the universities have certain restrictions for visa supports which may limit the personal and professional travels of international postdocs. It is important that the university be proactive in supporting the postdoc in professional travel, for example to conferences, which often take place internationally. For example, enable the postdoc to travel internationally by making sure the “travel validation” on J-1 visas, which many international postdocs hold, stays current.

2.1.2 Goals and Expectations of the Postdoc Appointment

As postdoc backgrounds, goals, and experiences are very diverse, existing proposals recommend that both postdocs and their prospective mentors write down a list of goals for the postdoc’s appointment, at or before the beginning of the postdoc. This list should then be discussed between the postdoc and his or her mentor.

This practice strives to create a common ground for the postdoc’s and the mentor’s goals and expectations. It can even serve as a ground upon which the postdoc can decide whether s/he wants to take up the appointment at all. The discussion should be carried out on equal ground and give the postdoc room to modify the mentor’s goals, within reasonable guidance of the mentor.

2.1.3 Periodic Evaluation

Given that the postdoc’s goals have been discussed and fixed at the beginning of the appointment, postdoc and mentor should meet regularly to discuss and assess whether the goals are being worked towards. This discussion might include changing the goals if it is determined that they are obsolete with respect to the postdoc’s current situation.

The department should conduct a recurring survey to gauge the postdoc experience. The survey can be released annually. This practice ensures sustainability of the proposed practices and informs the department of the potential for change of the practices due to a changing environment.

2.1.4 Career Development and Job Placement

Departments should mentor postdocs to help them develop their careers. Such mentoring may include general aid with job applications and interviewing, one-on-one counseling sessions with a career advisor to help the postdoc decide his or her next career move, and organized informal meetings with the mentor to discuss career prospects.

The department should make sure that the postdoc is well prepared for his or her next career step before the end of the postdoc’s appointment, similarly to how the department ensures that its graduate students are prepared.

2.2 The Postdoc Position in UW CSE: A Case Study

The practices published thus far certainly apply to postdocs in UW CSE and we strongly agree with them. But are they put into practice? As a case study, we compare a postdoc experience in UW CSE to the practices presented in the previous section.

Currently, the UW CSE community includes 27 postdocs - a number that has increased dramatically in recent years. Postdocs typically stay between 2 and 3 years, and most contracts are for a duration of 2 years and then extended. However, there is no upper limit to the total duration of a postdoc appointment.

UW CSE provides each postdoc with an appointment as Research Associate. Research Associates receive compensation within the average pay bracket for similar positions in computer science at other US universities (according to Glassdoor.com), and receive health and retirement benefits. The salary is roughly half of a comparable salary in industry for a person with equivalent training and experience.

With the exception of retirement benefits, the status of Research Associate is equivalent to that of a Visiting Scientist, which is a “placeholder” position for visitors to the department of all ranks (professor to visiting graduate intern). As such, postdocs are not involved in departmental decisions that might potentially affect their appointment. In fact, postdocs have no representation in departmental decisions.

Duties of the postdoc position and assessment of their fulfillment are at the discretion of the postdoc and his or her mentor. There is no formal schedule for evaluation of the postdoc’s progress, nor is there a formal requirement for a written description of the postdoc’s duties.

Unlike with faculty or graduate students, there is currently no independent third party responsible for ensuring the adequate mentoring of post-docs, nor any kind of institutional support infrastructure. All mentoring happens between the postdoc and his or her mentor, who is in almost all cases also employing the postdoc. Furthermore, no evaluation of the postdoc experience is conducted by the department. There is little information about postdocs inUWCSE available to the outside world. A webpage exists, listing postdocs in the department, which is updated only sporadically.

Mentoring on job prospects is either at the mentor’s discretion or done via workshops and classes that are consolidated among postdocs and graduate students. No mentoring tailored to postdocs is provided, except at the mentor’s discretion.

UW CSE does not have structured support specifically geared towards postdocs to gain and administer research relevant resources, such as recruiting students to work on their projects. There is a quarterly “research-night,” which gives graduate students, postdocs, and faculty the opportunity to pitch research ideas to undergraduates during a poster reception. Postdocs have to compete with faculty and graduate students in this scenario. This can be seen as an opportunity to learn how to recruit students as future tenure-track faculty. On the other hand, postdocs are members of the UW CSE community for only a short amount of time and as such need access to student talent quickly to facilitate their projects. At the same time, they might not be as effective pitching their ideas, as UW’s culture and what students expect is still new to them.

The experience, background, and expectations of postdocs joining UW CSE are very diverse. Postdocs join from other US universities, from abroad, and (rarely) from UW CSE’s own graduate program. Each postdoc potentially has had a very different graduate school experience and, depending on the academic system in his or her home country, different expectations of a postdoctoral career. To this end, the university provides an International Scholars office to help international postdocs with their needs. So far, however, the department does not automatically offer to pay for the non-trivial costs involved in obtaining and maintaining a visa.

To summarize, while basic provisions, such as salary, benefits, and duration of appointment, are in accordance with current best practices, many other of the proposed practices are missing. Postdocs have no representation in the department, it is not ensured that expectations of the position are clear from the start, and no assessment of their fulfillment is ensured from any side. Finally, career support is delivered only in limited form via advice by the postdoc’s mentor.

We conducted a survey of UW CSE postdocs to determine overall satisfaction with the current practices. The survey as well as the summarized responses are reproduced in Appendix A.

18 out of 27 active postdocs in the department responded to the survey, a 2/3 response rate. The survey itself focuses on the lesser developed parts of the postdoc experience in UW CSE, which fall into three groups:

1. assessment and fulfillment of goals and expectations,

2. career development, and

3. periodic evaluation.

Questions about salary and benefits were not asked.

2.3.1 Goals and Expectations

We began by asking postdocs what they expect to learn throughout their postdoc appointment. The survey shows that most postdocs expect and actively seek out opportunities to gain more research-related experience during their time by publishing research results (83%), writing grants (61%), and mentoring students (72%). Teaching is not as high a priority (39%).

The first three opportunities are typically provided as part of the postdoc appointment in UW CSE. The last one is typically not expected in UW CSE. Given that UW CSE is trying to prepare postdocs to become research faculty, this distribution is healthy.

None of the postdocs aspire to carry out another postdoc. This is understandable, as a postdoc should in all cases be a temporary training position and not a permanent career state. It has to be ensured that this expectation stays this way.

When asked whether their own expectations of the postdoc appointment were clear at the outset, the majority (79%) of postdocs believe this to be the case. Slightly less (70%) agree that their mentor’s expectations were clear and even less (43%) agree that the department’s expectations were clear. One postdoc points out that “it was clear that I would be doing research and little teaching (agreed from both sides). It was less clear what else I would be doing or what the support infrastructure would be.”

While the situation generally seems to be good, perhaps a written, mutual statement of the expected goals of the postdoc - as implemented in the CIFellows Project - would improve the postdoc experience. When asked about this directly, the vast majority (85%) of postdocs agree.

Things clearly have to change at the departmental level to provide a more streamlined postdoc experience, clearly stating the department’s goals. Specifically, when asked about support from the department, 66% of postdocs agree that they receive enough support from the department, but a significant number generally (27%) or strongly (7%) disagree with the level of departmental support. Specific points of complaint are the mechanisms for information dissemination, which seem to preclude postdocs from valuable departmental information. Postdocs also point out that guidance from the department on how to allocate time and what the postdoctoral culture in UW CSE is like would be helpful.

Our survey shows that postdocs in UW CSE either strongly (67%) or generally (27%) agree that their mentor is supporting their goals. One postdoc (6%) strongly disagrees, signaling that perhaps a departmental review of mentorial support is in order to ensure postdocs receive uniform support. Furthermore, when asked whether an independent third party would be valuable, such as an ombudsperson that postdocs can address about their progress and goals, the overwhelming majority (93%) agree.

2.3.2 Career Development

A rather large number of postdocs (40%) are unsatisfied with the provided mentoring on job prospects. Some explicitly point out that they feel feedback on job prospects is missing or insufficient. This clearly has to be improved.

To determine what kind of career counseling should be provided, we asked postdocs about the type of career they aspire to take up after their appointment has ended. 83% of UW CSE postdocs aspire to pursue either a tenure-track faculty or academic researcher position. 11% aspire to an industrial research position, with the remaining 6% (1 postdoc) wanting to take up an industrial engineering position instead. Thus, more counseling for academic faculty careers should be provided.

Gaining independence from their mentor is one of the important steps in a postdoc’s training and perhaps one of the biggest changes from being a graduate student. To what degree this occurs is mentor-dependent in UW CSE. Our survey shows that 73% of postdocs strongly agree that they have enough independence from their mentors. One postdoc strongly disagrees. Mentor independence should be encouraged as part of the postdoc’s career development to ensure it is uniformly provided.

2.3.3 Periodic Evaluation

We asked postdocs directly whether periodic departmental evaluation and some form of follow-up would be desirable and the majority (69%) agree. We conclude that periodic evaluation of the postdoc experience by the department is thus a good idea.

2.3.4 Summary

In summary, while the climate of postdocs in UW CSE seems to be good, there are certainly a number of things that can be improved, such as a better information policy between postdocs and the department, and the availability of an independent third party that postdocs can address.

Furthermore, postdocs point out repeatedly that access to student talent is scarce. 33% say they have insufficient access to resources and many comment that their access to (graduate) student talent is limited.

Some postdocs point out that their mentor is on sabbatical, which they did not know before starting their appointment. Advisors should be more proactive about their near future travel plans when offering to hire a postdoc, who depends upon their mentorship.

3 Proposed Additional Best Practices

The best practices proposed in the existing articles [2, 1, 3] are largely supported by the postdocs and their mentors at UW CSE. Based on our findings via the survey conducted, as well as meetings with postdocs and faculty, we find that this existing set is not complete and at times too broad to capture the needs of postdocs in UW CSE. In this section, we propose three additional best practices that serve to better support postdocs in UW CSE. We relate each proposal to our survey findings and describe their intended benefit to the postdoc.

3.1 Access to Funding

Funding for postdocs varies from position to position. Some postdoc mentors guide their postdocs through seeking and managing research funds; others simply fund postdocs through existing grants and shield them from funding concerns; and some allow postdocs the freedom to fund their own endeavors.

To do their research effectively and demonstrate they can do this independently, postdocs should have access to some of their own funds via their host departments, instead of being fully funded by their mentors.

We propose that it is helpful for postdocs to compete over a pool of independent research funding that is maintained by the department. Obtaining research funding would be subject to roughly the same procedures as is obtaining a government research grant. This practice helps postdocs attain more independence from their mentor and teaches them how to behave in the competitive environment of tenure-track faculty. At the same time, by having only postdocs compete over this money, we shield them from the stark competition with faculty over government research grants.

3.2 Access to Personnel

Perhaps even more important to research success is access to personnel. In discussions and in the responses to our survey, postdocs expressed a desire for greater access to students, both graduate and undergraduate. In particular, there should be no competition between postdocs and mentors over student talent. Instead, the mentor should help the postdoc in finding collaborators early, given the short duration of the postdoc appointment.

A way to foster collaboration with graduate students may be to assign the postdoc to help on an already on-going research project with some of the mentor’s graduate students. If the topic of the project is aligned closely enough with the postdoc’s research ideas, these students might be more likely to collaborate with the postdoc in the future.

Furthermore, faculty should make an effort to advertise the postdoc’s project to graduate students and give the postdoc the opportunity to advertise his or her ideas widely within the department. This has to be done early and effectively, such that students interested in the postdoc’s research can contribute to the project for a fair amount of time. A postdoc’s mentor should advertise a new postdoc joining the group and his or her research ideas before the postdoc has joined.

Undergraduate students can be another useful resource to help increase research productivity. UWCSE has a “research night” each academic term (quarter) at which established researchers in the department can recruit undergraduates to work on their projects. Including postdocs in this kind of event ensures that they have access to the same undergraduate talent pool as faculty.

The benefits of postdoc-undergraduate collaboration run in both directions. Postdocs can be good advisors to undergrads: they have recent experience to offer to undergrads who may be interested in the academic track. Postdocs may also have more time to offer undergrads than a professor could offer.

3.3 Periodic Evaluation

We note that answers to our survey were not uniform. This points to the fact that each postdoc’s experience and needs within our department are currently unique and largely driven by their respective mentors. For example, it is clear that some mentors put more emphasis on developing career-building skills than others. Also, mentors have different approaches to their involvement in the mentoring process.

To provide a more uniform experience to postdocs across the department, the orchestration of their experience should not be isolated to their individual mentor. At the same time, we do realize that each postdoc’s needs vary widely, based on their experience, goals, and research subfield. To this end, we propose that each postdoc’s progress should be discussed and evaluated at the departmental level. This can occur, for example, in a faculty meeting, similarly to how the progress of graduate students is discussed.

The emphasis should be on discussion, rather than evaluation. The intent is to provide the best support to each postdoc individually to help each achieve his or her potential and goals. A document about the goals of the appointment, jointly written by the postdoc and the mentor, can be used as a basis for the discussion of each postdoc’s performance and experience. The intended outcome of this discussion is to inform the mentor whether the experience of their postdoctoral mentees is facilitated enough by the mentor’s application of the proposed best practices. The mentor can choose to adjust his or her mentoring style based on the outcome of the discussion.

4 Plan of Implementation

We in UW CSE commit to implementing and evaluating the best practices proposed in the previous sections. The implementation will directly affect the ever-growing number of postdocs in our department.

We are not going to change departmental practices that are already serving postdocs well. For example, the average duration of the postdoc appointment in UW CSE of two to three years is already matching best practices and is not in danger of becoming prolonged. However, we will remind faculty to be wary of employing postdocs for longer than this amount of time. Also, given our survey results, it is highly unlikely that postdocs will take up another postdoc after their current appointment is finished.

The proposed changes for implementation involve the definition and evaluation of goals of the postdoctoral appointment and postdoctoral involvement in the department’s business, access to research personnel, a research training program, networking, and career counseling. Lastly, we are going to discuss applicability to the greater field and how we plan to collaborate with other awardees.

4.1 Goals and Evaluation

The department will change the involvement of postdocs in the department’s business by appointing a postdoc liaison to the department’s Chair and Executive Committee with full access to information, full input on decisions, and responsibility to communicate openly with the UW CSE postdoc community.

In addition we will appoint one faculty member to act as ombudsperson for postdocs. Postdocs can talk to the ombudsperson about any matter related to their position that they feel they cannot discuss with their mentor. (We have an analogous ombudsperson for commercialization activities: a faculty member whose responsibility is advising faculty and students, and ensuring that student rights are respected.)

We will require faculty to discuss the goals of the postdoc appointment with each new postdoc candidate and write down these goals in a joint document together with the postdoc appointee as part of the appointing process. There will be a yearly review of the goals between the mentor, the postdoc, and the ombudsperson to see whether the goals are worked towards and to review whether the documented goals are still in accordance with the postdoc’s reality.

Also, we will discuss the progress of each postdoc appointee at a faculty meeting, analogous to the annual review of progress of each graduate student. According to our third proposed practice, this discussion serves to inform each mentor about whether their individual application of the best practices and mentoring style is effective to the success of each of their postdoc mentees.

“Graduating” postdocs - those going on the job market - will be discussed among the full faculty at the same time that graduating Ph.D. students are discussed: the full force of the faculty will be devoted to advocating for the appropriate placement of both Ph.D. students and postdocs.

4.2 Access to Research Funding

Using departmental gift funds and Industry Affiliates membership fees, we will establish a pool of research funding for which postdocs can compete. For example, the cost of an undergraduate research assistant (more than 50% of our undergraduates participate in supervised research) is exceedingly modest. This will provide postdocs with a degree of autonomy, and with valuable experience.

4.3 Access to Research Personnel

To broaden each postdoc’s access to research personnel, we are going to encourage faculty to advertise the postdoc’s research projects to graduate and undergraduate students. Also, we are going to include postdocs in prospective graduate student orientations. During these orientations, postdocs can give talks to pitch their projects to prospectives alongside faculty.

We are also going to encourage postdocs to participate in “undergraduate research nights” by advertising the event to them at a departmental level. During these research nights, postdocs can pitch their project in a poster session to undergraduate students.

4.4 Research Training Program

The environment in UW CSE is already such that postdocs are heavily involved in designing research projects, authoring quality technical papers, delivering effective research talks, and pitching research ideas. They learn these skills by participating in the day-to-day activities of the various research groups. This includes practicing their skills within the department and receiving feedback from faculty, other postdocs, and graduate students.

Whether postdocs are involved in writing grant proposals or managing their own independent research, however, is currently dependent upon their mentor. To make postdocs uniformly less dependent upon mentors and to encourage them to write grant proposals, we intend to make small grants available that postdocs can compete for without involving their mentors or other faculty as primary PI/co-PI.

We intend to make workshops available for postdocs that help them acquire the skills needed to craft effective grant proposals. This way the postdocs will be able to acquire skills for successful grant writing which will possibly strengthen their resume for academic job search, as well as have funding to support their independent research by acquiring resources and hiring or supporting undergraduate and graduate students.

4.5 Networking

The departmental culture in UW CSE is already highly collaborative and postdocs are encouraged to mingle with and learn from other postdocs and faculty. We believe that networking within the larger research community is best done at conferences within the field. This requires postdocs to travel. We commit to ensuring enough funds are available for each postdoc to travel to at least 2 conferences a year.

4.6 Career Counseling

The standard duration of a postdoctoral appointment is 2 to 3 years, and applications for a full-time faculty position typically consume on the order of 3 months, which further shortens the effective time to enhance the postdoc’s resume. Therefore, the postdoc would need to utilize the first 1-2 years of the appointment by enhancing his or her publication record, acquiring additional skills like teaching, mentoring and grant writing, and by building a stronger network in his or her research community. We intend to hold a quarterly orientation (to accommodate as many postdocs as possible since they may have different start dates) to advise postdocs about managing their time and provide them with an overview of what awaits them throughout their appointment.

We will encourage postdocs that are already on the job market to meet frequently to compare notes and experiences, and to give each other advice. These meetings should also include others at the institution on the job market in that year, such as graduate students. We believe that it is important to keep these meetings within the circle of those postdocs and graduate students that are actively seeking a job.

In addition, we will invite speakers from outside the department to talk about their career choice and job search procedure. We are going to invite both postdocs and graduate students to these talks.

Faculty should take pride in nurturing postdocs and demonstrate their postdocs’ success to the outside world. We will encourage faculty to post a successful followup job placement of their postdocs on their own webpage. In addition to the mentor’s posting, we will require the department to advertise postdoc job placements on their publication infrastructure, in the same vein as Ph.D. placements are advertised.

4.7 General Applicability to the Community, and Collaboration

The proposed practices can be implemented in any academic institution and should be helpful to all of the field.

In order to discuss our gained information and collaborate with other postdoc-employing departments, we plan to host panels and invite interested departments to discuss the state of postdocs and relevant measurement data. These panels can be held online and should occur at least once a year. UW CSE has experience with hosting such online panels.

To disseminate the results of our evaluation to the community, we plan to author joint publications with other awardees of the grant to publish in a high-impact, overarching publication venue, such as an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Communications of the ACM, or IEEE Computer. We also expect to talk about the state of our effort at the CRA Conference at Snowbird and raise the visibility of our efforts.

We also envision postdocs to give talks to the community about their experiences. These case studies can serve to encourage other departments to adopt the successful best practices out of our experiment.

Finally, we are happy to form consortia with other awardees and coordinate on the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of further best practices.

5 Evaluation

We intend to evaluate the proposed practices along three axes:

1. Qualitative, by conducting surveys of postdocs, mentors, and graduate students. 2. Quantitative, by evaluating postdoc performance metrics, such as number of publications, number of visited conferences, and awarded grants. 3. Investigative, by interviewing postdocs and mentors, as well as allowing outsiders to review the postdoc culture in the department.

We discuss each in this section.

We propose that all awardee PIs collaborate to evaluate results and use these as one source of baseline data for a joint document to be published (see Section 4.7). They should also use them to adjust the proposed best practices in the future.

5.1 Surveys

We intend to conduct semi-annual surveys involving the postdocs and their mentors. These surveys are primarily aimed at evaluating the experience of the postdoc appointment from both sides. Do postdocs feel good about the quality of their experience and hopefully better than before? Do mentors feel good about their experience with postdocs given the new set of practices? How did the availability of resources and personnel change with the implementation of the proposed practices? An exit survey will also be performed at the end of each postdoc appointment, asking postdocs and mentors about their total satisfaction with the postdoc appointment and the implemented practices.

Additionally, for each postdoc-graduate student collaboration, a semi-annual survey will be conducted with graduate students, to gauge how their experience of working with postdocs changes over the course of implementing these best practices and how their perception of postdocs changes in general. Do students see the postdocs they are working with as important contributors to their research group and the research enterprise in general? Do they believe that working with postdocs is a worthwhile undertaking for them? Do they themselves aspire to take up a postdoc appointment after they graduate?

Conducting these surveys semi-annually over the period of the grant of 3 years will yield a total number of 6 data points without becoming too much overhead for the postdocs and department to carry out. We do not believe it makes sense to collect this data more frequently versus the time it takes for the new practices to start being effective.

We intend to follow up with graduated postdocs half a year after the end of their appointments to investigate how helpful they feel their postdoc was for their current career and how they feel at that point in time about their postdoc appointment.

Finally, we intend to survey applicants for postdoc appointments to investigate whether they would choose a postdocin UW CSE over a postdoc at another department and whether this is due to some of the implemented best practices. Similarly, we will investigate whether they prefer a different job, such as a junior faculty position or a job in industry, over a postdoc appointment, and why. This survey will likely be carried out for each applicant, after the applicant has either accepted or declined an offered postdoc appointment.

5.2 Quantitative Evaluation

We intend the department to record the following quantitative data for each postdoc: the number of research publications, grant proposal applications, and awarded grants, conference and workshop visits and talks delivered, number of students mentored, and number of research projects supervised or co-supervised.

This information will be collected yearly by the department and serves to augment the data gathered via surveys, by providing hard data on how well each postdoc is performing within the department over time. This data will be used to evaluate the best practices and give hints on when each practice should best be invoked to support the postdoc during his or her career, by evaluating when postdocs were most productive along each of the skill sets we intend to train them in. For example, training of research skills, such as authoring papers and giving talks, might best be conducted early in the postdoc’s appointment when this still fresh in their heads due to a possible previous graduate school experience, while career advice might best be given towards the end of the postdoctoral appointment when this is most valuable due to an upcoming job search.

5.3 Interviews and Reviews

Finally, we plan to conduct interviews with postdocs and mentors to gain qualitative insight into their experiences and to receive direct feedback on the proposed practices. We intend to do this once a year with every postdoc and mentor. Such interviews may last anywhere between 30 minutes to an hour and should yield answers we can quote in research publications. We intend to investigate directly how satisfied postdocs and mentors are with each implemented practice. Ethnography - assessment - is a critical component, and one with which we have expertise from other projects.

We also intend to involve people outside the department to evaluate the postdoc experience. We believe this to be another opportunity for collaboration among awardees of the grant. Awardee institutions can evaluate each other to investigate how the implementation of the proposed practices differ within each department and how that impacts the postdoc experience.

6 Sustainability after Grant Period

We are committed to ensure sustainability of the - potentially adjusted - best practices after the duration of the grantwith reasonable financial overhead to the department.

We see this as entirely feasible.

The majority of what we have proposed involves putting practices and processes into place. The startup costs dramatically exceed the costs of continuing these practices and processes once they have been established and debugged. Activities become “routine” - part of the general “cost of doing business” rather than an added expense. Faculty duties, for example, become committee responsibilities.

To continue to allow postdocs access to research and career training opportunities, such as grant writing workshops, orientations, and a travel budget to facilitate networking, we propose to charge each postdoc mentor a yearly overhead “tax” of appropriate size (for example, $3000-$4000) for each employed postdoc. This overhead is small compared to overhead charged for supervised graduate students and should thus only minimally impact the day-to-day activities of postdoc mentors.

Funds to support independent postdoctoral research grants - if determined to be a successful practice - may be allocated via academic and professional societies and government institutions, such as the CRA, CCC, NSF, ACM, and IEEE. We intend to work with these societies and institutions to make such funds available. If this is not successful, departmental gift funds and Industry Affiliate funds will continue to be used, filling this gap. If the value is demonstrated, the funds will be available.

Our proposed implementation and evaluation includes measures to ensure that every postdoc receives a high-quality experience, such as the discussion of each postdoc’s performance in a faculty meeting and a thorough evaluation via surveys, interviews, and quantitative evaluation of each postdoc by the department and by outsiders to the department. We intend to continue the discussion of postdoctoral progress in the faculty meeting and to conduct periodic surveys and quantitative evaluation within the department, perhaps at a reduced annual frequency. We also encourage collaborating departments to continue the proposed cross-departmental evaluation, at a reduced frequency. For example, once every several years.

Despite the invested time, these measures will likely involve a travel budget to invite a small review board of collaborators to the department to conduct the cross-departmental evaluation, as well as a minimal staff budget to conduct the survey-based and quantitative evaluation on a yearly basis. Travel budgets for such evaluations are typically available in departments and should thus minimally impact any department’s business. Also, such cross-departmental evaluation might be conducted as part of the departmental assessment process that occurs typically every few years and would thus be consolidated with the budget allocated for this process. We project a staff budget for the creation and evaluation of an annual survey to not weigh heavily either.

We intend measures like the specification and evaluation of goals for the postdoctoral experience not to be a requirement after the grant period. This way the institution will be able to help postdocs with all levels of experience and maturity, maximizing benefits for postdocs as well as their mentors, and minimizing time and effort spent in official formalities. In any case, their implementation requires solely a time commitment of the involved faculty.

The duties of the postdoc ombudsperson is a natural faculty committee responsibility, analogous to chairing our graduate student review of progress committee, or our commercialization oversight committee; establishing the “routine” will be a significant undertaking, but sustaining it should not be.

7 Conclusion

Our field is experiencing an explosive growth in the number of postdocs. We find ourselves at a crossroad. We can choose to follow the path of fields such as the biomedical sciences, in which many individuals move from postdoc appointment to postdoc appointment in a holding pattern that seems designed to serve the interests of senior investigators far more than the career development needs of the postdoc. Or we can choose to blaze a new trail, in a limited-duration postdoctoral experience that is oriented towards serving the interests and needs of the postdoc.

Make no mistake - this is a choice. Right now, UW CSE, like most other Computer Science programs, is thoughtlessly choosing the former course.

The Computing Innovation Fellows Project has shown that the other path is feasible, and is beneficial to all parties. The current award process will enable a set of programs - hopefully including UW CSE - to expand on the CIFellows experiment, testing and institutionalizing best practices in postdoc mentoring that make Computer Science a model for other disciplines.

The time to act is now. We doubt that UW CSE is far behind most other programs in our postdoc practices, but the survey that we have presented identified a number of significant shortfalls, such as a lack of a clear definition of goals for the appointment, a lack of access to resources and personnel, a lack of external evaluation and intervention, and a lack of independence of postdocs from their mentors.

To improve the situation, we have crafted this proposal. Within it, we have identified the most important existing best practices. These include:

1. a clear definition of the position, including adequate salary and benefits, as well as a minimum and maximum time limit of the appointment. 2. Written mutual expectations and goals of the postdoctoral appointment. 3. A periodic assessment of whether the goals are being worked towards, both between postdoc and mentor, as well as by an independent third party. 4. A comprehensive training program for the postdoc’s career development.

We have also proposed a set of three new best practices that are particularly crafted to serve the needs of postdocs in our field:

1. Access to independent funding for each postdoc to ensure more research independence from his or her mentor. 2. Independent access to research personnel, such as graduate and undergraduate student talent, to aid the postdoc in carrying out independent research. 3. Periodic evaluation of each postdoc’s progress to ensure a more uniform experience among all postdocs.

We have proposed an implementation of these best practices within the UW CSE department and laid out a plan to effectively evaluate their merits. We intend to collaborate with other interested departments to jointly discuss andrefine our findings, and to disseminate them to the community via publications in overarching venues, such as theChronicle of Higher Education.

We also presented a plan for the sustained implementation of those practices that are shown to be beneficial, after the conclusion of the grant. The plan is designed to apply to any department, not just to UW’s.

We would like to point out, again, that our proposal has been, in large part, crafted by the postdocs in our department. Three of the five PIs of this proposal are also drawn from these same ranks.

There is a need for change. We intend to act now.

[1] Anita Jones. Computer science postdocs - best practices, 2013. http://cra.org/resources/bp-view/best_practices_memo_computer_science_postdocs_best_practices/.

[2] Anita Jones. The explosive growth of postdocs in computer science. Communications of the ACM, 56(2):37–39, February 2013.

[3] National Academy of Sciences. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisors, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. National Academy Press, 2000.

A Questions and summarized responses of a survey conducted in UW CSE

We conducted an anonymous survey with the following questions and received 18 responses from the postdocs in UW CSE. The count of answers for different questions are given in parentheses *.

Q1 . What is your primary goal as a postdoc?

•  Tenure-track faculty (14 out of 18)
•  Academic (non-tenure-track) researcher (1 out of 18)
•  Industrial research (2 out of 18)
•  Non-research industrial work (1 out of 18)
•  Another postdoc (0 out of 18)
•  Other (please specify) (0 out of 18)

Q2. What do you hope to gain from your postdoc?

•  Additional publications (15 out of 18)
•  Grant-writing experience (11 out of 18)
•  Teaching experience (7 out of 18)
•  Mentoring experience (13 out of 18)
•  Other (please specify) (4 out of 18) (knowledge about a new area, visibility in the research community, self-estimation about whether one is eligible to be a professor)

Q3. My access to resources (people, funding) has been sufficient.

•  Strongly agree (3 out of 18)
•  Agree (10 out of 18)
•  Disagree (2 out of 18)
•  Strongly disagree (0 out of 18)
•  N/A (0 out of 18)

Q4. I have enough independence from my postdoc mentor.

•  Strongly agree (11 out of 18)
•  Agree (3 out of 18)
•  Disagree (0 out of 18)
•  Strongly disagree (1 out of 18)

Q5. My postdoc mentor and UW CSE have supported my goals.

Postdoc mentor

• Strongly agree (10 out of 18)
• Agree (4 out of 18)
• Disagree (0 out of 18)
• Strongly disagree (1 out of 18)
• N/A (0 out of 18)
• Strongly agree (6 out of 18)
• Disagree (4 out of 18)

Q6 . Expectations for my postdoc were clear at the outset.

 Postdoc mentor’s expectations were clear

• Strongly disagree (0 out of 18)

 My expectations were clear

• Strongly agree (7 out of 18)
• Disagree (3 out of 18)

 UW CSE’s expectations were clear

• Strongly agree (4 out of 18)
• Agree (2 out of 18)
• Strongly disagree (2 out of 18)
• N/A (3 out of 18)

Q7. I’m getting enough feedback on my job prospects.

•  Strongly agree (4 out of 18)
•  Agree (5 out of 18)
•  Disagree (5 out of 18)

Q8. Would it be helpful...  ... if you and your postdoc mentor were required to mutually formalize expectations at the outset of yourpostdoc?

• Yes (11 out of 18)
• No (2 out of 18)

 ... to informally talk to someone other than your postdoc mentor about your progress and goals?

• Yes (12 out of 18)
• No (1 out of 18)

 ... if there were some departmental followup on your goals and progress, either periodically or at the end of your postdoc?

• Yes (9 out of 18)
• No (4 out of 18)

Q9. What have you learned since starting your postdoc *that you wish you’d known at the beginning*? Feel free to add any other brief free-form comments or suggestions here. (how to involve and hire undergraduate and graduate into research projects of the postdocs without involving mentors, how to better market oneself in the job market, how to utilize the two/three years time the best possible way) * In some questions, multiple answers were allowed. Also any question could be skipped without entering an answer

Addendum for Option A – Postdoc Best Practices National Coordination Role

We propose to have the University of Washington also act as a national coordinator for the Post-doc Best Practices Program. We see the role of the coordinators as two-fold: (1) bring together all the CCC grantees in the program so that they are aware of each other’s activities and reduce duplication of effort by leveraging each other’s work, and (2) disseminate the work of all the grantees through workshops, activities at conferences, web sites, and publications. To accomplish this we propose to add two additional months staff support for our program coordinator. We already have a person ready and willing to take on this role, our professional masters program advisor, who has many years’ experience managing a program for over 120 graduate students. We expect to be ableto begin coordination activities immediately. Among these we will include establishment of metrics and evaluation of results from all program grantees to feed back to the programs.

Coordination

We see our coordination role as one of bringing together grantees in the program to start the process of leveraging each other’s work in an effective manner. We expect to begin with a one-day meeting co-located with the CIFellows program annual meeting in May 2014. We will use that time for each grantee to present their objectives, determine overlaps, identify missing elements, and begin the process of adjusting our activities in concert. We expect this meeting to be annual with presentation of activities and evaluation results since the last meeting. In later meetings (after the first), we expect to also invite other, non-grantee institutions to participate and act as critics and adopters of our collective work. Meeting participants will discuss the presented activities and results and, if merited, how they can be replicated at other sites or how they can be modified to evolve the program over time. We see this as a light-handed facilitation rather than a strict command structure. Some overlap is likely warranted as well when different approaches are proposed and could provide an opportunity for evaluation of different strategies.

Dissemination

Dissemination will be a central part of our coordination role. Many institutions with only a few postdocs can benefit greatly from observing our activities and adopting the practices that are likely to work best in their particular environment. We will work with a select few representatives to understand the best way to package our findings, such as creating manuals or guides for postdoc mentoring under different circumstances. We will also ensure the visibility of the program by proposing workshops or panels co-located with flagship conferences. We will be working with other grantees to prepare a major presentation at the Snowbird conference and an extensive article for Computing Research News or other widely disseminated publications in the community.

Addendum for Option B – Funding to Assist in Developing Postdocs’ Independence

We propose an innovative program to provide post-doctoral researchers at the University of Washington with the opportunity to propose their own research projects and to employ undergraduate research assistants that they will supervise directly. The intent of this program is enable postdocs to pursue a line of investigation independent of their mentor/PI. In addition, we expect it to help them develop skills in preparing a research proposal and in mentoring students.

Available Pool of Undergraduate Research Assistants

The University of Washington Department of Computer Science & Engineering has a long tradition of undergraduates involved in research activities with a large fraction (over 25%) being involved in projects for either research credit or pay. In addition, we have an expanding 5th-year MS program. These students are all involved in research activities as part of their 4th or 5th years. Thus, we have a large supply of undergraduate research assistants available with a strong track record of these students co-authoring and presenting papers at workshops and conferences.

Benefits for the Postdoc

For the postdoc, we believe this type of research program will have several important effects. First, it will allow thepostdoc to develop research directions independent of their mentor’s. Although the proposal will be relatively short (we expect something on the order of 5 pages), it will have all the elements of larger NSF-style proposals including placement of the investigation with respect to related work in the discipline and an evaluation plan. Thus, we expect it to be a good start at proposal writing. Second, by employing an undergraduate research assistant, the postdoc will have the opportunity to mentor a student who is truly their responsibility. Again, this is important preparation for understanding how to recruit, motivate, and engage a student to do their best work and learn the basics of research, presentation, and writing for publication. Finally, this funding opportunity will allow postdocs to start a somewhat riskier project if they choose, since the project may be conducted in parallel with better-established research for the mentor. The ability to turn a “wild” idea into published research is a key differentiator for faculty candidates.

We plan to run the program with an annual deadline in early Spring Quarter so that students can be recruited for the summer and the following academic year. Our ACM chapter has a quarterly “Research Night” when faculty and graduate students can present work for which they are seeking undergraduate assistants. This program will ensure our postdocs also take part in this activity and provide them with one avenue for recruiting. Funding will be on the order of $10K per project. We are seeking funding from CCC to seed the program, with the department providing the bulk of the funding in an ever-increasing proportion leading to 100% department support after 3 years. We anticipate funding approximately 10 projects at the $10K/project rate each year. This will provide enough funding for hourly pay for an undergraduate working up to 20 hours/week for the duration of the year as well as some funding to have the student attend a conference or workshop. The department will assign a committee of three faculty members to review the project proposals. Ideally, the top projects will have the highest degree of independence and new direction from the postdoc’s PI and current project.

  Evaluation Metrics and Methods

We propose to expand our evaluation to more effectively demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed “best practices” as well as their adoption and effect at other programs around the country. We will seek to develop a database of CSE post-docs through voluntary participation. We will begin by contacting department chairs and ask them to propagate our message to their post-docs and have them register in our system. Registered post-docs will be asked to complete initial and annual surveys about their career goals, mentoring, and research. Metrics will include quantitative measures such as the post-docs integration into the research community (conference attendance, presentations both inside and outside their departments, collaborations with students and faculty, publications, etc.) as well as how well their preparation for their eventual careers is progressing given their initially stated goals. In addition, we plan to conduct a series of interviews to provide qualitative data on their post-doc experiences and, in particular, their sense of community in the research enterprise at local and global levels.

To obtain meaningful results, we plan to assign registered post-docs to treatment and control groups based on the extent to which participating institutions have implemented the suggested post-doc interventions. This may be done at the grain-size of universities to avoid having members of both groups represented in a single institution. We will then compare the statistics from the treatment and control groups at strategic points over the course of the grant. Our hypothesis is that post-docs in the treatment group will show increased maturity and sense of community as well as having a larger number of specific citable accomplishments. A further measure will be the degree to which they feel they accomplished their initial goals and/or how their goals evolved.

To ensure proper survey design and statistical analysis we are adding to our proposal a co-PI, Elizabeth Litzler of UW’s Center for Workforce Development.

The Center for Workforce Development (CWD) at the University of Washington has a long history of formative and summative program evaluation and mentoring training, both of which combine to complement the work proposed here. CWD is an external evaluator for many NSF-funded programs, including ADVANCE, LSAMP, and the STEM Talent Expansion Program at UW. Dr. Elizabeth Litzler is the Director for Research at CWD and a sociologist skilled in both quantitative and qualitative analysis who currently conducts the National Center for Women & Information Technology (NCWIT) external evaluation. She will provide evaluation expertise to the project team. Particularly, Dr. Litzler will help the team create a logic model to express the expected outcomes of the project and how the project plans to get there; help in the design of survey and interview instruments to ensure that the appropriate things are being measured; and finally, assist in the analysis of data to assess whether the expected outcomes have been met. The addition of the control group will enable a stronger understanding of impact; analyses will test whether the control and treatment groups differ on key variables. Appropriate bivariate and multivariate analyses will be used for survey analyses. Annual evaluation reports will be written and provided to the project team to summarize the results from the analyses.

• Utility Menu

FAS Research Administration Services

Resources for postdoctoral scholars.

These web resources offer guidance for FAS postdocs who are interested in finding and applying for grant and fellowship funding. Please also speak with your department administrator or visit your individual department webpage as well—most departments offer valuable guidance and resources targeted to their affiliated postdocs.

Search tools for postdocs to find relevant funding opportunities Workshops and training opportunities Curated list of important funding opportunities for postdocs Frequently Asked Questions Additional Resources

SEARCH TOOLS TO FIND FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

For Harvard Affiliates

• Pivot: The most comprehensive database of funding opportunities for scholars of all disciplines, Pivot includes national, international, federal, private and corporate sponsors. You may access our user-guide here .
• Foundation Directory Online (FDO):  A database of U.S.-based private and corporate foundations that fund all research disciplines. You may access our user-guide here .
• SPIN:  A searchable database of federal and private funding opportunities in all fields.

Open Access

• Grants.gov: A searchable federal database with opportunities from all federal agencies.

WORKSHOPS AND TRAININGS

• Finding Funding: A Guide to Using Pivot and Foundation Directory Online (FDO): This hour-long workshop demonstrates how to perform a search using two funding opportunity databases, Pivot and FDO. An elementary introduction, the course offers tips and strategies for Harvard-based postdocs.
• Responsible Conduct of Research Course: RCR is a highly recommended “best practices” course for those desiring to deepen their knowledge of ethical research and responsible conduct. It is also an excellent professional opportunity for anyone interested in furthering a career in research.
• The Center for Workplace Development offers a wide range of professional, managerial, career development, and leadership courses for benefits-eligible postdocs
• Tuition Assistance Plan (TAP) makes it possible for benefits-eligible postdocs to take courses at Harvard and job-related courses at other institutions.
• Ad Hoc Workshops: Research Development offers ad hoc workshops on major sponsors such as the NIH and NSF.
• Sponsor Visits: Research Development organizes campus visits featuring representatives from a variety of sponsors, including the National Science Foundation, National Endowment for the Humanities, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and the Fulbright Program, among others. We advertise in collaboration with the Office of Postdoctoral Affairs.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

• Sample Proposal Library : includes successful sample narratives from K99 and F32 applications. Proposals marked with an asterisk are available to postdocs.
• Internal Funding Sources : list of Harvard University funding opportunities.
•  for an NSF Proposal.
• Guidelines, Templates and other Resources : including NSF- and NIH-specific toolkits to aid proposal development.
• Template for NIH Research Performance Progress Report : section B.4 “Training and Professional Development/Individual Development Plans.”
• FAS Office for Postdoctoral Affairs : Supports close to 1,300 postdoctoral scholars, College Fellows, and research associates across the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), the John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and the Cambridge-based Harvard-affiliated schools, centers, and institutes.  The office's mission is to support postdoctoral scholars and research associates in working toward their career and professional development goals, to serve as a resource to campus constituents on postdoc life and work, and to build a sense of community among postdocs.
• Research Development Support
• Funding Opportunities
• Dean's Competitive Fund for Promising Scholarship
• Star-Friedman Challenge for Promising Scientific Research
• Zuckerman Travel and Research STEM Fund at Harvard University
• Resources for New Faculty
• Funding Opportunities for Postdoctoral Scholars
• Postdoctoral Scholars - Frequently Asked Questions

Amendment 9: New Opportunity: C.26 Rapid Mission Design Studies for Mars Sample Return

C.26 Rapid Mission Design Studies for Mars Sample Return solicits industry proposals to carry out rapid studies of mission designs and mission elements capable of delivering samples collected by the Mars Perseverance rover from the surface of Mars to Earth. NASA recognizes that U.S. industry has innovative ideas and substantial capabilities that may be relevant to a Mars Sample Return campaign. This Rapid Mission Design Studies for Mars Sample Return program element seeks to establish whether there are viable mission designs or mission element options, such as a smaller Mars Ascent Vehicle, to return samples from Mars that offer benefits compared to NASA’s reference mission design. Studies may be for complete mission designs, for mission designs that include elements of NASA’s Mars Sample Return Program or NASA’s Artemis Program as Government Furnished Equipment, or for individual mission elements. The results of these studies may inform revisions to NASA’s Mars Sample Return Program and may result in future procurements. The short URL for this opportunity is: https://go.nasa.gov/rasmsr24 .

ROSES-2024 Amendment 9 adds a new program element to ROSES-2024. No Notices of Intent or Step-1 Proposals are requested. Proposals are due May 17, 2024. Only for-profit U.S. organizations are eligible to submit proposals to this program element, but there are no restrictions on the types of organizations that may participate as subawardees. Awards for studies will be firm-fixed-price 90-day contracts. Proposal content is significantly simplified from ROSES standard proposals. An optional Industry Day / Bidders Conference will be held via WebEx on April 22, 2024, at 1 pm EDT. Find information on how to connect in Section 4.9 “Industry Day / Bidders Conference” in the program element file on the NSPIRES page for C.26 Rapid Mission Design Studies for Mars Sample Return at https://go.nasa.gov/rasmsr24 .

Questions concerning C.26 Rapid Mission Design Studies for Mars Sample Return may be directed to Paul Hertz or Lindsay Hays at [email protected] .

Explore More

Sols 4159-4160: A Fully Loaded First Sol

Hubble Goes Hunting for Small Main Belt Asteroids

NASA’s Ingenuity Mars Helicopter Team Says Goodbye … for Now

The final downlink shift by the Ingenuity team was a time to reflect on a highly successful mission — and to prepare the first aircraft on another world for its new role. Engineers working on NASA’s Ingenuity Mars Helicopter assembled for one last time in a control room at the agency’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in […]

Discover More Topics From NASA

Perseverance Rover

Parker Solar Probe