Survey of postdoctoral affairs infrastructure at U.S. R1 and R2 institutions

<strong>Introduction: </strong>The number of postdoctoral scholars working at academic institutions in the United States (U.S.) has grown consistently over the past 40 years, driving calls for better infrastructure to support their specific needs. In response, some institutions have built postdoctoral affairs offices that serve as clearinghouses for information, foster improved mentorship between postdoctoral scholars and their supervisors, and provide training opportunities that contribute to professional development. We assessed postdoctoral affairs infrastructure and the associated training opportunities currently offered at the largest academic institutions within the United States as of spring 2022. <strong>Methods: </strong>To carry out this survey, we compiled a list of all R1 and R2 institutions in 2021 as determined by the Carnegie classification system. We first placed any institution classified as an R1 or an R2 into one of four categories, based on the information publicly available on each institution’s website: Institution has a clear “Office of Postdoctoral Affairs (OPA),” or similar infrastructure that is run by the institution. This may include joint offices for graduate and postdoctoral affairs when it is clear that the distinct needs of postdocs are recognized. Institution has a “Postdoctoral Association (PDA)” that is run by current postdocs on a voluntary basis. Funding may be provided by the institution. Institution has a postdoc landing webpage, such as a list of links or online resources, but has no clear OPA or PDA. Institution has no postdoc landing webpage. There were several instances where a combination of categories 1, 2, and 3 were evident. In some cases, schools/colleges within an institution (e.g., medical school) had resources for their postdocs, but these were not clearly available for all postdoctoral scholars at the institution and thus were not considered for these purposes. For each institution classified as 1, 2, 3 or a combination thereof, we categorically assessed (Yes/No) whether or not postdocs were offered any postdoc-specific, in-house training by their OPA or PDA by searching the postdoctoral affairs website. We defined “in-house training” as any event that was led or organized by, or otherwise originated in the host institution. We did not include events run by national organizations such as the National Postdoc Association (NPA), or National Center for Faculty Development and Diversity (NCFDD), as we considered these to be separate. While there are areas in which the needs of graduate students and postdocs overlap, for this study we identified postdoc-specific training as events that were clearly and intentionally aimed at postdocs (i.e., were not events combining postdocs with graduate students, faculty and staff, or the wider university community). For those institutions that offered in-house postdoc training, we then categorized each training opportunity or event into one of seven broad themes: Research skills (e.g., data management, grant writing) Teaching skills (e.g., pedagogy, curriculum development) Professional skills (e.g., leadership, mentorship, project management) Job market preparation (e.g., preparing job application materials, career talks from academia and industry) Institutional onboarding (e.g., orientations, library information sessions) Mental health and wellness (e.g., work-life balance) Diversity, equity and inclusion (e.g., understanding the value of diversity in the workplace) To standardize data and align with the R1 &amp; R2 2021 Carnegie classification update, we limited our search of postdoc training opportunities to the 2021 calendar year. We did not include every training opportunity within the full calendar year; once we had found an event to fit each of the seven categories, we ended our search for that individual institution. In cases where the events calendar was blank, restricted to current or future events (2022), or located behind an institutional login page, we attempted to locate other publicly available sources of information. Nevertheless, we have likely captured all of the institutions that do actually have training opportunities. After completing the categorization of events, we also summed the total number of different postdoctoral training opportunity themes addressed by the institution. <strong>Acknowledgements: </strong>This survey was supported by the Grand Challenges Initiative at Chapman University.**引言：** 过去四十年来，美国学术机构在岗博士后学者的数量持续增长，由此引发了对完善基础设施以满足其特定需求的呼吁。为此，部分机构设立了博士后事务办公室，作为信息集散中心，促进博士后学者与导师之间更优质的导师指导关系，并提供有助于职业发展的培训机会。本研究针对截至2022年春季美国规模最大的一批学术机构，对其博士后事务基础设施及当前提供的相关培训机会开展了评估。 **研究方法：** 为开展本次调研，本研究整理了2021年度由卡内基分类体系（Carnegie Classification System）划定的全部R1、R2级学术机构名录。本研究首先依据各机构官网公开信息，将所有R1、R2级学术机构划分为以下四类：1. 设有明确的**博士后事务办公室（Office of Postdoctoral Affairs, OPA）**或由机构运营的同类基础设施；若能明确体现对博士后群体独特需求的关注，亦可涵盖研究生与博士后事务联合办公机构。2. 设有由在职博士后自愿运营的**博士后协会（Postdoctoral Association, PDA）**，机构可为其提供经费支持。3. 设有博士后专属登录网页（如链接汇总或在线资源列表），但未设立明确的OPA或PDA。4. 未设立博士后专属登录网页。部分机构同时符合1、2、3类中的多种情形。部分机构下属的学院（如医学院）可为其博士后提供相关资源，但此类资源并未覆盖机构全体博士后学者，因此本研究未将其纳入统计范畴。针对归类为1、2、3类或其组合的机构，本研究通过检索其博士后事务相关网页，以二元（是/否）形式评估该机构是否通过OPA或PDA为博士后群体提供专属的「校内培训（in-house training）」。本研究将「校内培训」定义为由主办机构主导、组织或发起的各类活动；由全国性组织（如全国博士后协会（National Postdoc Association, NPA）、教师发展与多样性国家中心（National Center for Faculty Development and Diversity, NCFDD））举办的活动均不计入统计，此类活动被视为独立于机构内部资源的外部项目。尽管研究生与博士后的部分需求存在重叠，但本研究将「博士后专属培训」界定为明确且专门面向博士后群体的活动（即未将博士后与研究生、教职员工或全校范围群体混同开展的活动）。对于提供校内博士后培训的机构，本研究将其每项培训活动划分为以下七大类别：研究技能（如数据管理、基金撰写）、教学技能（如教育学、课程开发）、职业技能（如领导力、导师指导、项目管理）、求职准备（如求职材料撰写、学术界与工业界职业分享讲座）、机构入职引导（如迎新培训、图书馆信息宣讲会）、心理健康与福祉（如工作与生活平衡）、多样性、公平性与包容性（如认知职场多样性的价值）。为实现数据标准化并契合2021年卡内基分类体系更新标准，本研究将博士后培训机会的检索范围限定在2021日历年。本研究无需统计该年度内所有培训活动：只要为某一机构找到覆盖七大类别中各类别的至少一项活动，即停止对该机构的检索。若某机构的活动日历为空、仅显示当前或2022年未来活动，或需机构登录后方可访问，本研究将尝试通过其他公开信息渠道检索；尽管如此，本研究大概率已覆盖所有实际提供博士后培训的机构。完成活动分类后，本研究还统计了各机构所覆盖的博士后培训主题总数。 **致谢：** 本调研得到查普曼大学（Chapman University）重大挑战倡议项目的资助。