In this three-part series I have been reflecting on my PhD, trying to condense down my experience and, hopefully, provide some insights that might be of use to others. In part one (Reflections on my PhD - Part 1: The End Goal(s)) I talked about how I tried to give myself some structure in my PhD by setting specific goals, with the aim of breaking up a scary slightly directionless four-year block of time. In part 2 (Reflections on my PhD - Part 2: Student Vs. Supervisor) I discussed the complex student-supervisor relationship that I think makes up the backbone of most people's PhD experience, discussing what I think are some ways to make the most of this interaction at the start, middle, and end of your project. In this final part, I wanted to give some perspective on the steps after a PhD, including deciding on, and undertaking, a postdoc, and some considerations I've had about how people maintain momentum after their PhD and try to achieve success in the academic world.
Next steps and what makes a postdoc different
One striking thing I felt right after finishing my PhD, was, well, nothing. I had the displeasure of finishing in 2020 and so as a whole, submitting and defending my PhD didn't even feel real. Like everyone, I sat in my room working long hours, until one day I just, didn't. I think the come-down after submitting is something a lot of people feel, even in pre-pandemic times, and it's something I wish more people had told me to expect. I think the change from having a purpose, one that was so focussed on achieving a single goal, to nothing, was something I hadn't mentally prepared for. Lots of people had mentioned, "oh it will be such a relief when it's done" but I didn't really feel relief, it was more like I had been sprinting on a treadmill and someone suddenly switched it off. It took a few weeks until I felt like finishing had settled in and I stopped waking up at the crack of dawn head buzzing looking for something to do. If you're doing a PhD then definitely prepare a little for the possibility you might feel a bit empty once it's done. It's good to remember when it's all over that what you have achieved is special, an accomplishment that you will have for the rest of your life. We are a bit blinkered in science because so many of our peers have PhDs (and there are plenty of cynical people like me) but the dedication of so much time to one topic really is impressive. Although I had a PhD fellowship already granted to me by the time I finished I was grateful for a little time to unwind after handing in and defending (in my case a little too long and I started to get restless) but don't underestimate the need for a little cooling-off period. If you have a postdoc offer or will start a fellowship or another job I would consider taking a few weeks off to allow you to let your mind and body to get back down from the 'fight-or-flight' state that many are in after submitting, certainly do not wake up the next day and do a regular work day - in my opinion this is a fast track to burnout. Once this unwinding period is up you can start to think about your postdoc or job, and if you don't already have one now is the time to start thinking about what you might want to do next.
Do you really want to do a postdoc? Although the postdoc experience is an excited next step for many, a thorough exploration of a burning question, an itch that was left unscratched during your PhD, I think it's important to emphasise that just as often, a postdoc is a job. Sometimes jobs are intellectually stimulating as well as paying the bills, but overall I think we could all do with appreciating that paying the bills and allowing you to have some quality of life is an important aspect of a job (especially if you're not in a great financial spot after finishing a PhD). For that reason I think we should all be trying to normalise the whole host of jobs, both academic and non-academic someone can do after a PhD, a time when the priorities in life may change for many (not having to immediately move, again, building a financial safety net, recharging a little). I knew that I wanted to do a postdoc throughout my PhD, in part due to a feeling of not knowing what else I even could do, but also because I realised that interesting questions or techniques kept popping up that I had no time to work on or try as part of my project. I tried to learn a bit about postdocs by asking around my colleagues and friends but it became apparent very quickly that the lack of any kind of consistent structure in a postdoc made it almost impossible to generalise. Some of my friends were on one year contracts, others five, some had written their own projects while others had been tasked with bringing an existing project to a close. Although some may view this as a chance to break free from the constraints of a PhD I definitely found it daunting, one of my first personal experiences of the instability and uncertainty in academia (second only to the period of applying for PhDs).
What to change and what to keep the same?
If you've decided a postdoc is for you then not only is that convenient for me, since it's the only path I can give any half-useful advice on, but it's time to think about the kind of postdoc projects you would consider doing. This can go a couple of ways since you might want to dig deeper into a topic from your PhD or do something different, taking the chance you haven't had in the last 3-6 years to address a new question. Have you always wanted to use a specific approach, or study some specific taxon? Well good news, you can look for jobs to work on just that! But there are some considerations too and I think these dictate the kind of postdoc you'll have. Some people will work (through desire or coincidence) on something very similar to their PhD topic for a postdoc - Pros: you can hit the ground running, you likely already have a network of collaborators in that field, you know the approaches, you are faced with fewer things you need to learn, you may have less stress and anxiety about feeling behind, publishing your PhD work while a postdoc might be easier since it's closer to your current work. But this strategy might also have drawbacks. Cons: you're not building your skill set, you might be less likely to substantially grow your network, you can end up doing the same kind of thing again and again (eventually ending up with an out-of-date, or simply narrow, skill set). Another aspect to consider is whether you want the same kind of boss, group, institution, country as your PhD. There are many reasons for mixing this up or staying true to what you know, but as I discussed in part 2, some of these things may only be apparent after starting. So give yourself a little bit of wiggle room. I think the key to a happy postdoc is feeling like you at least made some decisions for yourself rather than falling into whatever was offered to you. On top of all that the academic job market is hard and I don't think either one of these options is the 'right' answer - rather, feeling content, doing great science, connecting with people, and communicating your science is the key to success.
How to get there?
In general postdocs are treated more like jobs than PhDs and for that reason the first postdoc advert you see while trying to finish your PhD might not be the right one for you. But that's okay, you're able to shop around a bit, and unlike (at least for most of us) prior to your PhD you now have valuable skills that others are actively looking for to build their group/research program. As with looking for a PhD project, I think a good place to start with a postdoc is to ask around and find out what various people are working on. One nice thing about the post PhD phase is that ideally your network is a lot bigger than it was before your PhD and so finding out who works on cool systems and questions as well as the people to avoid will hopefully be more obvious. Ask around, don't be afraid to send cold-emails to people you are interested in working with, persevere through not getting email replies, and, if possible, try to chat with people over a coffee (be it on zoom or in person). I think another important point for asking around for a postdoc is to try to see evidence of people from the group/department getting positions you want to be in. For example, has the lab you're interested in successfully acted as a stepping stone for people to get tenure track jobs or roles in industry. Another important point of looking for a postdoc is to have some ideas either before, during, or after talking with a prospective new boss - you will likely drive the projects you work on a lot more than when you were a PhD student and it's a good check that both the PI, and really you, should use to test your interest and ability to execute work well in that role. Try to find something you're truly excited about - I really do understand this isn't always easy and things you're interested in can change but know that you will be expected to take more ownership on projects as well as, hopefully, even mentoring students and so some excitement and a desire to learn more is essential. Definitely don't just approach a group and say you want to work with them without the ability to justify to them why you want to work there and at least a vague idea of the questions or approaches you would want to use.
Fellowships
Some people are lucky enough to have the option of applying for postdoc fellowships. This process can be very rewarding, allowing you to do the exact project you had in mind but there are definitely some considerations. Getting these fellowships isn't always easy and there is a lot of variation. My advice if you're thinking of applying for a fellowship is to reach out to as many people as you can find with funding from the same fellowship you're thinking of applying for. Find out what their project is about, how then went about picking a project, the lab to go and work in, and even the country. It's always helpful to ask them how they found the application process and what it involved with regards to interviews or presentations, particularly about the audience you might be speaking to and their level of knowledge. Applications for fellowships can go to a range of people, from people well outside your field to experts in exactly what you plan on doing. Knowing who you'll speaking to is essential to pitch it just right, proving both that you know what you're talking about and that your project is well thought through. At this point you could also ask nicely whether those people are happy to share their application with you - but *do not* copy any text from their application in any way, only use it to guide the level of detail you should include and even for ideas about the structure of your application. Before writing anything be sure to read all of the available materials on the grant. Don't embarrass yourself emailing people at the institution asking questions that could have been answered by a quick sift through the documents. At this point you know what the application involves and what you'd like to do - so it's time to reach out to a prospective lab group. Here you should use the general advice of ask around, find out who is good, and try to contact a couple of people. If you can arrange a meeting great, explain your project, how it fits in with their research program and what you think you'd gain from working with them (and what they might gain from you if you're feeling bold). If all goes well they might be happy to help you with the application. I think at this point it's often important to be specific what you will need from them and the timeline - nobody wants to be chasing people the night before a deadline after not mentioning it in three months and so having a somewhat formal agreement of how you will proceed is really important.
Here are just some of the things I think it is useful to consider when thinking about which fellowships or labs to pursue:
- The supervisor - do you vibe well with them, do they do good research, are they a good manager (this last characteristic is underrated by essentially everyone from hiring committees to staff). This person is going to (or at least should) help guide you through the academic world, work with you on your science, and depending on your career stage help you get your next job, it is important to pick the right person.
- The location of the university and the culture of the university - is this somewhere you can see yourself being for a while and being able to enjoy the bits of your life in and outside of work. I hear of a surprising number of people who are happy to move somewhere that, at least superficially, does not align with their hobbies or interests at all and personally I think this is taxing. Of course if you don't have multiple offers then its a bit of a non-starter to be picky but I'm a firm believer that working somewhere that you like with a surrounding area that you enjoy being in will make you happier and more productive.
- The duration of the position or fellowship - this one is tricky because you're often not totally in control of this but I think it is worth considering when looking/applying for jobs that you know if you're committing to a year or two or if it is more typical for someone to keep postdocs around for 4-5 years. This changes the scope of all your work and determines whether you ultimately do a little side project while preparing for the academic job market or whether you start a large consortium project that will be your baby for the next 5 years and maybe beyond. This might also impact your ability to apply for your own fellowships too. If you're starting your first postdoc I think you have many more options than if it is your second or even third (from experience) because you're able to propose and undertake bigger and more high-impact projects.
- The project itself - is there data already or will you need to generate it, to what degree are you steering the work or is the lab pretty top-down in driving direction, are there collaborators or lab mates you will be working with (or that could potentially make you feel like you are competing - this last one might be particularly important if you're close to applying for faculty jobs because the last thing you want is to feel like you're going to be writing a research proposal similar to that of someone you work with).
What's different to a PhD?
People's postdoc experiences are just as varied as the vast number of different PhD experiences, so other than saying 'there are a ton of different ways a postdoc can go' I can only really give my experience. One thing I noticed after starting my postdoc is that a substantially larger proportion of the experience in general became up to me rather than dictated by the lab group or colleagues you have. While this might be specific to me working in smaller groups it's definitely something to consider. In particular, and perhaps naturally, I have felt like I have a lot more responsibility to keep on track of my own career and goals. This seems to vary lab to lab though, and of course there is some tradeoff of mentorship and independence, although I do think that given the current job climate PIs should be engaging more with their postdocs more to discuss the mentorship side of things even if work is carried out largely independently. Another shock in your postdoc might be that you realise that you took may aspects of lab culture for granted (depending in your PhD experience I suppose this could be a good or a bad thing). Things like how projects are planned, how people communicate within the group, your mentorship or collaborative opportunities as a postdoc might all be very different to what you're used to.
I also found the feeling of responsibility and direction in general more vague during my postdocs. Through my PhD I felt like my goal was really to publish, learn stuff, and to ultimately leave with a PhD. At the postdoc level I realised that some peoples goals were to get a faculty job, some to be in this lab for a specific period of time and to publish this one paper, and some just to buy some time and do cool science until they figure out what's next (I have been all three of these people at one point or another). This can certainly make things challenging and while I consider myself pretty good about self-motivating the issue can be that success is a much more abstract idea than during a PhD. I think learning how to define what success in your given role looks like is really important in general and particularly important for a postdoc. The variation in different postdocs also makes it much harder to find career role models to emulate. I generally consider it a good tactic during PhDs to find someone a few years ahead of you and see what they did right/wrong and try to emulate the good bits and avoid the bad bits. Since the postdoc is so much more personal and deciding the end goal and path there is somewhat up to you this really doesn't work. Another factor playing into this is a reduction in the number of people of people truly advocating for you. When you're purely a trainee there is a kind of collective motivation from lab mates, supervisors, and colleagues in a department to help you finish and to support you. From my experience this is no longer the case at the postdoc level and each lab I have entered I have felt much more like I have to justify my own existence and almost make a case for my own relevance rather than have people help explain this for you.
Comments
Post a Comment