Conclusion postdocs

We iden8fied several characteris8cs of the flowing movers’ careers. Following, we compare the accounts of the postdocs to these characteris8cs to bemer understand where on the con8nuum between flowing, doub8ng or hanging they fall.

Networking/being sponsoredWithin the IMR, the flowing postdoc and doub8ng postdoc had been sponsored by senior academics to come to the IMR and do research there. The first had also been s8mulated and encouraged by former supervisors to enter and stay in academia. Within the STEM department, postdocs were quite aware of the relevance of networking and people were more strategic in building networks. What also seemed important there were reference lemers when applying for jobs, as these were men8oned by several IMAPP postdocs in contrast to postdocs from the IMR. One woman professor was men8oned by mul8ple interviewees as being suppor8ve towards their access to the ins8tute and gevng chances within the faculty.

Applying for grants In the IMAPP more than in the IMR, postdocs were geared towards wri8ng research proposals and gaining (pres8gious) research grants. The first reason was to be able to conduct (their own) research, and the second reason was that acquiring grants would increase their chances to gaining a higher or permanent posi8on at a later stage in their career. Wri8ng grants did eat up their 8me, which they could not use for paper wri8ng. Two of the IMR postdocs had been appointed on exis8ng projects and were either doub8ng or hanging, as the former was doub8ng whether to stay in academia and the lamer was on the edge of leaving academia and having trouble finding funding and a long term project. We thus see two types of postdocs: the ones on grants and ‘own money’ (e.g. fellowships) and the ones on exis8ng projects. Within both IMAPP and IMR postdocs were aware of how fellowships could help their career further, and especially in STEM were essen8al for their career.

AcQng pro-acQvely/strategically In the sample of postdocs we see a grada8on of postdocs going from talking about a chance to do research but being not really ambi8ous to talking about making sacrifices for their passion for science. These sacrifices go from health (mul8ple illnesses reported) to rela8onships, to building a family. What is remarkable is that some postdocs men8oned not to invest much in their present ins8tute as they would leave aVer a while, but focus on their own publica8ons and grants. This is directly impacted by the academic norm of mobility and short term contracts. The other side of that coin is that several postdocs, especially the women within IMR, men8oned feeling isolated. IMAPP seemed to have a more social climate than IMR. Possibly, the lack of experience with postdocs within IMR limited the available (formal or informal) suppor8ng infrastructure for postdocs. This could make postdocs in the IMR even more responsible for their own well-being than within IMAPP, where postdocs are well embedded in academic careers and a social and suppor8ve infrastructure.

Being flexible Like for the flowing movers, flexibility was key in the group of postdocs. Flexibility in terms of moving abroad, but also in terms of combining a career with other responsibili8es. We noted this especially in the IMAPP. The majority of postdocs had a partner, and different arrangements were made regarding living together or apart and moving abroad together (or not). The two body problem with regard to academic partners was men8oned by several women postdocs from the IMAPP. Postdocs were seen as part of the standard route of an academic career by IMAPP postdocs. This was not the case within IMR.

Balance research and educaQonThe focus of the postdocs, both in the IMAPP and IMR, was predominantly on doing research. This was preferably independent research based on a personal grant. Especially in the IMAPP, postdocs were more aimed at publishing than the assistant professors (see next sec8on). Teaching was seen by some as an

obliga8on, by others as a necessity, and if done, it was on their own ini8a8ve and preferably related to their own research.

Living abroad Most of the postdocs within IMAPP had had experience of living abroad and being interna8onally mobile. All except one postdoc interviewee of the IMAPP came from abroad. This interna8onal mobility was mostly seen as a requirement that was taken for granted: doing a PhD in the Netherlands was perceived as almost automa8cally meaning you cannot do (or get) a postdoc nor a permanent contract in this same country. The sample shows that there were some postdocs and assistant professors that actually broke this rule. Within IMR, only the foreign postdoc had been interna8onally mobile. Going abroad was not a very predominant criterion for the other two, nor was it their ambi8on to go abroad. It is notable how the Dutch postdocs in the sample seemed less interested in going abroad and less ambi8ous to build a career in science. This was the case in both IMR and IMAPP. In the IMR, the Dutch postdocs stayed in the Netherlands, whereas the only foreign postdoc had been interna8onally mobile. Within IMAPP, of the six postdocs interviewed, the only Dutch person (man) was not very career focused and had no experience abroad. One could wonder whether the more ambi8ous Dutch early career scien8sts are actually abroad, or not at IMAPP or IMR.