Post-PhD researchers’ experiences: an emotionally rocky road

Abstract

Purpose – This study aims to examine how post-PhD researchers construct their identities through
significant work experiences as they endeavour to develop their research independence and a distinct
scholarly profile. The authors were especially interested in how they made meaning of their important work
experiences, the ones that were emotionally salient.
Design/methodology/approach – Using a narrative approach, the analysis was conducted on a data
subset from a large cross-national mixed-methods research project about early-career researchers’ identity
development. The sample included 71 post-PhD researchers from the UK who completed an online survey.
Ten of whom were also interviewed through a semi-structured protocol.
Findings – Post-PhD researchers considered work experiences to be significant when those experiences
helped them to gauge whether their self-representation as researchers was coherent and a further research
career was practicable. The same type of significant event (e.g. publishing in a prestigious journal) could hold
different meanings depending on who experienced it. Positive experiences helped to maintain their motivation
and made them feel that they were consolidating their identities. Negative experiences tended to challenge
their sense of identity and their sense of belonging to academia. Whereas positive feelings towards a
significant experience appeared to persist over time, negative feelings seemed to fade or evolve through selfreflection,
but ultimately had greater saliency.
Originality/value – Few previous studies have been conducted on how emotionally powerful work
experiences influence post-PhD researchers’ identity development. Besides highlighting how emotions and
feelings, often-neglected aspects of identity development, influence the process, this study offers a
constructive – and, in some ways, alternative – view of the impact that negative experiences have on their
identity development.

Full text

Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education
Post-PhD researchers’ experiences: an emotionally rocky road
Isabelle Skakni, Lynn McAlpine,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Isabelle Skakni, Lynn McAlpine, (2017) "Post-PhD researchers’ experiences: an emotionally
rocky road", Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, Vol. 8 Issue: 2, pp.205-219, https://
doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-D-17-00026
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-D-17-00026
Downloaded on: 24 November 2017, At: 02:28 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 43 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by
Token:Eprints:UADM3VUXEYKNPMPMMWV6:
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by 85.218.74.25 At 02:28 24 November 2017 (PT)

Post-PhD researchers’
experiences: an emotionally
rocky road
Isabelle Skakni and Lynn McAlpine
Department of Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Abstract
Purpose –This study aims to examine how post-PhD researchers construct their identities through
significant work experiences as they endeavour to develop their research independence and a distinct
scholarly profile. The authors were especially interested in how they made meaning of their important work
experiences, the ones that were emotionally salient.
Design/methodology/approach –Using a narrative approach, the analysis was conducted on a data
subset from a large cross-national mixed-methods research project about early-career researchers’identity
development. The sample included 71 post-PhD researchers from the UK who completed an online survey.
Ten of whom were also interviewed through a semi-structured protocol.
Findings –Post-PhD researchers considered work experiences to be significant when those experiences
helped them to gauge whether their self-representation as researchers was coherent and a further research
career was practicable. The same type of significant event (e.g. publishing in a prestigious journal) could hold
different meanings depending on who experienced it. Positive experiences helped to maintain their motivation
and made them feel that they were consolidating their identities. Negative experiences tended to challenge
their sense of identity and their sense of belonging to academia. Whereas positive feelings towards a
significant experience appeared to persist over time, negative feelings seemed to fade or evolve through self-
reflection, but ultimatelyhad greater saliency.
Originality/value –Few previous studies have been conducted on how emotionally powerful work
experiences influence post-PhD researchers’identity development. Besides highlighting how emotions and
feelings, often-neglected aspects of identity development, influence the process, this study offers a
constructive –and, in some ways, alternative –view of the impact that negative experiences have on their
identity development.
Keywords Identity, Sense-making, Emotion, Post-PhD researcher
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The situation of post-PhD researchers, both those working on contracts for a principal
investigator and those on their own fellowship, is a challenging one (Powell, 2015). While
many of them want a research-teaching position, they mostly find themselves in a holding
pattern of temporary contracts over lengthy periods (Van Weijden et al.,2016). This
situation generally implies low incomes, high workloads, limited time to dedicate to
research, last-minute appointments, poor resources and support and few professional-
development opportunities (Browning et al.,2017;Rothengatter and Hill, 2013). Thus,
although many post-PhD researchers report true passion for their work and find rewards
when engaging in it (McAlpine, 2010), job insecurity, work–life balance and lack of career
This study was supported by funding from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness
under the project ‘Researchers’Identity Education in Social Sciences’[CSO2013-41108]
Post-PhD
researchers’
experiences
205
Received 23 June2017
Revised 5 September2017
Accepted 11 September2017
Studies in Graduate and
Postdoctoral Education
Vol. 8 No. 2, 2017
pp. 205-219
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2398-4686
DOI 10.1108/SGPE-D-17-00026
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2398-4686.htm
Downloaded by 85.218.74.25 At 02:28 24 November 2017 (PT)

structure remain important concerns among them (Scaffidi and Berman, 2011). Over the
long term, as with precarious workers in other areas, post-PhD researchers are likely to
experience insecurity, stress and anxiety; a type of emotional response that has been linked
with career dissatisfaction and identity challenges (Winkler, 2016).
This paper examines how, in this context, post-PhD researchers construct their
identities through work experiences as they endeavour to develop research
independence and a distinct scholarly profile (Laudel and Glaser, 2008). A workplace
learning perspective was chosen because post-PhD researchers learn through work and
interactions with others in their workplaces (Billett, 2004). We were interested in how
they interpreted or made meaning of important work experiences, ones that were
emotionally salient. While this emphasis on emotions related to significant experiences
has been used to understand the case of doctoral students (Carlone and Johnson, 2007;
Emmioglu, McAlpine and Amundsen, 2017), very few studies have explored this
approach with regards to post-PhD researchers.
Broadly, the following research question was asked: How do post-PhD researchers
make sense of their important work experiences in relation to their developing identities?
Sub-questions to inform this answer included:
Q1. What meaning do they make of what they characterise as significant positive and
negative work experiences?
Q2. To what extent are there differences in sense-making between negative and positive
experiences?
Q3.Whatinfluence does time have on the emotional response to the experience?
Conceptual framework
This study draws on a view of experience and learning as inseparable, with learning
emerging through reflection on experience –a view central to adult learning (Boud, Keogh
and Walker, 1985). The focus is more, especially, on how individuals make sense of and
learn from their work experiences, as they initially construct and later re-construct the
meaning of these experiences within their broader lives (Baxter Magolda and King, 2007). At
the same time, the organisation in which work takes place is seen as influencing the
experience of what it is to become or be recognised as a member of a particular profession or
field (Antony, 2003). Considering this focus in workplace experience, learning and identity, a
central premise is that a “sense of identity and self are tightly linked to how individuals
think about and engage in work”(Billett, 2006, p. 63). Identity development is also a
relational and comparative process (Carlone and Johnson, 2007;Tajfel and Turner, 1986),
which often implies a search for recognition and approval by significant others (Ashforth
and Schinoff, 2016;Watson, 2009). However, individuals are agents who have their own
intentions and act in accordance with those intentions. In working, they can choose to
participate, resist or act differently from common practices and take from the experience
what they wish. Further, in learning through their engagement, they are “determining the
worth of what they experience”(Billett, 2004, p. 315) –making sense of it in light of past
experiences and their own identities.
Identity development and emotions are also considered as mutually constitutive
(Winkler, 2016). Moods, emotions and bodily sensations have been found to influence
people’s processing strategies. From the feelings-as-information perspective, these
experiences guide cognitive attention where it is needed (Cascon-Pereira and Hallier, 2012)
and inform us about the benign or problematic nature of the current situation. This, in turn,
SGPE
8,2
206
Downloaded by 85.218.74.25 At 02:28 24 November 2017 (PT)

influences which processing strategy we adopt, consistent with the assumption that human
cognition is situated and adaptively tuned to meet situational requirements (Schwarz, 2002).
In this sense, emotions tend to shape the sense-making process that occurs following a
significant event (Maitlis et al.,2013)byinfluencing how individuals interpret it (Clore and
Huntsinger, 2007). Agency and emotions are closely connected; as Neumann (2006) says,
there is an inherent integrity between knowing and feeling because we approach and
respond to our experiences with a range of emotional perceptions. Feelings can be
understood as related to the wider contexts in which we try to enact our purposes (Archer,
2000;Nardi, 2005), as we learn how to reconcile potential conflicts between our own goals
and desires and the social/structural elements we are negotiating. It might be argued that
part of being agentive is negotiating both positive and negative emotions to maintain
motivation and develop identity.
Finally, time also plays a role because our sense-making of experiences may shift as later
experiences provide new ways of interpreting earlier experiences (Maitlis and Christianson,
2014). Weick (1995) notes that sense-making is grounded in identity construction and
involves retroactive interpretation of events. Weick et al. (2005) argue that meaning is
generated and identity constructed through individuals reflecting on their experiences,
focusing on certain extracted cues –rather than all –in relation to past experiences and
present intentions. Thus, as Maitlis and Christianson (2014) suggest, sense-making is both a
retrospective and a prospective process. O’Meara et al. (2014), drawing on Wieck, refer to
sense-making as how individuals understand their everyday experiences in ways that can
inform or constrain identity; such as the latter case, shocks may require more work to
integrate than other kinds of experiences. Making sense of an unintended or atypical event
tends to reduce equivocality and enables individuals to make decisions, reorient their
actions and create innovative solutions (Maitlis et al.,2013) regarding the challenges they
encounter.
Research method
The study reported in this paper draws on a subset of the data from a large cross-national
mixed-methods multi-mode research project (Spain, the UK, Finland and Switzerland) about
early-career researchers’identity development[1]. Our broad goal is to understand the
perceptions of PhD students and post-PhD researchers in these different national contexts
regarding their development as researchers. In each country –in this case, the UK –the
study began with an online survey, which included both quantitative and qualitative
questions, sent to PhD students and post-PhD researchers at the universities that agreed to
forward our recruitment email. This survey was first developed in Spanish and then
translated to Finnish, English and French with the aim of generating a broad data set. At the
end of the survey, the respondents were invited to participate in a subsequent individual
research interview. Those who had expressed interest were contacted and interviewed via
Skype. This individual semi-structured interview was based on a multi-mode approach
integrating survey responses (qualitative and quantitative) into the interview and two visual
methods (Buckingham, 2009) to explore in depth their perceptions and experiences.
A narrative approach (Riessman, 2008) was chosen, one consistent with the notion that
individuals create accounts of their lives. In everyday life, narratives make connections
between events, represent the passage of time and show the intentions of individuals with
some resolution (Coulter and Smith, 2009). Such stories told shortly after an experience
represent an initial interpretation –their sense-making –of the experience, which may
change over time. In other words, later narratives of the same event might differ. For
research purposes, narratives can be understood as representations of identity development;
Post-PhD
researchers’
experiences
207
Downloaded by 85.218.74.25 At 02:28 24 November 2017 (PT)

in this sense, identity is narratively constituted (Elliott, 2005;Riessman, 2008). Narratives
are influenced by where, when and to whom they are told (Coulter and Smith, 2009): a
narrative told to a researcher in an interview will be different from a narrative about the
same experience told to a friend. The use of narrative emerges in our view of the data as well
as in the analyses (Coulter and Smith, 2009). The narrative in a survey (in this case with both
quantitative and qualitative data) can be understood as a structured narrative representing
how the individual presently perceives his/her identity. As a result, it enables researchers, in
preparing for a follow-up interview, to construct through an initial analysis a provisional
narrative about the individual’s identity construction to guide the interview. After the
interview, it is possible to expand on that narrative substantially.
Sample
The focus here is on the experiences of the UK post-PhD researchers who completed the
survey, including the subset who also participated in an interview. Ninety-eight post-PhD
researchers, in social sciences, humanities, education, life science, health sciences and
engineering, completed the online survey. Given our focus, only the data from the 71
respondents who answered the open-ended questions about positive and negative
significant events were retained. More than half of the respondents were female, their
average age was 33.7 years and three-quarters were from a European country. They had
been in a postdoctoral position for a mean of three years when they completed the survey.
Table I shows their characteristics.
Data collection and preparation for analysis
Survey. The items were designed to capture respondents’sense of agency and self-
regulation, their perceptions of research and scholarly communication, as well as the nature
and role of their social support networks (Castello et al.,2017). The following themes were
covered through multiple choices or Likert-type items:
engagement and interest in one’s research;
writing and publication productivity;
mobility;
relationships with supervisors, colleagues and peers;
stress and anxiety; and
career goals.
In addition, there were three open-ended questions: one about work–life balance issues and
the other two about post-PhD researchers’most positive and negative experiences. Further,
the open-ended questions about post-PhDs’significant experiences provided two episodes,
one positive and one negative, about their experiences from the beginning of their PhD. The
Table I.
Participants’
characteristics
Gender Discipline Country of origin Source of income
65% Women
35% Men
49.3% HSS
50.7% STEM
75% European countries
6% Asian countries
9% American countries
5% African countries
5% Not identified
40% Post at the university
37% Postdoctoral scholarship
6.1% Scholarship in research project
1.5% Work outside university
15.4% Others
SGPE
8,2
208
Downloaded by 85.218.74.25 At 02:28 24 November 2017 (PT)

items were constructed so that these narrative accounts incorporated a protagonist
(themselves), a description of the event (what happened and who was involved), the meaning
of the event (why it was significant) and the emotional impact of the event (how they felt
then and how they feel now). Once the missing values were discarded, 134 positive and
negative episodes remained.
Semi-structured interview accounts. Ten of the 71 respondents agreed to be interviewed.
The protocol aimed to deepen the topics covered in the survey, with a review of their survey
responses, creating a narrative to draw on in preparing for the interview. Part of the
interview (central to this analysis) was a detailed explanation of the positive and negative
events reported in the survey (from the beginning of the PhD), which allowed situating
significant events within their broader experiences. To examine how significant events may
be experienced in a shorter temporality, interviewees were also asked to create a journey
plot, a visual method (McAlpine, 2016;McAlpine et al.,2016). The use of visual methods
within an interview is considered well suited to capturing experiences with related emotions
through time (Miller and Brimicombe, 2003). Participants were asked to illustrate the events
that had marked the 12 previous months. After mapping these events on a time axis, they
were invited to explain the meaning they made of them and the intensity of feelings related.
Analysis procedure
The data analysis was conducted by the two authors through a collaborative consensus
approach (Syed and Nelson, 2015). Using MAXQDA 12, a four-step iterative process
inspired by a thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) was followed:
Familiarisation with the data: Repeating readings were conducted on the entire data
set (survey episodes and interviews accounts) to further acquaint ourselves with the
content. The ideas that emerged from these initial readings were carefully noted.
Coding: As the survey episodes were greater, they were analysed and coded first
and then the interviews accounts. Separately, both researchers started by analysing
ten survey episodes each based on the main themes used for PhD students’
significant events previously analysed by the Spanish team (Corcelles et al., 2017).
To see similarities, these pre-defined themes related to the nature of the events
reported (e.g. career development; research process; resources, affordances and
limitations) were used. But, the process remained open to new categories because
the analysis was about a different population (post-PhD researchers). After having
coded the first ten survey episodes, a discussion took place on the basis of which
some definitions were adjusted. All remaining survey episodes and the interviews
were then coded.
Searching for emerging themes: To understand the meaning they made of these
different experiences, the analysis further focused on the emotional aspect of the
event (positive or negative), the meaning given to the event and any change in the
emotional response to the event over time –as reported both in the open-ended
questions and interviews. This allowed to look globally at the impact of the event on
the post-PhD journey. The emerging themes were identified based on a semantic
approach (Braun and Clarke, 2006), that is at a low-inference level of analysis. At a
first level, there were three themes: effect/consequences, learning and feelings. Then,
these large themes were broken down and, independently, we divided each of them
into sub-themes.
Reviewing and defining themes: As several overlaps existed, agreements and
disagreements between both researchers were reviewed and the definitions of large
Post-PhD
researchers’
experiences
209
Downloaded by 85.218.74.25 At 02:28 24 November 2017 (PT)

and sub-themes refined. The new definitions were tested on ten respondents, and
the previous coding was revised in light of new decisions. All remaining survey
episodes and the interview accounts were coded. Any residual differences of opinion
were reviewed and reconciled. Ultimately, the entire process allowed the
examination of how significant work experiences influence post-PhD researchers’
developing identities. Figure 1 illustrates the final themes and sub-themes.
Results
To contextualise the answers to the research questions, a broad overview of the results is
offered, starting with a short narrative describing Sue’s experiences as a post-PhD
researcher in psychology in her second year:
After her PhD, Sue obtained a one-year fix-term postdoctoral position at a different institution,
where she worked alone and without any mentor. Near the end, she was offered and took a six-
month extension, and then a part-time teaching position. Later in the year, she succeeded in
obtaining a teaching-research two-year fixed-term position at the same university. Although she
enjoys her new project and colleagues, she is also applying for funding to work at a different
university, looking ahead to the imminent end of her current contract. Sue believes that junior
researchers should work as much as they can until they have established themselves. However,
she is struggling with work-life balance issues. She is married and would like to have a family,
but she perceives it as challenging given the precariousness of the fixed-term contracts in
different locations with which she is dealing.
This cameo eloquently reflects common challenges among the post-PhD researchers
who participated in the study. While in the survey they were asked to report the most
positive and negative events from the beginning of their PhD using a sentence
completion structure, during the interviews, they were invited to describe all the
significant events that had marked the 12 previous months of their post-PhD careers.
As illustrated in Figure 2, the use of the journey plot tool revealed that the pattern of
post-PhD researchers’typical journeys was characterised by an alternation of often
highly positive and highly negative events (also seen in McAlpine, 2016). This pattern
that emerged from the ten interview accounts shows that, in addition to the workload of
their temporary post-PhD position, they actively tried to publish articles while
struggling with job applications, which appeared to be emotionally demanding –and
also dealt with personal challenges, such as childcare and moving.
Figure 1.
Themes and sub-
themes
Concrete effect/consequence
of the event
Lessons learned from
the event
Validation by others
Sense of accomplishment
Self-validation
Future opportunities and constraints
Motivation
New perception of the academic world
Different awareness of oneself
New perspective of oneself in relation with others
THEMES SUB-THEMES
SGPE
8,2
210
Downloaded by 85.218.74.25 At 02:28 24 November 2017 (PT)

The emotional challenges underlying such a typical post-PhD researchers’journey and their
influence on their developing identities were eloquently expressed in the interviews. Rob, a
post-PhD researcher in education in his second year, explains in the interview the
emotionally rocky road he had been through in the previous 12 months and its effect on his
perception of himself as a researcher:
[...] my contract was coming up for renewal, and my university just messed me around. You
know, they weren’t telling me anything. It was just really difficult. I didn’t know whether I was
coming or going. But they renewed it eventually in June, for another year, but they only renewed
it until May, so right from the beginning towards the end of the summer, it was a bit [emotionally]
low because I knew I needed to find a new job. I knew I couldn’t carry on like that, so it was a
really stressful time. I applied for a job; I went for an interview, which I didn’t get because
someone had more publications, but then, eventually, I got a job. [...] since then, it’s been going
[emotionally] up and up and up because I’ve got this new job, I’ve got a couple of papers, you
know, I’ve got a couple of research projects as well [...]I’m not a novice anymore. Well, I’ma
novice, but not as much of a novice as I was last year so [...] Do you see what I mean? Everything
starts going up.
Q1. What meaning do post-PhD researchers make of what they characterise as
significant positive and negative work experiences?
For illustrative purposes, quotations both from the survey open-ended questions and
interview accounts have been selected. Regarding the survey, the identity of respondents is
indicated by a number (e.g. Postdoc 22), whereas in the case of the interviews, pseudonyms
are used. What respondents characterised as significant positive or negative work
experiences was related to the following:
their research community (e.g. relationships with supervisors, colleagues and peers);
the research process in itself (e.g. recruitment, data analysis);
scientific communication (e.g. writing, publication, conference talks);
career development (e.g. goals and expectations, job hunting); and
resources, affordances and limitations (e.g. getting or not a fellowship/contract,
freedom that comes or not with a postdoc position).
Figure 2.
Typical pattern of
post-PhD researchers’
journey
Post-PhD
researchers’
experiences
211
Downloaded by 85.218.74.25 At 02:28 24 November 2017 (PT)

While these different types of experiences were nominated as significant across
respondents, there were qualitative differences in the meanings attributed to the significant
events within a category, regardless of whether positive or negative. In other words, the
same type of experience could hold a different meaning depending on who experienced it
and on the particular time and context in which it took place. Nine themes –interpretations
of experiences –emerged from the 134 positive and negative significant events reported in
this study. When these themes were examined at a meta-level, it was clear that the sense
post-PhD researchers made of these events focused on either: the concrete localised effect or
consequence of the event; or lessons learned for the future from the event.
In what follows, the themes related to each of these categories are presented.
Concrete localised effect or consequence of the event (n = 104)
In most cases, an event was reported as significant based on its concrete effect or
consequence, which reflects the respondents’perception of the outcome –success or failure –
of the experience. These effects or consequences were of five types:
(1) validation by others (n= 31);
(2) sense of accomplishment (n= 19);
(3) self-validation (n= 18);
(4) future opportunities and constraints (n= 18); and
(5) motivation (n= 18).
Regarding validation by others and self-validation, respondents talked more especially
about events having the effect of confirming (or not) that they had mastered their field or
had the necessary competencies to do research and the effect of strengthening their feeling
of belonging (or not) tothe research world:
Not confirming competencies: I didn’t get a paper published [...] It was the first paper I was first
author [and I felt] not good enough (Postdoc 37, Male, Statistics)
Feeling of belonging: Receiving an award from a research society based on my presentation and
work [...] I felt that I was recognised as an experienced researcher who could convey my research
and was becoming an expert in my field (Postdoc 45, Female, Oncology)
Other events were significant because they generated a sense of accomplishment (or failure)
or concrete future opportunities (or constraints). Both meanings appear in this excerpt:
I was awarded the [X] postdoctoral fellowship [...] It felt like a recognition of my hard work and
achievements, and I knew it would be a turning point in my career and that it would give me time
to work with an inspiring professor (Kelsey, Female, Sociology)
Finally, regarding events significant on the grounds of their motivational impact, on the
positive side they induce self-confidence and a new impetus:
Getting some unexpected, exciting results [...] It drove me to want to understand the finding
more, and conduct more research (Postdoc 15, Female, Psychology)
On the negative side, they decreased post-PhD researchers’drive or even affected their
willingness to pursue a career in academia:
Conflict over teaching hours, being asked to do lots more teaching than was advertised [...] Put
me offworking in academia (Postdoc 16, Female, Economy)
SGPE
8,2
212
Downloaded by 85.218.74.25 At 02:28 24 November 2017 (PT)

Lessons learned from the event (n= 30)
These lessons for the future, often emerging over time or repeated experiences of the same
event, were of three types:
(1) new perception of the academic world (n= 12);
(2) different awareness of oneself (n= 11); and
(3) new perspective of oneself in relation with others (n= 7).
These events were seen as significant because they called into question or triggered a
different understanding of participants’work environment or academia in general and
oneself:
Colleagues take advantage and do not work as a team [...] It made me understand the kind of
person I find difficult to work with (Postdoc 35, Female, Medical Sciences)
Three of the fellowships I applied for were rejected [...] It taught me that thick skin and
perseverance are key qualities to instil in myself (Postdoc 22, Female, Psychology)
Further, these lessons often led to new understandings of their own abilities and
characteristics in relation to others (n=7):
I realised that a lot of professors no longer keep up with their field and in turn become
administrators of their groups with very little intellectual input [...] I no longer relied on my
supervisor for much feedback. I learned to trust my own “scientific instincts”(Postdoc 36, Female,
Genetics)
In sum, the nature of the significant experiences was largely unrelated to the categories of
meaning. The events reported by the post-PhD researchers were mainly considered as
significant when they helped them gauge whether their developing self-identification as
researchers was coherent and whether they could project themselves further in a research
career.
Q2. To what extent are there differences in sense-making between negative and positive
experiences?
Our findings indicate that whether the significant experience was perceived as positive or
negative had a profound impact on its perceived meaning, with a subsequent different
impact on identity development. Thus, when post-PhD researchers talked about significant
positive experiences (n=70),they always referred to the concrete effect or consequence of the
event, especially to validation by others (n= 26) and a sense of accomplishment (n=18),as
well as to self-validation (n= 11), motivation (n= 10) and future opportunities (n=5).
Regarding their identity development, these events were perceived positively, as they
offered some cues about their value as researchers and the relevance of their work.
On the other hand, when reporting significant negative experiences (n= 64), post-PhD
researchers described the meaning as a concrete localised effect or consequence of the event
in only one-half of the responses (n= 34). This sense-making was especially related to future
constraints (n= 13), demotivation (n= 8), self-devaluation (n= 7), devaluation by others
(n= 5) or sense of non-accomplishment (n= 1). The other half of the significant negative
experiences (n= 30) was related to the lessons learned from the event, more particularly a
new perception of the academic culture (n= 12) or a different awareness of themselves (n=
11), as well as a new perspective on their relationships with others (n=7).
In this sense, negative feelings, especially when they induced self-reflection, appeared
more powerful when it comes to negotiating one’s identity. Hence, it appeared that on a
Post-PhD
researchers’
experiences
213
Downloaded by 85.218.74.25 At 02:28 24 November 2017 (PT)

regular basis, positive events helped to maintain post-PhDs’motivation and make them feel
they were consolidating their identity. In contrast, negative events tended to challenge their
sense of identity and their sense of belonging to academia and have great meaning for their
futures.
Q3.Whatinfluence does time have on the emotional response to the experience?
The significant events reported both in the survey and during the interviews had occurred
from few months to several years ago. When explaining the emotional experience related,
respondents and interviewees tended to use strong positive and negative terms such as
invigorated, privileged, elated, proud, thrilled or frustrated, downcast, depressed, helpless
and betrayed. Further, our analysis showed that their interpretation of a significant event
could persist, remain emotionally powerful over time (positive or negative) or the emotional
response might evolve, shift towards neutral (e.g. from negative to neutral) or even to the
opposite emotion (e.g. from positive to negative).
Persistence of feelings
Overall, we observed that feelings, whether positive or negative, especially appeared to
persist over time when the event was seen as validation or devaluation of post-PhD
researchers’work by others:
Validation: Publishing an important paper. Showed me that my ideas were valued. At the moment
I felt [...] Stronger and able to do more. Now, I feel [.. .] I can still do more (Postdoc 33, Female,
molecular biology)
Devaluation: A major researcher silently yet completely dismissing me after we had been talking
for 5min at a big conference in 2009 [...] It made me doubt myself even more than I already did,
but also led me to change directions in my research. At the moment I felt [...] worried and
demoralized. Now, I feel [...] I am still very insecure about my capabilities and sometimes lapse
back into dejection, but I also just go on and care less (Postdoc 19, Male, Psychology)
In a few cases, feelings persisted over time when the event was seen as opening future
opportunities or when it led to a new perception of academia:
Future possibilities: Getting the research fellowship abroad [...] It opened up my horizons. At the
moment, I felt [...] enthusiastic Now, I feel [...] it was a very useful experience (Postdoc 4,
Female, Economy)
New perception: I experienced that the publishing process is much less objective than I had
expected [...] It showed me that academics are not only interested in research progress but as
well (or sometimes even more) in their personal progress. At the moment, I felt [...] frustrated.
Now, I feel [...] frustrated. (Postdoc 10, gender unknown, Psychology)
Evolution of feelings
Evolution of feelings seemed to happen mostly when the event generated learning from
negatively experienced events. Three scenarios emerged in this regard. In the first case,
feelings evolved from negative to neutral: the event was simply far in the past, and the
feelings had faded over time, as reflected in the following extract about a challenging
collaboration:
I don’t care anymore; I’ve kind of forgotten about it, to be honest. [...] At the time, I was very
frustrated and irritated. I mean, I was complaining a lot to a colleague at work, a lot –she must
have been really bored [laughing]! [...] But, you know, then you kind of get over it and just think,
well, I’ve learnt my lesson, and I won’t work with them again. (Kelsey, Female, Sociology)
SGPE
8,2
214
Downloaded by 85.218.74.25 At 02:28 24 November 2017 (PT)

In the second case, despite hindering post-PhD researchers’identity development by
inducing doubts about their competencies or affecting their self-esteem, the feelings related
to a negative event might become positive over time. This was likely the result of later
experiences which provided more context in which to re-interpret the meaning of the
experience for one’s identity:
[My] project failed after 1.5 yrs, and I had to change projects. [I] moved to another country to work
on my PhD. It was midway my PhD. At the moment, I felt [...] confused, lost, like I failed. Now I
feel [...] Very good, as it all worked out better with the new project than it would have been with
the old one and from this, I have gained valuable experience on setting up project from scratch
and in another country (Postdoc 52, Female, Infectious diseases)
In the third case, the feelings switched to the opposite emotional response. This was
observed mostly when the meaning of the event was related to a particular moment of self-
validation or sense of accomplishment:
Some of my data was totally unexpected [...] It made me want to figure out why. At the moment I
felt [...] like a proper researcher. Now I feel [...] that I have not found this excitement again
(Postdoc 31, Female, Neurosciences)
Overall, the strength of the feelings generated through a significant event generally
appeared to persist over time when they involved a validation or devaluation of post-PhD
researchers’work by others. On the other hand, an evolution of feelings seemed to happen
mostly when the event generated learning from negatively experienced events. It appeared
that time and the opportunity to reflect was essential in integrating the negatively
experienced event in a meaningful way into one’s sense of identity.
Discussion
This study offers new insight into how post-PhD researchers make sense of their significant
work experiences in relation to their developing identities as they endeavour to develop their
research independence and a distinct scholarly profile (Laudel and Glaser, 2008). It also
highlights how emotions and feelings, often-neglected aspects of identity development
(Winkler, 2016), influence the process. Our analysis demonstrated that the same type of
significant work experience (e.g. publishing in a prestigious journal) was not related to a
specific meaning: it could hold different meanings depending on who experienced it and on
the particular time and context in which it took place.
Rather, the meaning given to the experience could be characterised as either a concrete
localised effect or consequence on post-PhD researchers’identity development or lessons
generated for the future. Strikingly, only negative experiences were linked to learning for the
future, whereas most positive experiences were characterised as a concrete localised effect.
More precisely, positive feelings related to significant events meant the cues they drew from
the experience confirmed they were on the right track, supporting their self-image. That is,
these experiences affirmed individuals’views of themselves as researchers so did not
generate further reflection. In contrast, negative feelings provided cues that they were
experiencing academia differently than expected, thus inducing doubt and questions about
whether they belonged in the research world. In this sense, negative emotional experiences
had greater and longer saliency, especially if they called into question, shocked or disrupted
their own perceptions.
We began by arguing that a sense of identity is linked to how individuals think about
their work and engage in it (Billet, 2006). In this regard, disruptive events drew forth more
attention and reflection (O’Meara et al., 2014). The interplay of action, sense-making and
Post-PhD
researchers’
experiences
215
Downloaded by 85.218.74.25 At 02:28 24 November 2017 (PT)

later action requires plausibly identifying, labelling (new learning) and then putting the
learning into action (Weick et al.,2005). Ultimately, these significant events served as a
gauge for whether a self-representation as researcher truly resonated (Cascon-Pereira and
Hallier, 2012) and whether a further research career was practicable. This finding highlights
how negotiating a sense of self is both a retrospective and prospective process (Maitlis and
Christianson, 2014). The distance in time from the emotional memory as well as whether it
was perceived to be positive or negative influenced its meaning. While positive feelings
towards a significant event appeared to persist over time, negative feelings seemed often to
fade or evolve through self-reflection.
These findings raise two important points about post-PhD researchers’developing
identities. First, their sense of identity seemed to be negotiated through the eyes of others in
relation to their own present views of themselves, which is consistent with Carlone and
Johnson’s (2007) conclusions about doctoral students. As Ashforth and Schinoff (2016,
p. 123) pointed out, “others’perceptions affect self-perception”. This statement is probably
especially true in a context such as academia where a researcher’s credibility and legitimacy
are largely grounded in their peers’recognition and evaluation. This may explain why, in
this study, significant events seen as validation or devaluation of post-PhD researchers’
work by others were reported more frequently than events related to self-validation. This
concern about “validation by others”reflects how identity development is a relational and
comparative process (Carlone and Johnson, 2007;Tajfel and Turner, 1986). It is by
“establishing both who one is and who one is not (in the eyes of oneself and others)”
(Watson, 2009, p. 446) that the process occurs. It also suggests that, to negotiate their
identities, post-PhD researchers try to find observable proof that they are developing the
identities they imagine –notably, through performance outcomes (e.g. paper accepted in a
prestigious journal) (Ashforth, 2001) as well as self-perception of competence (Carlone and
Johnson, 2007). Second, the findings revealed the somewhat counter-intuitive result that one
type of sense-making of negative events, lessons learned, had a more profound impact on
post-PhD researchers’identity development than positive or negative events that had led
only to localised consequences. It was especially the case when the negative events
provoked new understandings of academic culture and research realities or led to a greater
awareness of one’s interactions with peers and colleagues. Maitlis et al. (2013, p. 18) noted in
this regard that sense-making is especially “fuelled by moderately negative emotions”.By
providing a more realistic view of academia’s tacit rules and expectations, these negative
events enable post-PhD researchers to evaluate the worth of their actual engagement within
their work and environment. In this sense, negative significant events can highlight
“tensions between actual and desired identities”(Winkler, 2016, p. 3) and help in rethinking
one’s developing identity. The lessons learned from these events may facilitate further
adjustments; for instance, regarding with whom and under which conditions post-PhD
researchers agree to collaborate. These events may also have enabled them to define more
carefully which people they wanted to model themselves on (Ashforth and Schinoff, 2016).
Overall, it brings an interesting alternative –and constructive –view of the impact of
negative emotions on identity development, which are generally considered as impairing the
process (Winkler, 2016).
Conclusion
Very few studies have reported on how emotionally powerful work experiences influence
post-PhD researcher identity development. More concretely, none has examined the
differences in types of sense-making or the influence of emotion or time. While previous
work has been helpful in providing us with an understanding of the types of experiences
SGPE
8,2
216
Downloaded by 85.218.74.25 At 02:28 24 November 2017 (PT)

that doctoral students, in particular, report as being influential in their learning, the focus on
sense-making used here is foreseen as a further and fruitful approach to examining
experience in relation to identity development. Our study highlights that, in a context where
post-PhD journeys are often characterised by uncertainty, change and delocalisation, being
agentive implies negotiating both positive and negative emotions to maintain motivation
and develop identity. These findings raise the importance of providing post-PhD researchers
with formal career support that is not only based on skills development and employability
but also on emotional and affective support. It also invites to create informal safe spaces that
allow post-PhD researchers at different stages in their academic paths to share about and
reflect upon their experiences with peers. However, more research is needed to better capture
this issue. As our study is based on voluntary participation and mainly on answers to open-
ended survey questions, conducting in-depth interviews with a focus on individual
strategies, as well as the impact of institutional and social support, would be a promising
avenue.
Note
1. www.fins-ridss.com
References
Antony, J.S. (2003), “Reexamining doctoral student socialization and professional development: moving
beyond the congruence and assimilation orientation”,Higher Education: Handbook of Theory
and Research, pp. 349-380.
Archer, M.S. (2000), Being Human: The Problem of Agency, Cambridge University Press.
Ashforth, B.E. (2001), Role Transitions in Organizational Life: An Identity-Based Perspective, Erlbaum
Publishers, Mahwah, NJ.
Ashforth, B.E. and Schinoff, B.S. (2016), “Identity under construction: how individuals come to define
themselves in organizations”,Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 111-137.
Baxter Magolda, M.B. and King, P.M. (2007), “Interview strategies for assessing self-authorship:
constructing conversations to assess meaning making”,Journal of College Student Development,
Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 491-508.
Billett, S. (2004), “Learning through work: workplace participatory practices”, in style (Ed.), Workplace
Learning in Context, Routledge, London, NY, pp. 109-125.
Billett, S. (2006), “Relational interdependence between social and individual agency in work and
working life”,Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning, Mind, Culture, and Activity, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 53-69.
Boud, I., Keogh, R. and Walker, D. (1985), “Promoting reflection in learning: a model”, in Boud, D.,
Keogh, R. and Walker, D. (Eds), Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning, Kogan Page,
London, pp. 18-40.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology, qualitative research in
psychology”, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 77-101.
Browning, L., Thompson, K. and Dawson, D. (2017), “From early career researcher to research
leader: survival of the fittest?”,Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,Vol.39
No. 4, pp. 1-17.
Buckingham, D. (2009), “Creative’visual methods in media research: possibilities, problems and
proposals”,Media, Culture & Society, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 633-652.
Post-PhD
researchers’
experiences
217
Downloaded by 85.218.74.25 At 02:28 24 November 2017 (PT)

Carlone, H.B. and Johnson, A. (2007), “Understanding the science experiences of successful women of
color: science identity as an analytic lens”,Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 44 No. 8,
pp. 1187-1218.
Cascon-Pereira, R. and Hallier, J. (2012), “Getting that certain feeling: the role of emotions in the
meaning, construction and enactment of doctor managers’identities”,British Journal of
Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 130-144.
Castello, M., McAlpine, L. and Pyhältö, K. (2017), “Spanish and UK post-PhD researchers: writing
perceptions, well-being and productivity”,Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 36
No. 6, doi: 10.1080/07294360.2017.1296412.
Corcelles, M., Cano, M., Liesa, E., González-Ocampo, G. and Castelló, M. (2017), TheRoleof
Positive and Negative Events in the Doctoral Journey from Students’Perspective,Studiesin
Higher Education.
Clore, G.L. and Huntsinger, J.R. (2007), “How emotions inform judgmentand regulate thought, trends in
cognitive sciences”, Vol. 11 No. 9, pp. 393-399.
Coulter, C.A. and Smith, M.L. (2009), “The construction zone: literary elements in narrative research”,
Educational Researcher, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 577-590.
Elliott, J. (2005), Using Narrative in Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Sage,
London.
Emmioglu, E., McAlpine, L. and Amundsen, C. (2017), “Doctoral students’experiences of feelıng (or not)
like an academic”,International Journal of DoctoralStudies, Vol. 12, pp. 73-90.
Laudel, G. and Glaser, J. (2008), “From apprentice to colleague: the metamorphosis of early career
researchers”,Higher Education, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 387-406.
McAlpine,L.(2010),“Fixed-term researchers in the social sciences: passionate investment, yet marginalizing
experiences”,International Journal for Academic Development,Vol.15No.3,pp.229-240.
McAlpine, L. (2016), “Becoming a PI: shifting from ‘doing’to ‘managing’research”,Teaching in Higher
Education, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 49-63.
McAlpine, L., Turner, G., Turner, G., Saunders, S., Saunders, S. and Wilson, N. (2016), “Becoming a PI:
agency, persistence and some luck!”,International Journal for Researcher Development, Vol. 7
No. 2, pp. 106-122.
Maitlis, S. and Christianson, M. (2014), “Sensemaking in organizations: taking stock and moving
forward”,The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 57-125.
Maitlis, S., Vogus, T.J. and Lawrence, T.B. (2013), “Sensemaking and emotion in organizations”,
Organizational Psychology Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 222-247.
Miller, N. and Brimicombe, A. (2003), “Disciplinary divides: finding a common language to chart
research journeys”,Actas de la 33a Annual Standing Conference on University Teaching and
Research in the Education of Adults 2003, proceedings of the conference at University of Wales,
Bangor, pp. 1-3.
Nardi, B.A. (2005), “Objects of desire: power and passion in collaborative activity”,Mind, Culture, and
Activity, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp.37-51.
Neumann, A. (2006), “Professing passion: emotion in scholarship of professors at research universities”,
American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 381-424.
O’Meara, K., Lounder, A. and Campbell, C.M. (2014), “To heaven or hell: sensemaking about why
faculty leave”,The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 85, pp. 603-632.
Powell, K. (2015), “The future of the postdoc”,Nature, Vol. 520 No. 7546, pp. 144-147.
Riessman, C. (2008), Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences, Sage, London.
Rothengatter, M. and Hill, R. (2013), “A precarious presence: some realities and challenges of
academic casualisation in Australian universities”,Australian Universities’Review,Vol.55
No. 2, pp. 51-59.
SGPE
8,2
218
Downloaded by 85.218.74.25 At 02:28 24 November 2017 (PT)

Scaffidi, A.K. and Berman, J.E. (2011), “A positive postdoctoral experience is related to quality
supervision and career mentoring, collaborations, networking and a nurturing research
environment”,Higher Education, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 685-698.
Syed, M. and Nelson, S.C. (2015), “Guidelines for establishing reliability when coding narrative data”,
Emerging Adulthood, Vol. 3 No. 6, pp. 375-387.
Schwarz, N. (2002), “Situated cognition and the wisdom of feelings: cognitive tuning”,The Wisdom in
Feelings, pp. 144-166.
Tajfel, H., Turner, J.C., (1986), “The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour”, in Worchel, S. and
Austin, W.G. (Ed.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 2nd ed., Nelson-Hall,Chicago, IL, pp. 7-24.
Van Weijden, I., Teelken, C., Boer, M. and Drost, M. (2016), “Career satisfaction of postdoctoral
researchers in relation to their expectations for the future”,Higher Education, Vol. 72 No. 1,
pp. 25-40.
Watson, T.J. (2009), “Narrative, life story and manager identity: a case study in autobiographical
identity work”,Human Relations, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 425-452.
Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M. and Obstfeld, D. (2005), “Organizing and the process of sensemaking”,
Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 409-421.
Winkler, I. (2016), “identity work and emotions: a review”,International Journal of Management
Reviews,doi:10.1111/ijmr.12119.
Further reading
Eraut, M. (2007), “Learning from other people in the workplace”,Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 33
No. 4, pp. 403-422.
Woods, C. (2010), “Employee wellbeing in the higher education workplace: a role for emotion
scholarship”,Higher Education, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 171-185.
Corresponding author
Isabelle Skakni can be contacted at: isabelle.skakni@education.ox.ac.uk
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Post-PhD
researchers’
experiences
219
Downloaded by 85.218.74.25 At 02:28 24 November 2017 (PT)