Reevaluating Academic Titles for Early Career Researchers


The journey to becoming an academic researcher is fraught with difficulties, one of which is how early career researchers are perceived both within and outside academia. Commonly referred to as "Ph.D. students" and "postdocs," these individuals are generally underpaid and face mental health issues, low self-confidence, and questions about their "real-world" value[1,2,3,4,5]. This article argues that updating the current, outdated nomenclature can help alleviate these issues. 


The Realities of Young Researchers' Work-Life


Early career researchers—including Ph.D. students and postdoctoral researchers—carry out the bulk of day-to-day scientific inquiries at the heart of academic research. Their scientific journey begins slightly differently in different institutions around the world[6] but typically necessitates a bachelor’s or master’s science degree to start. The initial phase often involves 1-2 years of coursework and a qualifying examination before transitioning to intensive, hands-on work in a laboratory. For the next 3-7 years, Ph.D. students dedicate their time to rigorous novel research under the mentorship of one or more experienced scholars, culminating in the defense of their thesis and the attainment of a doctoral degree. This phase typically ends in their late 20s to early 30s, with the average age of Ph.D. recipients in the US hovering just above 31[7].


After earning a Ph.D. degree, many take on a postdoc (short for “postdoctoral researcher”) position, lasting anywhere from 3 to over 6 years. Despite their critical role and expertise, postdocs are often regarded as trainees and paid poorly[1,4]. Their work, while more independent and efficient due to their experience, mirrors the hands-on research performed by Ph.D. students. In contrast, professors and senior researchers primarily deliver lectures, secure funding, write papers, supervise their labs, and manage projects and collaborations. 


How is it possible that those who carry out most of the scientific work are considered “in training”? Imagine a situation where anybody working in a company, apart from the owner and a few administrators, is considered “in training” even after decades of study and more than 5-10 years of working experience! Good science requires time and expertise, which is why collaborations and mentorship are so important. However, acknowledging the full professional stature of young researchers is equally important.


The Impact of Outdated Titles on Professional Identity


The terminology used to describe early-career researchers is more than a mere label; it shapes perceptions and realities. The negative impact of the current job titles can be summarized in four points[2,3,4,5,8]: 1) The titles "Ph.D. student" and "postdoc" obscure the professional nature and expertise of these roles and make it hard for people outside academia to know what young researchers actually do; 2) They also complicate the transition to a job outside academia because, on the one hand, companies judge Ph.D. holders as overly qualified, and on the other hand, Ph.D. students and postdocs seem not to have any work experience; 3) Within academia, these titles perpetuate a hierarchy that unacceptably extends the period of "training" and justifies lower compensation; 4) On an individual level, they harm mental health and self-worth: Specifically, this endless “not being prepared” or “not being good enough” sustains a cycle of insecurity and devaluation.


An analysis of young researchers' career paths shows a broad range of career outcomes beyond traditional academic roles[9]. This supports a case for rethinking the job titles to reflect their potential for broader roles in research, industry, and society.



Proposed Nomenclature and Benefits


A very low-cost solution is to use “junior researchers” for Ph.D. students who passed their qualifying exam, and simply “researcher” instead of postdoc. Thereafter, the additional experience can be easily implemented into the name (“independent researcher”, “senior researcher”, etc). 


An argument that might be raised is that allowing Ph.D. students to be called junior researchers would be similar to calling a med student “junior doctor” or a law student “junior lawyer”. That’s a fair observation, although there is a fundamental difference. For a Ph.D. student, the period of taking lectures and exams is limited to the very beginning (if at all), and afterward, there is a long period of pure academic research. 


The benefits of this simple nomenclature are clear. These titles offer immediate clarity about these roles, and aid in the transition to industry by clearly communicating the level of expertise. Moreover, it It also lays the groundwork for fair compensation and the establishment of clear career pathways within academia with solid ground for the creation of long-term research positions. 



Outlook and conclusion:


Academia is still plagued by complex challenges, such as widespread mental health issues and inadequate salaries for early career scientists. Redefining the job titles is a simple and low-cost step towards enhancing young researchers’ self-perception and improving public understanding of their work. Let this be a call to action[10] for academic institutions across the globe to reconsider outdated titles and embrace a nomenclature that truly reflects the contributions and status of its researchers.


References


This piece draws data and information from the following articles: