Purpose Postdoctoral affairs offices in the United States play a significant role in supporting postdoctoral scholars, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) academia, where postdoctoral appointments are the expected stepping-stone to becoming tenure-track faculty (National Institute of Health Advisory Committee, 2023; Proudfoot and Hoffer, 2016). However, these offices are constrained by a lack of institutional support and inadequate funding and staffing (Burke et al., 2019; Cutright et al., 2018; Van Benthem et al., 2020; Yadav et al., 2020). Thus, this study aims to explore the experiences of 20 postdoctoral affairs office directors who provide institutional-level support and programming to postdoctoral scholars. Design/methodology/approach Using an instrumental case study (Stake, 1915), 20 directors of postdoctoral affairs offices at public and private higher education institutions across the US were interviewed about their ability to implement best practices in postdoctoral support and the challenges they face in effectively supporting postdoctoral scholars. Ajzen’s (2006) model of perceived behavioral control (PBC) served as a conceptual framework for the study, as it focuses on the ease or difficulty of performing a behavior, as well as the presence of adequate resources and the ability to control the barriers to performing the behavior. Findings Four major themes were identified following a structured deductive data analysis process: (1) firm commitment to utilizing National Postdoctoral Association best practices; (2) insufficient funding and staff; (3) critical gaps in programming; and (4) overreliance on postdoctoral scholars to assist office efforts. Findings underscore the imperative for greater institutional-level investment in meeting the professional and personal needs of postdoctoral scholars through reenvisioned postdoctoral office infrastructures. Originality/value This study makes several contributions to the literature on the postdoctoral experience and higher education leaders in the US. The experiences of postdoctoral affairs office directors are centered, rather than on postdoctoral scholars or postdoctoral advisors. They are an understudied yet critical group of administrators responsible for implementing postdoctoral support structures, policies and practices. In addition, the study extends the conceptual use of PBC to illuminate how high self-efficacy among institutional administrators is constrained by limited institutional controllability, which holds consequences for the postdoctoral experience.
Tygret et al. (Fri,) studied this question.