Abstract

Coalitions of powerful higher education stakeholders, a weak federal government, controversial overlapping policy domains, and a vulnerable postdoctoral labor force combine to create exploitative conditions in the United States. Recent calls for postdoctoral reform are likely to fall by the wayside, just as they have for the last half century. We use several analytic tools to examine the situation: a thematic content analysis of National Academy of Science reports dating back to 1969, stakeholder analysis based on the content analysis, and an in-depth demographic assessment of the postdoctoral labor force. We use these data in concert with agenda-setting theory to explain why major change has not occurred, and is unlikely to occur in the future. We suggest that one way forward is for the federal government to engage in bureaucratic reforms, which are more politically insulated than the domains of science, education, immigration, and inclusion policies in the USA.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)358-368
Number of pages11
JournalScience and Public Policy
Volume46
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

labor force
Federal Government
content analysis
stakeholder
reform
Academy of Sciences
coalition
education
immigration
inclusion
higher education
science
analysis
federal government
labour force
policy
dating

Keywords

  • Agenda setting theory
  • Demographic diversity
  • Postdoctoral researcher
  • Stakeholder analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geography, Planning and Development
  • Public Administration
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Cite this

Institutionalized inequity in the USA : The case of postdoctoral researchers. / Gaughan, Monica; Bozeman, Barry.

In: Science and Public Policy, Vol. 46, No. 3, 01.01.2019, p. 358-368.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{546e038178764e39adf71511349a3cf2,
title = "Institutionalized inequity in the USA: The case of postdoctoral researchers",
abstract = "Coalitions of powerful higher education stakeholders, a weak federal government, controversial overlapping policy domains, and a vulnerable postdoctoral labor force combine to create exploitative conditions in the United States. Recent calls for postdoctoral reform are likely to fall by the wayside, just as they have for the last half century. We use several analytic tools to examine the situation: a thematic content analysis of National Academy of Science reports dating back to 1969, stakeholder analysis based on the content analysis, and an in-depth demographic assessment of the postdoctoral labor force. We use these data in concert with agenda-setting theory to explain why major change has not occurred, and is unlikely to occur in the future. We suggest that one way forward is for the federal government to engage in bureaucratic reforms, which are more politically insulated than the domains of science, education, immigration, and inclusion policies in the USA.",
keywords = "Agenda setting theory, Demographic diversity, Postdoctoral researcher, Stakeholder analysis",
author = "Monica Gaughan and Barry Bozeman",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/scipol/scy063",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "46",
pages = "358--368",
journal = "Science and Public Policy",
issn = "0302-3427",
publisher = "Beech Tree Publishing",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Institutionalized inequity in the USA

T2 - The case of postdoctoral researchers

AU - Gaughan, Monica

AU - Bozeman, Barry

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Coalitions of powerful higher education stakeholders, a weak federal government, controversial overlapping policy domains, and a vulnerable postdoctoral labor force combine to create exploitative conditions in the United States. Recent calls for postdoctoral reform are likely to fall by the wayside, just as they have for the last half century. We use several analytic tools to examine the situation: a thematic content analysis of National Academy of Science reports dating back to 1969, stakeholder analysis based on the content analysis, and an in-depth demographic assessment of the postdoctoral labor force. We use these data in concert with agenda-setting theory to explain why major change has not occurred, and is unlikely to occur in the future. We suggest that one way forward is for the federal government to engage in bureaucratic reforms, which are more politically insulated than the domains of science, education, immigration, and inclusion policies in the USA.

AB - Coalitions of powerful higher education stakeholders, a weak federal government, controversial overlapping policy domains, and a vulnerable postdoctoral labor force combine to create exploitative conditions in the United States. Recent calls for postdoctoral reform are likely to fall by the wayside, just as they have for the last half century. We use several analytic tools to examine the situation: a thematic content analysis of National Academy of Science reports dating back to 1969, stakeholder analysis based on the content analysis, and an in-depth demographic assessment of the postdoctoral labor force. We use these data in concert with agenda-setting theory to explain why major change has not occurred, and is unlikely to occur in the future. We suggest that one way forward is for the federal government to engage in bureaucratic reforms, which are more politically insulated than the domains of science, education, immigration, and inclusion policies in the USA.

KW - Agenda setting theory

KW - Demographic diversity

KW - Postdoctoral researcher

KW - Stakeholder analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85072312089&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85072312089&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/scipol/scy063

DO - 10.1093/scipol/scy063

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85072312089

VL - 46

SP - 358

EP - 368

JO - Science and Public Policy

JF - Science and Public Policy

SN - 0302-3427

IS - 3

ER -