Introduction

Postdoctoral scholars are particularly vulnerable to sexual harassment (a type of sex and/or gender discrimination that encompasses gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion¹) because of their early career stage, a lack of clear institutional policies, and dyadic relationships with their advisors, among other factors. Recent surveys and listening sessions hosted by Nature, the National Postdoctoral Association (NPA), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have reiterated this issue, indicating that workplace bullying, harassment, and discrimination are chief concerns to postdoctoral scholars and that power imbalances are a cross-cutting theme contributing to harassment, bullying, and questionable behaviors by mentors and principal investigators (PIs) (Gewin, 2023; NIH, 2023a; Woolston, 2020). It is within environments of generalized disrespect and incivility that much sexual harassment occurs (Lim & Cortina, 2005; NASEM, 2018b).

While there are many methodological limitations² associated with current prevalence estimates, some surveys place the rate of sexual harassment of postdoctoral scholars overall at approximately 25 percent and the sexual harassment of women postdoctoral scholars at 34 percent (AAMC, 2022; Sleeth, 2017). Other, smaller studies such as the 2021 survey conducted by Columbia University’s postdoctoral union (n = 239) indicate that as many as 68 percent of postdoctoral scholars may experience some form of power-based harassment or exploitation (Bergantiños-Crespo et al., 2022). Although more research is needed to determine accurate prevalence estimates of sexual harassment among postdoctoral scholars specifically, existing research on different workplace settings indicates that academia is second only to the military in terms of sexual harassment rates (Ilies et al., 2003; NASEM, 2018b).

Moreover, media coverage is increasing attention to the issue, especially as postdoctoral unions emphasize priorities like preventing bullying, discrimination, and sexual harassment in their contract negotiations. In 2022 and 2023, several high-profile postdoctoral union strikes were related to the treatment of postdoctoral scholars, including those at the University of California (UC) system, Rutgers University, the University of Washington, and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (Doreste, 2023; Langin, 2023a, 2023b; Quinn, 2023; Trager, 2023). Columbia University ratified a tentative agreement with its postdoctoral union in November of 2023, narrowly avoiding a strike (Kirkham & Chapa, 2023). Not only does collective action from postdoctoral unions indicate the growing social awareness of the sexual harassment of postdoctoral scholars, but it also indicates the urgency of addressing the issue and the willingness of postdoctoral scholars to seek alternative solutions beyond those offered through their institutions alone. Many of these recent agreements include articles establishing increased protections against harassment, bullying, and abuses of power, as well as clarity around the resources and resolution processes available to postdoctoral scholars.³

The issue of sexual harassment of postdoctoral scholars is especially salient for women, not only because rates of sexual harassment are typically higher for women compared with men but also because the postdoctoral period is a time of exceedingly high attrition for women in science, technology, engineering, medicine, and mathematics (STEMM). These women may leave academia for other positions in the scientific workforce, such as scientific publishing, research funding, and industry positions, or they may leave their fields entirely (Martinez et al., 2007; Sharma, 2017). Nature’s 2023 survey of postdoctoral scholars indicated that 51 percent of respondents were women (Nature, 2023). By comparison, a 2018 American Association of University Women report indicated that only 44 percent of tenure-track faculty and 36 percent of full professors identified as women (AAUW, 2018). Although more data are needed to accurately assess the attrition of women during different periods of their careers, studies have repeatedly shown that the postdoctoral period represents a period of robust representation of women that is not represented in later career stages (Martinez et al., 2007; Sharma, 2017).

Moreover, postdoctoral scholars who experience sexual harassment may not feel able to disclose their experiences, let alone formally report or file a complaint with their institution. These feelings may be due to a variety of factors, including the hierarchical nature of academia and/or a lack of clear reporting mechanisms within the institution. According to qualitative research prepared for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine committee that the authored consensus study Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, “those respondents who felt the least empowered in disclosing or addressing the sexually harassing behavior were often newer faculty, residents, and [postdoctoral scholars], whereas their perpetrators were often higher-ranking faculty, professional mentors, or widely recognized experts” (NASEM, 2018b, Appendix C). Some respondents noted that in addition to unfavorable power dynamics, no formal reporting channels were available to postdoctoral scholars, nor were postdoctoral scholars always aware of the resources that were available to them (NASEM, 2018b, Appendix C). One of the postdoctoral scholars who responded to the Nature survey noted that postdoctoral scholars “are staff, but not as important as students or professors. Policies that usually help both of these other groups usually do not apply to postdocs” (Woolston, 2020).

The unique vulnerabilities of the postdoctoral community to sexual harassment, the particular challenges related to retaining women during the postdoctoral period, the increasing unionization of postdoctoral scholars and strikes related to conditions that perpetuate harassment and discrimination, and the urgency placed by NIH in particular on improving the postdoctoral experience prompted the National Academies’ Action Collaborative on Preventing Sexual Harassment in Higher Education to explore the sexual harassment and related issues that postdoctoral scholars face. To that end, this issue paper documents the key considerations related to supporting postdoctoral scholars who experience sexual harassment.

Purpose of the Paper

This issue paper builds on the findings and recommendations in the National Academies’ 2018 report Sexual Harassment of Women by providing more information related to implementing the recommendation to diffuse

What and Who Are Postdoctoral Scholars?

In the world of academic research, postdoctoral positions are generally intended to be an advanced training period between the completion of a terminal degree (usually a Ph.D.) and a full-time position in academia, industry, government, or other job sectors. Postdoctoral work is typically completed under the supervision of a single advisor, often at a different institution and with a different advisor from those of the scholar’s graduate studies. While not a requirement for a successful career in research, a postdoctoral appointment may be a significant and consequential steppingstone in one’s career. For those who intend to pursue a tenure-track faculty position, a postdoctoral appointment may be an implicit (or explicit) prerequisite, depending on the specific field, institution, or laboratory conditions. Further, because postdoctoral scholars far outnumber available tenure-track faculty positions, the advantage of having a postdoctoral appointment on one’s resume may make it a de facto requirement (NASEM, 2014, 2018a; Walton, 2014). Of course, such competition for jobs means that many scholars will ultimately pursue careers outside of academia where it is much less likely that postdoctoral training will be considered a requirement (NASEM 2014; Walton, 2024).

Beyond advantages in the job market, postdoctoral appointments can provide many benefits to both the scholar and the institution hosting them (ORISE, n.d.). For those aspiring to one day lead their own academic research group as a full-time faculty member, the postdoctoral period provides an opportunity to expand their knowledge and skill set in a specific area and develop as an independent researcher. For scholars with other career aspirations, it is a period to continue to develop as a scientist, learn new technologies, familiarize oneself with the research grant process, and explore additional career options. For institutions and faculty members, postdoctoral scholars are a critical part of the research effort. Not only do they provide experience and knowledge to ongoing projects at a lower financial cost than most faculty-level researchers (ORISE, n.d.), but they represent the next generation of scientists.

Postdoctoral positions are typically time-bound appointments lasting from 1 to 5 years, which may be extended or renewed in some cases and vary by field, institutional policies, and other factors. Specific institutions may choose to offer different contract lengths and a variety of pathways to extend the contracts or transition to different job titles after a certain amount of time (MIT, 2023a; Tufts University, 2014). However, within the last decade, two reports from the National Academies suggested that the length of time spent as a postdoctoral scholar may be inappropriately long and poorly documented (NASEM, 2014, 2018a). While the average length of time spent in the position has hovered around 4.5 years, these data are based on surveys of United States-trained doctorates (NASEM, 2014). Postdoctoral scholars who received doctoral degrees outside the United States are more likely to have longer postdoctoral appointments, perhaps raising the mean appointment length to nearly 8 years (NASEM, 2014). Both National Academies reports recommend against having postdoctoral periods longer than 5 years, citing insufficient justification for keeping specialized researchers in an extended transitional training period. Further, the NIH ACD’s Working Group on Re-Envisioning NIH-Supported Postdoctoral Training released a report in 2023 that recommended limiting the amount of time for which a postdoctoral scholar can receive NIH funding for their position to 5 years total.

Although postdoctoral positions are not limited to academia or research activities, the most common type of postdoctoral scholar is an academic researcher (ORISE, n.d.). Furthermore, most postdoctoral scholars dedicated to academic research are concentrated in the STEMM fields and largely situated in biological and biomedical sciences (NCSES, 2021). Other STEMM fields that employ postdoctoral scholars may include chemistry, physics, applied mathematics, geosciences, mechanical engineering, psychology, anthropology, and computer and information sciences (NCSES, 2021). Non-STEMM postdoctoral fields, while uncommon, might include criminal justice, international relations, art history, or other humanities specialties where advanced training in research practices may prove beneficial (National Gallery of Art, 2024; NCSES, 2021). While this paper focuses on academic researchers and may heavily rely on examples from the biological and biomedical sciences, the ideas explored in this paper are relevant to postdoctoral scholars broadly.

Even within the category of postdoctoral academic researchers, there is significant variance in scope depending on how institutions define the role and what funding stream is used. Because funding sources for these roles can vary from direct contracts with funders to grant-supported positions within a specific lab to employment through universities themselves, postdoctoral scholars may be considered full-time employees, zero-time employees, nonemployee researchers, research affiliates, contractors, or even students. This, of course, also leads to a variety of titles that may include “postdoctoral scholars,” “postdoctoral fellows,” “postdoctoral researchers,” “postdoctoral trainees,” and “postdoctoral students.” As reflected in NPA resources and within the NIH ACD’s 2023 report from the Working Group on Re-Envisioning NIH-Supported Postdoctoral Training, this paper uses the term “postdoctoral scholars” throughout, as that title most closely matches the broad experience and qualifications of these individuals.

Because of the variance in roles and titles, policies related to preventing and addressing sexual harassment may apply to postdoctoral scholars differently, with some falling under employee-focused policies and some falling under student-focused policies. Beyond variations in the applicability of sexual harassment policies, these title designations have substantial and material effects on the resources available to postdoctoral scholars and the policies that govern their engagement with their institutions. Some institutions may even have postdoctoral scholars with different designations operating on the same campus. For example, Texas A&M University hosts both “postdoctoral research associates” and “postdoctoral fellows” (Texas A&M, 2022). The former are considered employees on Texas A&M’s payroll, while the latter are considered to have “student status” and receive a stipend (Texas A&M, 2022). Further, because postdoctoral research associates are employees, they are entitled to employee benefits such as vacation leave, while postdoctoral fellows are “not eligible for vacation or sick leave accrual” (Texas A&M, 2022).

Additionally, the sources of funding that support postdoctoral positions may add an additional layer of complexity to the compensation and benefits provided to postdoctoral scholars. In biomedical research, for example, the majority of postdoctoral scholars are supported by funds from research grants awarded to their PIs, primarily from federal agencies such as NIH and the National Science Foundation (NSF) (Lauer, 2023). Postdoctoral scholars can also apply for individual fellowships or career development awards (both federal and private), which can provide them with independent funding as well as additional training and programmatic support. According to a 2022 study from NIH, approximately 19 percent of postdoctoral

With significant financial pressures and without the ability to save for emergencies, postdoctoral scholars may feel as if they cannot afford to lose their positions and may be less willing to raise concerns or report misconduct to their institutions that could result in retaliation and separation from the institution. For an example of how financial status may affect a postdoctoral scholar’s fear of retaliation, see Illustrative Example 2.

The demographic makeup of the postdoctoral community reveals that the community includes more people of color, women, and non-citizens compared with faculty demographics. This suggests that—as a group—postdoctoral scholars are more likely to experience power differentials based on race, gender, country of origin, and other demographic characteristics and thus may feel more vulnerable in academic institutions. For example, while there are no reliable data on transgender postdoctoral scholars, growing evidence indicates that there are more cisgender women in postdoctoral positions than in later-career positions (McConnell et al., 2018; NASEM, 2014; Nature, 2023).⁶ Not only are women disproportionately impacted by sexual harassment, but they are more likely to face gender harassment, which can include disparate treatment

related to pregnancy (NASEM, 2018b). Again, while reliable data are scarce, available information suggests that most postdoctoral scholars are of an age to start or continue growing their families (30-40 years old), making pregnancy and childcare salient to this group (University of Rochester Medical Center, 2024; Vallier et al., 2020). Some research suggests that women with more than 12 years of education are more likely to provide the sandwich care discussed earlier compared to women with less education or men (Henretta et al., 2001; NASEM, 2024; Suh, 2016).

Similarly, postdoctoral scholars are typically a more racially and ethnically heterogenous group than are faculty and other groups with more power in the academy (Lampon et al., 2023; McConnell et al., 2018; Nature, 2023; NCES, 2024).⁷ As discussed in the National Academies’ report Sexual Harassment of Women, research indicates that women of color experience harassment at greater rates than white women because it is “a manifestation of both gender and race discrimination” (2018b).⁸ For an example of how complex power dynamics may affect a postdoctoral scholar’s vulnerability to harassment, see Illustrative Example 3.

Finally, citizenship and reliance on visas is a major source of vulnerability for the postdoctoral community, which is largely composed of international scholars. Although more research is needed to obtain accurate numbers, data indicate that anywhere from 50 to 67 percent of postdoctoral scholars are temporary visa holders (NASEM, 2014; NCSES, 2021). According to the 2023 Barriers to Success Survey issued by the National Postdoctoral Association, nearly three-quarters of international postdoctoral scholars indicate that citizenship-related vulnerabilities have a “high-level negative impact on their lives” (NPA, 2023, as quoted in NIH, 2023a). Those vulnerabilities may include fear about job security compounded with fear about how retaliation for experiencing or reporting harassment may affect their ability to stay in the United States (Kleinman & Thomas, 2023; O’Callaghan et al., 2021; Sutton et al., 2021). Because so many postdoctoral

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission indicates that such isolation is a risk factor for harassment in the workplace, as “harassers have easy access to their targets” and “there are no witnesses” (EEOC, 2019). While some research suggests that positive peer and supervisory relationships may be protective factors against sexual harassment, postdoctoral scholars may be less likely to have access to such relationships due to social and physical isolation (Roscigno, 2019). In addition, a lack of robust peer networks or cohorts reduces the availability of social networks and community resources that could support postdoctoral scholars who are experiencing harassment. It also limits the dissemination of information from peers who have experienced similar challenges related to sexual harassment.

One of the ways in which isolation occurs is through small population size, as discussed above (Mendez et al., 2023; NCSES, 2016). To put these numbers into further context, even with the limited data available about the postdoctoral community, it is clear that the numbers of postdoctoral scholars are typically significantly smaller than those of graduate student cohorts within the same institutions. While major research universities such as Stanford, Harvard, and Johns Hopkins may have upwards of 1,600 postdoctoral scholars (NCSES, 2016), these institutions have more than 10,000, 21,000, and 25,000 graduate students, respectively (NCES, n.d.). Moreover, the postdoctoral scholars at these large institutions are dispersed across departments. For example, Johns Hopkins had only six postdoctoral scholars in the biological chemistry department during the 2023-2024 academic year (Johns Hopkins University, 2024a). By contrast, the same department had 21 doctoral students in 2023 (Johns Hopkins University, 2024b).

Further, these major research institutions are part of a minority of institutions with large numbers of postdoctoral scholars. According to a 2021 research brief prepared by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), 59 percent of institutions with at least one postdoctoral scholar reported having fewer than 50 postdoctoral scholars in the biological and health sciences (Rodriguez et al., 2021, Table 2).⁹ Only 16 percent of institutions had more than 200 postdoctoral scholars in the biological and health sciences (Rodriguez et al., 2021, Table 2).¹⁰ As one postdoctoral woman put it, “It’s just really hard to meet other postdocs, and I feel like there are things the institution could do to make that easier.… I always say being a postdoc, it’s kind of isolating” (Mendez et al., 2023). For international scholars, the combination of small postdoctoral population size combined with cultural differences and language barriers may exacerbate this isolation.

Additionally, postdoctoral scholars may be isolated due to their workplace settings. While graduate students and faculty may travel to different buildings and classrooms to attend or teach multiple classes, postdoctoral scholars may work solely on one or two projects in a single lab setting, or in remote research facilities dedicated to fieldwork. These labs and fieldwork settings may not be frequented by many other individuals beyond project staff, and depending on how remote the location is, postdoctoral scholars may have to live and work on-site. In addition to the physical isolation of these sites, fieldwork and some lab settings may be particularly demanding endeavors, where long hours and night and weekend work are expected (NSF et

Title IX rules include the requirement to designate at least one employee as a Title IX coordinator and to communicate that employee’s name, address, and phone number to all “program participants and employees” (U.S. Congress, 1972). The rules also include a requirement to “adopt and publish internal grievance procedures to promptly and equitably resolve complaints” by “program participants and employees” (U.S. Congress, 1972). While legal scholars interpret the broad Title IX language of “program participants and employees” to include the postdoctoral community regardless of designation (The Pregnant Scholar, 2016), the degree to which institutions transparently emphasize this coverage and tailor policies to the postdoctoral community varies.

Institutions often comply with Title IX by writing specific policies in plain language for different communities on campus, such as students and faculty. For example, Title IX offices may have one staff person who specializes in issues involving students and another who specializes in staff- and faculty-related issues, with the Title IX website encouraging community members to reach out to the appropriate point of contact. Additionally, institutions may have policies in the student handbook that are specifically worded to ensure students know what policies and resources apply to them, and similarly tailored policies for staff and faculty included in an employee handbook or on a human resources (HR) website. If postdoctoral scholars do not receive tailored policies around sexual harassment, Title IX, or Title VII while students and other employees do, they may not be aware of their legal coverage under Title IX or which resources the institution intends for them to use.

Smaller institutions may not have a postdoctoral affairs office to clarify coverage under Title IX, nor may they mention postdoctoral scholars in their employee handbook or in their Title IX policy. Some institutions, such as Yale University, may include a Title IX section on their Office for Postdoctoral Affairs website that outlines contact information for their Title IX coordinator, which gives postdoctoral scholars a starting point to learn more information about their options (Yale, 2023). One example of a highly detailed and transparent policy comes from the University of Southern California’s Office of Postdoctoral Affairs website, which specifically outlines their grievance resolution procedure (University of Southern California, 2024). The policy makes it clear that it applies to all postdoctoral scholars by listing each individual job title and code:

The following policies and procedures apply to postdoctoral scholars appointed under the following job titles: Postdoctoral Scholar – Research Associate (Job Code 98227), Postdoctoral Scholar – Teaching Fellow (98223), Postdoctoral Scholar – Fellowship Trainee (Job Code 98219), Postdoctoral Scholar –Visiting Fellow (Job code 98229), and Postdoctoral Research Associate (Job Code 98067). (University of Southern California, 2024)

For an example of how a lack of integration into institutional resources may affect a postdoctoral scholar’s ability to report harassment, see Illustrative Example 6.

Dyadic Relationship with Supervisor

One element of the postdoctoral experience that particularly contributes to vulnerability is the dyadic nature of the relationship between the postdoctoral scholar and their supervisor—both because of the importance

of this relationship and because of the lack of guidance from institutions about how to structure the relationship. As the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) states, the careers of postdoctoral scholars “depend almost entirely on relationships with faculty and other senior physicians and scientists to succeed” (2022). Whereas faculty are part of larger departments or research programs within an institution, and students have multiple professors, advisors, and points of contact within a degree program, postdoctoral scholars are often funded by, accountable to, and advised by the same individual. These individuals are sometimes called supervisors, mentors, advisors, or simply PIs, but for clarity, we will refer to them broadly as supervisors because of their primary responsibilities related to employment. The supervisor is often the scholar’s only source of career guidance and is the strongest connection that many postdoctoral scholars have to the institution itself and the broader academic network of students, staff, and faculty; thus, the singular relationship can have an outsized impact on the postdoctoral scholar’s experience.

The mentor-mentee relationship can involve much time spent alone together, in the lab, in the field, or in the hospital, and sometimes in isolated environments. It also involves significant dependence on one mentor or a small committee because research projects, education and career mentoring, and funding are often all tied to the advisor and not in the control of the [trainee or postdoctoral scholar].¹¹ (NASEM, 2018b)

As mentioned earlier, postdoctoral scholars may receive funding directly from federal agencies, for example, NIH, NSF, or NASA, but oftentimes their funding is allocated by a supervisor from a specific grant. In those cases, the supervisor is the primary individual in control of the postdoctoral scholar’s funding in addition to supervising their work. Regardless of the funding source, however, postdoctoral scholars typically work on a singular project or a series of related projects under one supervisor. Such a strong dependence on one individual in a higher hierarchical position than the postdoctoral scholar contributes to both a greater risk of sexual harassment and to the potential for more severe negative consequences from sexual harassment, such as retaliation (NASEM, 2018b; Sekreta, 2006). According to Nature’s 2020 survey of postdoctoral scholars, over half (57 percent) of those who experienced any form of harassment or discrimination indicated that their supervisor or PI was responsible (Woolston, 2020).

Contributing to the complexities of this dynamic are the varying degrees of institutional guidance defining expectations for the postdoctoral scholar-supervisor relationship. While many institutions and individuals use terms like “supervisor,” “advisor,” and “mentor” interchangeably in colloquial and administrative contexts, there is a significant difference in formal responsibilities between supervisors and mentors from a research perspective (Sambunjak et al., 2010). Supervision typically centers performance evaluation and oversight of a supervisee’s work, and contributes to a one-directional flow of accountability (scholar to supervisor) (NIH, 2021a). Supervisors may have few obligations beyond ensuring the quality of work completed by the postdoctoral scholar, reinforcing a transactional power hierarchy where supervisors have an outsized amount of power and control over the supervisee (Johnson, 2007; Murry et al., 2001). By contrast, mentors have the responsibility of furthering the professional development of that scholar, thus diffusing the power dynamics involved by encouraging a bi-directional flow of responsibility (both the scholars and their mentors have responsibilities to one another) (NIH, 2021a). According to some sources, “supervision typically implies an employer-employee relationship” (UC Riverside, 2022), while mentoring is not about directing, demanding, or managing a mentee, but rather facilitating their growth, enhancing their visibility in academia, and creating an environment safe from adverse influences where mentees can freely express themselves (Sambunjak et al., 2010; UC Riverside, 2022).

The distinction between supervision and mentorship is important, as research indicates that the roles and responsibilities aligned with mentorship may encourage those who experience sexual harassment to report mistreatment and subsequently access supportive resources and may be protective against retaliation from reporting mistreatment (Lautenberger et al., 2022; Murry et al., 2001; Yu & Lee, 2021). This is because transactional supervision may be likelier to reiterate power hierarchies while mentorship may be likelier to diffuse power hierarchies (Johnson, 2007). Compared with the intentional and mutually accountable relationship between mentors and mentees, the more hierarchical dynamic between those who are strictly supervisors and supervisees may contribute to a greater risk of incivility and harassment. Research on the field of academic medicine indicates that “in environments with little structure or accountability for the faculty member,” the risk of sexual harassment is increased (NASEM, 2018b; Sekreta, 2006). Similarly, there is research that “inadequate mentoring, advising, and career counseling” may lead to attrition from underrepresented groups in STEMM fields (Dupey et al., 2006, and Sithole et al., 2017, in NASEM, 2019).

Beyond mitigating the risk of sexual harassment, some evidence indicates that intentional, effective mentorship can benefit not only the mentor and postdoctoral scholar in the mentorship dyad, but also the broader research community (Rida et al., 2023). In 2007, a National Academies consensus study indicated that

Postdoctoral scholars with the highest levels of oversight and professional development are more satisfied, give their advisers higher ratings, report fewer conflicts with their advisers, and are more productive than those reporting the lowest levels of oversight. (Davis, 2005a; NASEM, 2007)

Effective mentorship may result in greater career success for postdoctoral scholars, while mentors may learn new skills from their mentees and bolster their reputation in the field (NASEM, 2019; Rida et al., 2023). Moreover, the research community may benefit from greater productivity and the continued legacy of communities of practice, handed down from one generation to another (NASEM, 2019; Rida et al., 2023).

This is not to say that mentors cannot sexually harass their mentees, nor does it dismiss some postdoctoral scholars’ preference for the simplicity of supervision over a potentially more complicated mentorship dynamic—it is simply a reflection of the ways that institutional oversight (or lack thereof) can impact the relationship between postdoctoral scholars and the individuals that most directly contribute to their experiences.

When it comes to institutional oversight of these roles, many institutions have no guidance at all (Rodriguez Ott et al., 2021). For institutions that do have guidance, it is more likely that they require a postdoctoral scholar be supervised by a PI or other senior scholar, and less likely that they require postdoctoral scholars to be mentored (Rodriguez Ott et al., 2021).¹² However, the specific responsibilities assigned to these individuals by their institution may be incongruent with the terms used (e.g., supervisors may have the responsibilities of mentors, and mentors may have the responsibilities of supervisors) or may not be assigned at all (e.g., the institution may call the individuals mentors, but may not define mentorship or the responsibilities therein). A lack of sufficient detail or specificity in the guidance may have the same impact as a total absence of guidance. One postdoctoral scholar who participated in the 2023 listening sessions for the NIH ACD’s Working Group on Re-Envisioning NIH-Supported Postdoctoral Training stated

A huge reason I am no longer planning on becoming an independent investigator is lack of support from my mentor. He has a number of R01s and is well funded, but there is no oversight on his actual mentoring activities. (NIH, 2023b)

Despite the potential benefits of a mentorship-based relationship, many institutions have no guidance on supervision or mentorship responsibilities (Rodriguez Ott et al., 2021). Without institutional guidance to enforce mentorship expectations, the degree to which an individual postdoctoral scholar is mentored or

According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, there are two primary types of visas that postdoctoral scholars can obtain: the J-1 visa and the H1-B visa.¹³ Because both the J-1 and the H1-B visas require participation in an approved research program or other scholarly pursuit, if an international postdoctoral scholar loses their job, they may have to leave the country. This means that the supervisors who are in control of their supervisees’ employment are also indirectly in control of their ability to remain in the country (Fleming, 2022b). “For some visas, like the H-1B, you have 60 days to leave the United States. With the J-1 visa for academics and scholars … you have 30 days” (Jacobovitz, 2018). These grace periods are intended to give international scholars time to find a new position that will sponsor their visa, change their visa status, or leave the country (Kingsbury, 2023; Richards & Jurusik, 2024). However, due to confusion over when the grace period starts, which timelines apply to which visas, and difficulty finding a new employer sponsor, the risks of deportation are significant. Moreover, if international scholars overstay their visas or are deported, it can be exceptionally challenging to gain re-entry into the United States. For some scholars, there may not be equivalent research positions available in their countries of origin, so being unable to live and work in the United States can significantly delay or derail their careers.

Because the stakes are so high, international postdoctoral scholars may be hesitant to formally report mistreatment and harassment, especially when perpetrated by supervisors (Fleming, 2022a; NASEM, 2018b). This can limit the ability of institutions to address the behavior and correct the environment that is allowing it to occur. Anonymous reporting mechanisms may provide an opportunity to share such information with the institution while also mitigating fears of retaliation, but—as described earlier in the paper—reporting mechanisms and institutional resources are not always designed with postdoctoral scholars and their specific vulnerabilities in mind. Participants in the 2023 listening sessions for the NIH ACD’s Working Group on Re-Envisioning NIH-Supported Postdoctoral Training “emphasized that postdocs, particularly international postdocs, have little to no power in the current academic system and little protection against wrongful termination” (NIH, 2023b).

As previously indicated, as many as two-thirds of all postdoctoral scholars working in the United States are reliant on temporary visas (NASEM, 2014). Moreover, some literature suggests that international postdoctoral scholars experience the highest rates of harassment of any postdoctoral scholars (Mendez et al., 2023; Woolston, 2020). In addition to a potentially greater risk of sexual harassment, international scholars may be at greater risk for bullying and generalized incivility in the workplace. One survey of early-career scientists found that

most of the respondents had either witnessed or experienced bullying by academics in positions of authority, and that bullied researchers working abroad reported more-severe impacts than did

their domestic colleagues, including threats to cancel their visas. (Moss & Mahmoudi, 2021, as quoted in Fleming, 2022a)

This sort of generalized workplace disrespect is important to note because “sexual harassment often takes place against a backdrop of incivility” and “when gender harassment occurs, it is virtually always in environments with high rates of uncivil conduct” (Cortina et al., 2002; Lim & Cortina, 2005; NASEM, 2018b).

In addition to difficulties with potential language barriers, cultural differences, and navigating administrative requirements related to visas and taxes, international scholars may be particularly vulnerable to sexual harassment and retaliatory actions by their supervisors. For an example of how reliance on a visa may affect a postdoctoral scholar’s vulnerability and fear of retaliation, see Illustrative Example 8.

Lack of Reliable and Valid Data Collection Efforts

Research has long indicated that federal agencies and institutions have not done enough to collect reliable and meaningful data on the experiences of postdoctoral scholars (NASEM, 2014, 2018a). The surveys that do collect information on postdoctoral scholars may not be reflective of the entire postdoctoral population, and are unlikely to contain any items related to sexual harassment (AAMC, 2015; NASEM, 2014, 2018a; NIH, 2012, 2014a, 2023a). As mentioned earlier in the paper, some available data suggest postdoctoral scholars are experiencing high rates of sexual harassment, especially from faculty members and full-time researchers in supervisory positions (Bergantiños-Crespo et al., 2022). However, without complete and reliable data from postdoctoral scholars on their experiences of sexual harassment, which can be connected to risk factors such

• Do the postdoctoral scholars who rely on visas have access to support for navigating visa issues, managing visa renewals, and understanding grace periods beyond their immediate supervisors?
• Does your institution monitor the postdoctoral experience through the use of climate surveys or other tools? If so, do these data collection efforts include ways to assess the rates and circumstances of sexual harassment? Do these data collection efforts include reliable and valid measures as recommended by sexual harassment researchers? Are the results made public so that every member of the community may use them to inform action?

Strategies and Approaches for Mitigating Risk and Addressing the Sexual Harassment of Postdoctoral Scholars

To prevent, respond to, and otherwise address the sexual harassment of postdoctoral scholars, many institutions and organizations have explored several prospective solutions. In particular, institutions of higher education, associations like the NPA, and governmental initiatives like the NIH ACD working groups have all developed specific strategies, approaches, and recommendations for supporting postdoctoral scholars. While this is not an exhaustive list, nor is every example necessarily the best approach for every institution, the examples described in this section of the paper may be helpful illustrations of what is possible.

Of note—there are several important limitations to the examples described in this section. First and foremost, there is an almost universal lack of evaluative research on policies and programs to address the sexual harassment of postdoctoral scholars. We simply do not yet have a list of best practices that is grounded in research. While the logical underpinnings of these efforts may seem straightforward and while they may be based on recommendations from respected institutions, it is not yet possible to say that there is evidence of the effectiveness of any particular approach. Moreover, the implementation of these efforts can vary dramatically and the mere existence of some of these resources may not be sufficient to adequately address the problem of sexual harassment. For example, while having a designated Office of Postdoctoral Affairs can serve as a site for clarity and community, the ability of such an office to effectively provide resources to postdoctoral scholars is necessarily limited if the staff within that office only exist to refer scholars to other offices that are not trained in meeting their needs.

In the absence of quality research on effective approaches to addressing these issues, we are relying on the approaches with the best publicly available documentation. This was occasionally challenging, as institutions of higher education are not often transparent in how they address sexual harassment (NASEM, 2018b). For some categories of approaches, this means that the examples included disproportionately come from elite research institutions with significant funding and power. This is not to say that smaller institutions are not engaging in quality support for their postdoctoral communities or that they cannot adapt examples from some of these larger institutions, just that larger institutions are more likely to have documented approaches

• largest groups of postdoctoral scholars in the country. The OPA has a full-time staff of 14 individuals across three teams (operations, benefits, and programs), including a director who serves as associate vice provost and associate dean for postdoctoral affairs. On the OPA website, each staff member is listed with a specialty and specific prompts that clarify with what topics they can assist postdoctoral scholars. For example: “Postdoc Disability and Benefits Specialist, Ask me about: Postdoc Health Benefits and Disability Benefits” or “Operations and Fellowships Assistant, Ask me about: Verification Letter, Certificates, Propel Postdoctoral Scholars Program, Purchasing Questions” (Stanford University, 2024).
• Duke University’s Office of Postdoctoral Services (OPS):¹⁹ Duke University is a large, private, nonprofit, R1 research university with approximately 590-700 postdoctoral scholars. Like Stanford’s OPA, Duke’s OPS is a central office that serves all postdoctoral scholars at the institution. The OPS has a full-time staff of two individuals, including a director and a staff assistant. The website has resources organized by topic, including policies and forms, general resources, events, and statistics, as well as awards for postdoctoral scholars, mentors, and professional opportunities (Duke University, 2011). Crucially, Duke’s OPS not only links directly from its own homepage to the university-wide page for harassment and discrimination reporting processes and resources (Duke University, 2021a), it also provides the Interactive Guide for Reporting Harassment, Discrimination, and Other Concerns (Duke University, 2021b), designed specifically for postdoctoral scholars, at the top of its resource page. These offerings are discussed in more detail in the section “Clarity on Policies and Procedures.”
• University of California, San Francisco’s (UCSF) Office for Postdoctoral Scholars (OPS):¹⁹ UCSF is a small- to medium-sized public special research focus university with approximately 1,040-1,200 postdoctoral scholars. Another central office for postdoctoral scholars, UCSF’s OPS has two full-time staff members: an assistant dean for postdoctoral scholars and a program manager. It has similar duties to the aforementioned offices at Stanford and Duke, but it also has the responsibility of liaising with the UC system’s postdoctoral union, UAW 4811.²⁰ The resources on the UCSF website reference both university policy and policy established between the university and the union through collective bargaining (UCSF, 2024a).
• University of Maryland Baltimore County’s (UMBC) Office of Postdoctoral Affairs (OPA):¹⁹ UMBC is a large, public R1 research university with approximately 10-50 postdoctoral scholars. Although the population of postdoctoral scholars at UMBC is much smaller than other examples in this list, it still maintains an OPA. In order to efficiently use resources, the two full-time staff members who support postdoctoral scholars also support the 3,500 graduate students at UMBC and aim to provide professional development sessions that will be beneficial for both graduate students and postdoctoral scholars. Additionally, postdoctoral scholars at UMBC can attend the virtual professional development offerings at partner institutions within the university system of Maryland (UMBC, 2023).

• Rutgers University’s Office of Postdoctoral Advancement (OPA): This central office serves not only every postdoctoral scholar in the Rutgers system across all disciplines but also every postdoctoral scholar across all four main campuses: New Brunswick, Newark, Camden, and Rutgers Health. New Brunswick is a large, public R1 research university; Newark is a large, public R2 research university; Camden is a medium-sized, public R2 research university; and Rutgers Health is the umbrella term for the programs and facilities that compose what was formerly known as Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences. In total, the Rutgers system has approximately 360-920 postdoctoral scholars, and the OPA has a full-time staff of two: a director of the Office of Postdoctoral Advancement and a senior program coordinator (Rutgers University, 2022b).

More information about these sample offices is available in the Appendix titled, “Additional Detail on Select Offices of Postdoctoral Affairs.”

This centralized office structure is not restricted to institutions of higher education. On the funding side of the postdoctoral experience, the NIH has a similar supportive structure in its Office of Intramural Training and Education (OITE) (see NASEM, 2014, Box 3-6). The OITE has a staff of 39, including specialized staff dedicated to loan management; training; well-being; career development; research ethics; and records, reports, and regulations. The OITE serves all participants of the NIH Intramural Research Program, which includes not only postdoctoral scholars but also graduate students, postbaccalaureate trainees, interns, and other early-career researchers. It provides training, mentorship, and other resources that ensure a common standard of experience to all funded scholars.

In lieu of OPAs, the NPA suggests that the responsibility for overseeing postdoctoral scholars be given to a specific department, such as the graduate studies division. Additionally, there are other examples of centralized structures that support postdoctoral scholars, such as Stanford’s BioSci Careers center and UCSF’s Office of Career and Professional Development.

OMBUDS AND OMBUDS OFFICES

The 2018 National Academies report The Next Generation of Biomedical and Behavioral Sciences Researchers recommends that institutions “identify or provide an institutional ombudsperson to resolve fairly and expeditiously conflicts and concerns between principal investigators and postdoctoral researchers related to the training experience” (NASEM, 2018a). An ombuds is primarily charged with sharing fact-based information about institutions’ policies and procedures with all members of the community, including students, staff, faculty, and postdoctoral scholars (Howard, 2019). “An ombuds provides a place to receive confidential guidance before action is taken—a valuable resource for those who may be reluctant to come forward” about experiencing sexual harassment (Howard, 2019). The International Ombuds Association has created a toolkit for establishing ombuds within institutions of higher education (International Ombudsman Association, 2019a, 2020).

Ombuds can be either individual staff persons (an ombuds, ombudsperson, or ombudsman) or full offices (e.g., Ombuds Office), and can provide a centralized hub of information and resources to postdoctoral

• website has a specific page for postdoctoral scholars (Washington University in St. Louis, 2018), which links to a specialized brochure. The brochure contains information related to the history of the office’s postdoctoral services, reasons one might meet with the ombuds, expectations for meeting with the ombuds, guidance on how to confidentially schedule an appointment, and clarity on what the office can and cannot do for postdoctoral scholars or any community member (Washington University in St. Louis, 2017).
• University of California, Santa Cruz’s Office of the Ombuds: UC Santa Cruz is a large, public R1 research university with approximately 140 postdoctoral scholars. The Office of the Ombuds has a full-time staff of two, and the website provides contact information for both, specifying that postdoctoral scholars should contact the associate ombuds (University of California, Santa Cruz, 2024a). The website also provides links to resources regarding sexual harassment and sexual violence, as well as discrimination, harassment, and retaliation (University of California, Santa Cruz, 2024b, 2024c).
• Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory’s (CSHL) Part-time Ombuds Office: CSHL is a small, private, nonprofit biomedical research institution and graduate school with a total of 1,100 faculty, staff, and students, including approximately 120-150 postdoctoral scholars. Due to its small size, CSHL opted to hire an independent contractor in a part-time role to fulfill the duties of an ombuds, including supporting postdoctoral scholars (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 2020).

POSTDOCTORAL ASSOCIATIONS

Postdoctoral associations within the institution are another option for providing postdoctoral scholars with structured resources that are stable over time. Postdoctoral associations can serve a variety of functions with varying degrees of formality, but they are usually funded or approved by institutions and managed by the postdoctoral scholars themselves. Postdoctoral associations can foster a sense of community, host social events or affinity groups, provide communal career development sessions, advise the institutional staff on issues of policy and procedure, and inform the creation of postdoctoral handbooks. Although postdoctoral associations vary in structure, many of them have hierarchical administrative positions and formal bylaws for the governance of official activities, election to leadership positions, and the use of funds. The NPA has a toolkit for the establishment of postdoctoral associations in institutions of higher education (NPA, 2019).

Postdoctoral associations at many schools, including Stanford University, the University of Colorado, Yale University, and the University of Pittsburgh, have a goal of creating a sense of belonging for their scholars while they are at their institution. The University of Colorado offers opportunities for publication and targeted volunteer opportunities for postdoctoral scholars (CU Anschutz, 2022). Yale’s Postdoctoral Association also offers a buddy program, which pairs incoming scholars with those already at Yale (Yale, 2016). The University of Pittsburgh’s Postdoctoral Association takes a different approach in creating the sense of belonging with robust programming and by advocating for the well-being of postdoctoral scholars through representation with university leadership and even on the national stage (University of Pittsburgh Postdoctoral Association, 2024).

Examples of postdoctoral associations include the following:

• Stanford University’s Postdoctoral Scholar Groups and Associations: Stanford University offers a wide range of postdoctoral scholar groups and associations with different purposes, compositions, and benefits (Stanford University, n.d.a). The main postdoctoral association is the Stanford University Postdoc Association (SURPAS, 2022), which is available to all postdoctoral scholars at Stanford. SURPAS is primarily an advocacy organization, analyzing historical data and efforts and setting long-term advocacy plans and priorities that will benefit the postdoctoral community at Stanford (SURPAS, 2022). It has committees dedicated to careers in industry; supporting postdoctoral scholars with families; housing and transportation; and many others. They host training seminars, ambassador programs, journal clubs, educational events, and strategic planning to advance the goals of the group. Stanford also has four identity-based postdoctoral groups (similar to affinity groups in other institutions).
• Duke University’s Postdoctoral Association (DUPA): DUPA offers a wide range of activities to build community within the postdoctoral scholar population at Duke, such as creating a Slack channel, organizing volunteer events, highlighting scholars’ research, hosting social events, collecting pulse data through surveys, and advancing advocacy goals. Similarly to Stanford’s SURPAS, DUPA has “six formal sub-committees as well as a seventh committee dedicated to policy matters” (DUPA, 2022). DUPA works closely with Duke’s Office of Postdoctoral Services to assess and inform postdoctoral policies at the institution (DUPA, 2022).
• University of California, Berkeley’s Postdoctoral Association (BPA): In addition to many of the same social and advocacy activities supported by SURPAS and DUPA, BPA established a set of ethical principles that includes guidance on expected conduct regarding sexual harassment, sexual violence, discrimination, revictimization, and whistleblowing (BPA, 2020; University of California, Berkeley, 2024b). In addition to adhering to university policy on sexual harassment and sexual violence, the Ethical Principles of the Berkeley Postdoctoral Association state the following:

The BPA also takes a stand against all forms of harassment and revictimization that adheres to the Whistleblower policy, designed to protect individuals who report such behavior. The Association recognizes the importance of supporting survivors of what is defined as Second Order Violence, which includes any reprisals directed to individuals who advocate for survivors and speak out against discrimination and harassment (BPA, 2020).

This statement is somewhat unusual for codes of conduct and other edicts, but it addresses the fear of retaliation that many postdoctoral scholars have.

COLLABORATION WITH OTHER OFFICES

One of the benefits of the system resources listed above is the opportunity to establish formal, long-term relationships between offices. Without centralized offices, staff, and associations dedicated to the

• services and anticipate trends and future needs of the postdoctoral community we all serve individually and collectively” (Rutgers University, 2022c). There is a similar group of postdoctoral offices for the Ivy Plus²² schools.
• University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill: The UNC Postdoctoral Association not only collaborated with the UNC Office of Postdoctoral Affairs and many other university teams, they also have a long-standing partnership with the Chapel Hill Public Library to host the Postdoctoral Association Research Café, “a free series, organized by postdocs, to share the exciting research being carried out at UNC with the local community” (UNC PDA, 2022, 2024).

Clarity on Policies and Procedures

As discussed earlier in the paper, many postdoctoral scholars either have no specific policies tailored to their role and needs or they are unsure how institutional policies for students or faculty may apply to them (NASEM, 2018b, Appendix C; Woolston, 2020). Some postdoctoral scholars may also lack clarity about what to expect from their relationship with their mentors and other supervisory staff, leaving them unsure of whether some behavior is a violation of policy. Lack of integration into institutional systems and resources, social isolation, and reliance on a single supervisor or mentor may mean that postdoctoral scholars do not receive information on addressing sexual harassment or may receive incorrect information about the resources available to them. Lack of information can pose a barrier to reporting and utilization of resources, but many institutions are emphasizing clarity of expectations and policies in the resources provided to postdoctoral scholars. Increasing this clarity can help integrate postdoctoral scholars into the broader institutional system and may mitigate the effect of power differentials on particularly vulnerable scholars. In addition, the NIH has set clear expectations that institutions receiving NIH funding will have in place “similarly rigorous policies and related procedures” for research trainees (including postdoctoral scholars) as NIH’s own policies (NIH, 2021b, 2022b).

POSTDOCTORAL APPOINTMENT HANDBOOKS

Postdoctoral handbooks—similar to employee handbooks—are written guides that can be accessed and revisited by postdoctoral scholars at any time to review specific and clear guidance on expectations, policies, procedures, and resources relevant to their role. “Postdoc handbooks provide a grounding tool for postdocs, allowing them to begin to understand the structure, practices, policies, and rules of the institution and the postdoc position when provided with an appointment letter. Nonetheless, a large number of institutions lag in implementing this important and straightforward asset” (Ferguson et al., 2023). Examples of information that may be included are clarity on behavioral expectations, grievance and/or harassment reporting procedures, response procedures, and supportive measures.

The following are examples of handbooks that specifically address sexual harassment:

• New York University (NYU) Grossman School of Medicine’s (GSoM) Postdoctoral Affairs Program Handbook: NYU GSoM’s handbook includes the extensive section “Concerning the Protection of Equal

• Employment Rights and Confidentiality,” which includes a subsection dedicated to sexual harassment (NYU Grossman School of Medicine, 2022). Within this section, the handbook restates university policy against harassment and discrimination as it applies to postdoctoral scholars: “It is the policy of the School to ensure that all Postdocs are afforded a workplace environment free of discrimination and sexual harassment. It is important that all Postdocs understand that any form of sexual harassment will not be tolerated” (NYU Grossman School of Medicine, 2022). Moreover, it includes the direct contact information for three different reporting avenues, including a specific Title IX coordinator, Employee Relations, and the Office for Civil Rights. Importantly, this section also outlines behavior that violates the policy, including the following:
  • Making unwelcome sexual advances, either physical or verbal, or implying that submission to such advances is or will be a condition of a Postdoc’s continued employment.
  • Making the submission to, or rejection of, such unwelcome conduct the basis for employment decisions affecting a Postdoc.
  • Such conduct that has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual’s work performance, or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment (NYU Grossman School of Medicine, 2022).

  Following this list, the handbook includes a section describing similar behaviors that would constitute a violation on the part of the postdoctoral scholars themselves.

• Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Postdoc Handbook: Icahn has a similarly detailed harassment section within its handbook, including “Definitions of Unacceptable Behavior” such as “derogatory comments relating to gender or sexual orientation” and “inappropriate persistent public statements or displays of sexually explicit or offensive material” (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 2017). The policy also outlines other forms of incivility that constitute abusive behavior, such as “repeated episodes of verbal punishment (e.g., public humiliation, threats, and intimidation)” and “repeated demands to perform personal services outside job description” (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 2017).

  The handbook offers a variety of different contacts where postdoctoral scholars can seek out reporting options, advice, and resources, such as HR, Title IX, the Office of Postdoctoral Affairs, the Postdoctoral Advisory Committee, and the Grievance Committee. It includes detailed information for the Grievance Procedures, which spans three pages.

  The Icahn handbook also includes contact information for confidential sounding boards such as the ombudsperson and the Mistreatment Resource Panel, a “research trainee-led panel that serves as a sounding board for graduate students and postdocs with concerns about mistreatment in the training environment” (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 2017).

• Harvard University’s FAS Postdoctoral Fellows’ Handbook within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences: Harvard’s handbook clearly states that the University Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment Policy applies to postdoctoral scholars; indicates which Title IX coordinator postdoctoral scholars should reach out to; and links directly to the policy, contact information for all Title IX coordinators, and instructions for how to file a complaint (Harvard University, 2022).
• University of Minnesota’s Postdoctoral Handbook: The University of Minnesota’s handbook has a section listing the university policies that are relevant to postdoctoral scholars, including the Discrimination and Harassment Policy (University of Minnesota, 2022).
• The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Handbook: The NIH also has a handbook for their scholars—including graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, research fellows, and clinical fellows—which “covers relevant information, including workplace standards, guides to professional development, career guidance opportunities both inside and outside of NIH, and even financial- and immigration-related matters” (NASEM, 2014, Box 3-6; NIH, 2021c).

SETTING EXPECTATIONS FOR BEHAVIOR

As indicated earlier in the paper, social isolation may contribute to lack of clarity on what is considered normal, professional behavior. This is particularly true for environments where personal and professional lives may be blurred, as in remote research environments. It is also particularly salient for international scholars who may be grappling with different social and professional norms from those they are used to.

Just as the postdoctoral handbooks for NYU Grossman School of Medicine and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai specifically outline the behavior that would be considered a violation of policy, other institutions have created resources and guides to set expectations for behavior:

• University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)’s Bioscience Postdoctoral Affairs Guide on Research Trainee Mistreatment: UCLA provides biomedical postdoctoral scholars and other research trainees with a guide on mistreatment in the research environment (UCLA Bioscience Postdoctoral Affairs, 2022).²³ The guide defines mistreatment in general, and then breaks it down into six categories: Physical Mistreatment, Abusive Expression, Power Abuse, Psychologic Cruelty, Sexual Harassment, and Discrimination. Each of those categories is defined and followed by 4–10 specific examples of what situations would and would not be considered mistreatment. For example, within the sexual harassment category, if “a research project requires trainees to interview subjects about their sexual activity,” it is not considered mistreatment, but if “a mentor asks a trainee invasive questions about their personal life and sex life, despite it clearly making the trainee uncomfortable,” it is considered mistreatment (UCLA Bioscience Postdoctoral Affairs, 2022). Similarly, if “a student is asked by the lab manager to attend a farewell party at a local bar for the students graduating this year,” it is not mistreatment, but if a mentor asks a student “to go out after hours to a bar ‘so they can discuss the student’s progress,’” it is considered mistreatment (UCLA Bioscience Postdoctoral Affairs, 2022).

• Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)’s Appropriate Treatment of Research Trainees (AToRT): The 2021 AAMC “Appropriate Treatment of Research Trainees (AToRT)” guide was created to “provide a framework for identifying and addressing these issues that may be adapted for use at individual institutions” to support research trainees such as postdoctoral scholars. Along with AAMC’s definition of mistreatment, the guide includes categories of mistreatment, such as loss of personal civility, infringement on autonomy, professional and career development abuses, excessive pressure to meet unrealistic expectations, and discriminatory behavior based on race, gender, religion, or other identities. One example of the latter is “inquiring about a trainee’s plans for starting a family based on their gender” (AAMC, 2021). The document is 15 pages and includes suggestions for response and resolution.
• University of Rochester’s Policy Against Discrimination, Harassment, and Discriminatory Employment/Service Practices: Although it is not a separate guide, the University of Rochester’s Policy Against Discrimination, Harassment, and Discriminatory Employment/Service Practices (which explicitly applies to postdoctoral scholars) includes detailed examples of behaviors that may constitute sexual harassment. The policy specifically addresses gender harassment and other forms of discriminatory behavior based on a person’s gender, sex, perceived identity, gender expression, or sex stereotypes; for example, “remarks about an individual’s gender [expression] or requesting that an individual take on traditionally gendered roles,” “making comments about an individual’s body, clothing or lifestyle that have sexual implications or demean the individual’s sexuality or gender,” and “creating differing expectations for individuals based on their perceived identities” (University of Rochester, 2024).

Beyond policies, UC Irvine has a specific training program called “Field Safety 201: Preventing and Managing Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, and Sexual Violence in the Field” (University of California, Irvine, 2022). This workshop is six hours long and intended to provide graduate students who are about to engage in field research with an understanding of what is and is not appropriate behavior in field settings, how to respond to violations of university policy, how to intervene in harassing situations, and what resources and reporting options are available to them. Although intended for graduate students, many postdoctoral scholars face the same challenges and concerns with regards to field research.

ESTABLISHING AND CLARIFYING FORMAL REPORTING AND/OR RESPONSE PROCEDURES

Another aspect of clarity as it pertains to sexual harassment is ensuring that there is a formal reporting policy or grievance procedure in place that applies to postdoctoral scholars, and—importantly—that they know it applies to them. If a policy does not explicitly list postdoctoral scholars as subject to it or if they are not specifically directed to a policy by their OPA or postdoctoral handbook, there may be confusion about which policy to utilize. Again, this is exacerbated by the problem of how postdoctoral scholars are classified. For example, those who have student status may believe that the reporting policies for undergraduate students apply to them, even if the institution intends for all postdoctoral scholars to utilize reporting policies for staff, faculty, and other employees. Likewise, in the absence of postdoctoral-specific reporting mechanisms, postdoctoral scholars may feel that their only option for addressing problems in the workplace is through their principal investigator or supervisor, which could discourage reporting, especially if the supervisor is responsible for the harassment. The 2014 National Academies’ consensus study report indicated that

many postdoctoral researchers do not have—or feel that they do not have—a way to deal with problems in the workplace outside of approaching their principal investigator. While the committee is not recommending any specific unionization or grievance procedure, it does see a need for some type of institutional mechanism for addressing problems that might arise for postdoctoral researchers. (Box 3-11)

Several institutions have created examples of clear, formal reporting processes and grievance procedures for postdoctoral scholars—whether that is through the postdoctoral handbook, the OPA website, or other avenues such as collective bargaining agreements with postdoctoral unions. Features of these clear policies include the following:

1. Explicit applicability to the postdoctoral community
2. Descriptions of what behaviors, circumstances, or questions may qualify for outreach/reports under the policy
3. Descriptions of other reporting options that may be preferred under different conditions (i.e., different mechanisms for reporting sexual harassment versus race-based discrimination, or confidential options versus nonconfidential channels)
4. Contact information for individuals or offices that can handle reports
5. Expectations for how a report will proceed
6. Expectations for potential outcomes of the report

These features have been integrated into many of the institutional handbooks or policies described previously, for example, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Postdoc Handbook, which includes all six features, and the University of Rochester’s Policy Against Discrimination, Harassment, and Discriminatory Employment/Service Practices, which includes features 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6.

Outside of policies enshrined within postdoctoral handbooks and websites, the 2014 National Academies report explored how the collective bargaining agreement between UAW 5810 (now UAW 4811)²⁴ and the University of California system defined a grievance procedure for the more than 6,000 postdoctoral scholars within that system. UAW 5810 (now 4811) and the UC system ratified an updated agreement in 2022 (University of California and UAW, 2024), which includes a detailed grievance procedure similar to what was outlined in the 2014 consensus study report: “if a postdoctoral researcher has a grievance, then she or he

• links to the main website or webpage of the resources,
• a description of the resource,
• an explanation of whether it is confidential or under which circumstances confidentiality may vary,
• a description of the kind of support these resources offer,
• a description of the kind of conflicts these resources address, and
• instructions for contacting them (University of Pennsylvania, 2025).

ESTABLISHING AND CLARIFYING INFORMAL RESPONSE PROCEDURES AND REMEDIATION RESOURCES

In addition to clarifying formal options and processes for reporting sexual harassment, clarifying the available informal response procedures and resources may similarly improve postdoctoral scholars’ ability to self-advocate, access helpful resources, and mitigate the effect of power differentials. While formal reports of sexual harassment typically require a willingness to engage in an investigation and may result in official sanctions or disciplinary actions if a respondent is found responsible for violating policy, informal processes allow individuals to access resources and assistance without the need for an investigation or sanctions. In many ways, these processes can be complementary as opposed to mutually exclusive; informal resources can be accessed while an investigation is ongoing, for example. But just as there is often a lack of clarity in identifying the formal options that are available to postdoctoral scholars, there is also often a lack of clarity about the informal options.

While this paper has discussed many significant differences between the graduate student and postdoctoral communities, there have been growing efforts to increase clarity about the resources available to graduate students. Some of these efforts may provide insights into what is possible for postdoctoral scholars. For example, UC Santa Cruz has established a guide for “Best Practices for Graduate Students Impacted by SVSH [sexual violence/sexual harassment],” which outlines steps for addressing the negative consequences that graduate students may encounter after experiencing and reporting sexual harassment (University of California, Santa Cruz, 2020).

Many of the negative consequences included in the guide are of concern to both graduate students and postdoctoral scholars, such as the loss of one’s advisor; loss of letters of recommendation; financial consequences due to loss of employment; slowed academic or research progress; and challenges related to journal submissions and grant proposals (University of California, Santa Cruz, 2020).

For each potential issue, the guide identifies which person or team has responsibility for addressing and remediating the problem, as well as any other individuals, teams, or offices which might be involved in the resolution. For example, if a graduate student’s financial aid is jeopardized due to dropping a class amidst a Title IX investigation, the Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies would have ultimate responsibility for

INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS

Individual Development Plans (IDPs) may be one way to address the issue of supervisor roles versus mentorship roles in the academy. By setting specific expectations, goals, and requirements for the relationship, institutions may be able to shape the relationship into something that prioritizes the well-being and professional development of postdoctoral scholars and guard against mistreatment and intense power differentials that heighten the risk of sexual harassment. This is especially salient when paired with annual meetings between mentors and mentees to discuss the IDPs, which can be an opportunity to raise concerns about the work environment and interpersonal conflict (Vincent et al., 2015). Some research indicates that postdoctoral scholars who establish written plans such as IDPs are likelier to report better relationships with their advisors (Davis, 2005b; NASEM, 2019). One study suggested that there is a connection between the use of IDPs and the ability of postdoctoral scholars to have honest conversations with their advisors about their career goals (Vanderford et al., 2018). The NIH has repeatedly recommended the use of IDPs, including in both the 2012 Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report and the 2023 Working Group on Re-Envisioning NIH-Supported Postdoctoral Training Report. The National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) also recommended the use of IDPs in their 2021-2025 Strategic Plan (2021), as did the NPA in both its 2022 and 2024 Recommended Policies and Practices reports (2022b, 2024).

IDPs are written tools that help define career goals, and they may also include expectations for the mentor-mentee relationship. They can be as simple as a Microsoft Word document checklist that outlines goals related to different areas of professional development such as publications, grant applications, skills development, and networking (Duke University, n.d.). In 2003, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, or FASEB, proposed a framework that several institutions have adapted or built on, including downloadable forms from North Carolina State University, the University of Minnesota,²⁶ Stanford University, and the University of Southern California (Andriamanalina & Voight, 2015; North Carolina State University, 2013; Stanford University, n.d.b; University of Southern California, 2015). IDPs can also be generated through interactive online portals such as myIDP, ChemIDP, or ImaginePhD, which offer career interest assessments, explorable career pathways, tools to strategically plan out career goals, and prompts for having productive conversations with one’s mentor (American Chemical Society, 2023; Fuhrmann et al., 2024; Graduate Career Consortium, 2024). Stanford employs an internal IDP Management System to track the dates of all IDP meetings between postdoctoral scholars and their mentors (Stanford University, n.d.c). In this system, postdoctoral scholars can add a meeting date, mentors can verify the meeting date, and administrators can view all the meetings for their departments. In this way, Stanford can monitor whether discussions of the IDPs are taking place or not, and mentors know that they will be held accountable for having those meetings. Duke University uses an evaluation form based on the IDP model to document progress on an annual basis, which can also act as a record of performance that safeguards against retaliatory claims of poor performance in the event of a grievance (Duke University, 2023).

The content of the IDPs can vary, but there are opportunities for establishing expectations for respectful work environments. The form from the University of Minnesota specifically includes prompts, for example, “In

Similarly, in a previous consensus study, the National Academies highlighted the “Mentorship Mapping” approach (NASEM, 2019), which centers the needs and aspirations of an individual researcher and proactively identifies a network of mentors that can assist in achieving those goals (Montgomery, 2017). Comprehensive mentor networks can be either preassembled without a particular mentee in mind, or they can be customized based on the needs of a specific mentee (Montgomery, 2017). Such networks may have positive outcomes for the long-term career outcomes of mentees, as well as retention (Higgins & Thomas, 2001).

MENTOR TRAINING AND OVERSIGHT

In addition to the tools and models described above, many institutions provide training for those who supervise postdoctoral scholars and other early career researchers. The University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for the Improvement of Mentored Experiences in Research (CIMER),²⁸ for instance, provides a number of trainings for both individuals and institutions that aim to teach mentors how to align expectations, articulate a mentoring philosophy and plan, cultivate ethical behavior, foster independence, and maintain effective communication among other goals (CIMER, 2024). In 2019, Boston University developed a mentor training curriculum based on the same curriculum used by CIMER, Entering Mentoring (Boston University, 2020; Pfund et al., 2015). In the Boston University model, the Provost’s Mentor Fellows program establishes cohorts of faculty members that engage in monthly discussions of evidence-based mentorship strategies (Boston University, 2020). “Preventing harassment is not a distinct module of the training but instead is integrated into each of the concepts we cover. This design is based on the idea that harassment does not happen in a silo but occurs in many academic contexts either intended or unintended” (Boston University, 2020). The University of Massachusetts, Amherst has similarly created a faculty mentorship training module based on materials from CIMER (University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 2020). CIMER is also partnered with the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) to offer Culturally Aware Mentoring Training, which can be particularly useful for engaging with postdoctoral scholars, given the varied demographics of the community (NRMN, 2017).

In recognition of the reality that new principal investigators often feel ill informed and unprepared to manage their lab’s sexual harassment climate, the University of Chicago’s Center for Awareness, Resolution, Education, and Support (CARES) has developed a tailored workshop for PIs in lab settings, on “Lab Culture & Climate” (University of Chicago, n.d., 2023). This training was developed in an effort to prevent the sexual harassment of graduate students, but many of the risk factors attributed to the graduate student-PI dynamic may also be attributed to the postdoctoral scholar-PI dynamic, such as a dyadic relationship in which power is concentrated with the PI.

In the earlier example from the University of Pittsburgh’s Postdoctoral Career Development and Progress Assessment step-by-step guide (University of Pittsburgh, 2025a), the university also provides a companion guide for the primary faculty mentors as well as a checklist of faculty action items related to the stage of supervision, whether it is onboarding activities prior to the start of the postdoctoral appointment or annual responsibilities (University of Pittsburgh, n.d., 2025b).

In addition to the tools used to train mentors, some attention has been given to the oversight of mentors. As discussed in the section “Dyadic Relationship with Supervisor,” institutional guidance on the roles, responsibilities, and expectations of mentors are not always available, clear, or consistent. Providing some level of oversight of mentors not only provides an opportunity to better set and enforce those expectations, but it may also provide an avenue to protect against or respond to the mistreatment of postdoctoral scholars. As described earlier, Stanford employs an internal IDP Management System (Stanford University, n.d.c). This system requires input from both postdoctoral scholars and their mentors to verify that a particular meeting took place, and department administrators can view these records and potentially identify any underperforming mentors (Stanford University, n.d.c). However, the system does not account for the quality of the meeting or what was discussed.

One specific element of oversight is related to the consequences for mentors who do not appropriately execute their mentorship responsibilities. At the University of Pittsburgh Schools of the Health Sciences, the Office of Academic Career Development has the authority to mandate that postdocs meet certain milestones in their career development, such as attending a career development orientation, creating an annual career development plan, and establishing a mentoring team (NPA, n.d.b). For mentors who do not comply with their roles in achieving these mandatory milestones, the office has the authority to deny them future postdoctoral appointments (NPA, n.d.b).

Monitoring and Evaluation

Both the 2014 and the 2018 National Academies studies on postdoctoral scholars and research trainees highlighted the lack of reliable data available and called for improved data collection efforts (NASEM, 2014, 2018a). This may be related to the lack of accreditation related to the postdoctoral experience as opposed to the student experience. While undergraduate and graduate programs are required to monitor certain standardized metrics of quality and success related to the student experience in order to receive accreditation, postdoctoral training is not monitored in that way. There is no accreditation system for postdoctoral appointments, as the training postdoctoral scholars receive is not part of a standardized curriculum in pursuit of a degree. As described earlier in this paper, the lack of reliable and valid data poses a challenge for designing evidence-based interventions to address the sexual harassment of postdoctoral scholars and for rigorously evaluating those that exist. The 2014 National Academies report indicated that while NSF “should serve as the primary curator for establishing and updating a database system that tracks postdoctoral researchers,” little movement had been made on similar recommendations in the past (NASEM, 2014). Therefore, the report recommended that “research institutions and professional societies should explore what they can do to enrich what is known about postdoctoral researchers” (NASEM, 2014). While the generalizability of data collected from one institution or a membership-based group may be limited, such data may present actionable information that organizations can use to inform their own efforts to prevent and address sexual harassment.

Moreover, certain data collection tools, such as campus climate surveys, can provide an informal, anonymous avenue for reporting incidents of harassment, as well as other feedback related to mentorship and climate. While individual responses to disclosures of harassment on surveys may be limited, capturing trends can

• scholars at UW (UW Researchers United), the university and the union jointly administer an annual Equity Survey (University of Washington, 2025a). Since 2019, this survey has been used to assess student employees’ and postdoctoral scholars’ experiences of harassment and discrimination and how well they are able to access resources to address and mitigate these experiences (University of Washington, 2024, 2025a). This survey is a product of the Empowering Prevention and Inclusive Communities (EPIC) partnership between the university and the union, which is also responsible for peer-to-peer bystander intervention training²⁹ and an example of close collaboration between those who perform research on sexual harassment and those who develop and administer programs to address it (University of Washington, 2025b). While the specific survey items were not included in the report, the survey asked respondents whether they had experienced or witnessed unwelcome sexual advances; sexual coercion; suggestive comments; comments about dating, marriage, or children; derogatory jokes; comments about one’s accent or diction; slurs; misgendering; non-sexual bullying; comments about inclusivity programs; comments about one’s age; comments about the capability of one’s identity group; fatphobic comments; or different treatment in general (University of Washington, 2024). The report was also able to provide harassment incidence rates that are crosstabulated by race, ability, sexual orientation, as well as for groups such as international scholars, parents, and veterans (University of Washington, 2024). The 2023 survey, which had high participation from postdoctoral scholars, showed that compared to undergraduate students (27.5 percent) and graduate students (29.1 percent), postdoctoral scholars experienced much higher rates of harassment (37.0 percent) (University of Washington, 2024).
• Rutgers University. In 2022, Rutgers fielded the Academic and Workplace Behaviors and Environment Survey, “the first universitywide survey of faculty, part-time lecturers, staff, postdoctoral fellows and associates, and teaching and graduate assistants designed to help the university assess, prevent, and effectively respond to harassment among employees” (Rutgers University, 2024). The survey was designed and led by the research team at Rutgers’ Center for Research on Ending Violence, which chose to use the validated Administrator-Researcher Campus Climate Collaborative (ARC3) Campus Climate Survey Instrument (Rutgers University, 2024).
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). MIT surveyed faculty, staff, and postdoctoral scholars in the 2023–2024 academic year about their experiences with sexual harassment, sexual violence, and sexual assault. The survey was designed in collaboration with Rankin Climate, and MIT’s Institutional Research team managed the planning and production process. Representatives from other teams within the MIT community such as the Provost’s Office, the Chancellor’s Office, the Treasurer’s Office, the Office of Human Resources, the Violence Prevention and Response team, and the Institute Discrimination and Harassment Response Office were also engaged in the planning process. Similarly to the survey at Rutgers, MIT worked with Rankin Climate to adapt the ARC3 instrument (MIT, 2024).
• Duke University. Duke’s Office of Postdoctoral Services conducts an annual climate survey of postdoctoral scholars that includes questions about their experiences with sexual harassment and other

• behaviors (e.g., microaggressions, gender bias, racial bias, sexual orientation bias) from their faculty mentor and/or from others in their lab or research group. The survey was developed in consultation with Duke’s Institutional Research office and was updated in 2020 in consultation with postdoctoral officers at peer institutions. The survey also asks if the postdoctoral scholar is aware that they may report concerns, including anonymous reporting, and provides information about how to report specific incidents to Duke’s Office for Institutional Equity.

Peer Groups and Community-Building

As described earlier in the paper, many postdoctoral scholars feel isolated from their peers, which may lead to increased vulnerability to sexual harassment due to a lack of potential bystanders and witnesses, and difficulties recognizing inappropriate behaviors as a violation of policy. This experience of isolation may be exacerbated by one’s citizenship status, as international scholars may face the dual challenge of connecting with peers that are dispersed across individual labs and navigating new and unexpected cultural norms. Postdoctoral associations can be an excellent way to address these challenges, especially when they offer identity-based affinity groups as an opportunity to connect with others who share certain experiences. Other examples of efforts to build community include buddy programs and orientation activities.

BUDDY PROGRAMS

A number of large research institutions, including MIT, Florida State University, Duke, Purdue, Yale, and Dartmouth, have buddy programs that pair newly employed postdoctoral scholars with other postdoctoral scholars (Dartmouth University, 2024; Duke University, 2024; Florida State University, n.d.; MIT, n.d.; Purdue University, 2024; Yale University, 2024a). The programs are typically intended to provide those who are new to the institution with a peer that they can rely on for insights into the position and the institution. Purdue’s buddy program aims to match junior postdoctoral scholars with more experienced postdoctoral scholars based on “native tongue, cultural background and/or discipline so that the senior postdoc may explain things from the same perspective” (Purdue University, 2024). MIT’s buddy program is less focused on matching junior postdoctoral scholars with seasoned postdoctoral scholars and more focused on “building academically and mentally supportive communities” by “[getting] postdocs out of their small circles” (MIT, n.d.). For those who sign up, the postdoctoral association provides gift cards to encourage the pairs to grab a coffee together.

The University of Colorado Boulder has a buddy program aimed at peer mentorship, where a postdoctoral scholar who has been at the university for less than one year (mentee) is paired with a postdoctoral scholar who has been at the university for longer than a year (mentor) and who wants to develop mentorship skills (University of Colorado Boulder, 2025a). This program requires the pair to meet once a month and provides a list of potential activities such as hiking, sports, cinema, theater, dining, and other social events—all of which are directly linked to specific informational pages (University of Colorado Boulder, 2025a). Not only does the University of Colorado Boulder set out expectations for the mentor-mentee dynamic, but they require mentors to review mentor training materials that include books, articles, webinars, network-building tools, and a list of best practices (University of Colorado Boulder, 2025b). These best practices include

In 2024, the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions published a monograph on “Anti-Discrimination Clauses in Higher Education Collective Bargaining Agreements.” This study analyzed the ways in which higher education unions (including postdoctoral scholar and academic researcher bargaining units) addressed issues of discrimination, including sexual harassment, which is a form of sex-based discrimination (Biswas et al., 2024). It specifically excerpted articles from collective bargaining agreements between the University of California and UAW Local 5810 Postdoctoral Scholars Unit (now UAW 4811) as well as the University of Washington and UAW Local 4121, University of Washington Researchers United. Those examples are explored below:

• University of California and UAW Local 5810 (now UAW 4811) Postdoctoral Scholars Unit. Article 15, Section A of this collective bargaining agreement specifies that “sex (including gender, pregnancy, childbirth, medical conditions related to pregnancy and childbirth, breastfeeding, and medical conditions related to breastfeeding), sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression…genetic information” and any requests for or uses of Family and Medical Leave are protected under the non-discrimination policy (Biswas et al., 2024). Section A also offers further definitions of pregnancy, gender expression, and gender identity. Section B extensively defines sexual harassment, including quid pro quo harassment, hostile environment harassment, sexual conduct, and other sex-based conduct, including “acts of verbal, nonverbal or physical aggression, intimidation, or hostility based on gender, gender identity, gender expression, sex- or gender-stereotyping, or sexual orientation” (Biswas et al., 2024). Section C defines and prohibits retaliation, Section D identifies the relevant Title IX offices, and Section E outlines resolution procedures, particular those for alternative resolutions, interim measures, and grievance procedures. The interim measures and remedies—which may support remediation of the effects of sexual harassment—include no-contact orders, training and education of the respondent, and “change to a different workstation, schedule, work location, unit, department, or position for which the Postdoctoral Scholar is qualified provided that, in the case of a Complainant, the change is voluntary and equitable” (Biswas et al., 2024). Section F outlines the lactation support policy and Section G outlines the policy on all-gender restrooms.
• University of Washington and UAW Local 4121, University of Washington Researchers United. This collective bargaining agreement (referred to henceforth as the “Washington Agreement”) contains many similar articles and sections to the one between the University of California and UAW Local 5810 Postdoctoral Scholars Unit (now UAW 4811) (referred to henceforth as the “California Agreement”), including definitions of sexual harassment, prohibitions on retaliation, identification of available complaint procedures, and explanations of the lactation and all-gender bathroom policies (Biswas et al., 2024). The Washington Agreement does not include the same level of detail as the California Agreement on gender expression, gender identity, complaint processes, and example interim measures and remedies; however, the Washington Agreement further sets expectations around workplace behavior in Section 21.1, prohibiting inappropriate behavior and encouraging mutual respect and professionalism (Biswas et al., 2024).

Although not included in the “Anti-Discrimination Clauses in Higher Education Collective Bargaining Agreements” monograph, many collective bargaining agreements are also exploring the use of respectful work environment policies, abusive conduct policies, and other policies related to the mistreatment of postdoctoral scholars. As mentioned earlier in the paper, environments where general incivility and mistreatment are tolerated or normalized are also likelier to increase the risk of sexual harassment (Lim & Cortina, 2005; NASEM, 2018b). Postdoctoral scholars who are experiencing general mistreatment or who are unsure whether their experiences rise to the level of sexual harassment may feel more comfortable addressing it as a matter of workplace respect.

In Article 36 of the agreement between the University of California and UAW Local 5810 (now UAW 4811), abusive conduct is defined as “harassing or threatening behavior that is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive conduct in the workplace that denies, adversely limits, or interferes with an employee’s participation in or benefit from University employment” (University of California and UAW, 2024). Subsection C of Article 36 includes a list of examples of abusive conduct that includes feedback delivered with direct or implicit threats, making threats to delay or derail a person’s professional advancement, and repeatedly demanding that an individual perform tasks that are not within their job description (University of California and UAW, 2024). This subsection also provides a comparison list of behavior that does not meet the threshold of abuse, including providing negative performance reviews, providing critical feedback on a person’s work, or setting ambitious performance goals (University of California and UAW, 2024).

Similarly, the agreement between Columbia University and UAW Local 4100 includes the side letter “Between Columbia Postdoctoral Workers-UAW Local 4100 and Columbia University Regarding Anti-Bullying Initiatives” (University of Columbia and UAW, 2023). This side letter outlines Columbia’s commitment to promoting an environment free from discrimination, harassment, bullying, and abusive or intimidating behavior (University of Columbia and UAW, 2023). The letter indicates that a specific procedure for addressing abusive conduct is forthcoming but defines abusive conduct and bullying as synonymous terms that refer to unwelcome conduct “that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, intimidating, disrespectful, degrading, or humiliating” (University of Columbia and UAW, 2023).

Gaps and Future Directions

As discussed at the beginning of the previous section, “Strategies and Approaches for Mitigating Risk and Addressing the Sexual Harassment of Postdoctoral Scholars,” evaluation is a significant gap in the current research. Not only is the lack of research on effectiveness an issue for the study of sexual harassment broadly, but it is particularly salient in for postdoctoral scholars—a group with very little reliable data about their experiences of sexual harassment. As Lam, Falcon, and Merhill discussed in their 2023 Action Collaborative issue paper, this lack of evaluation “makes it challenging to determine whether efforts to address sexual harassment are effective, ineffective, or even harmful in application.” We note that there is an existing recommendation from the National Academies’ 2018 report on the Sexual Harassment of Women that says “Academic institutions should work with researchers to evaluate and assess their efforts” and this certainly