Faculty Experiences of the Impostor Phenomenon in STEM Fields

INTRODUCTION

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology noted an urgent need to address the shortage of nearly one million students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines through improved student training and retention, especially from the underrepresented backgrounds based on sex, race/ethnicity, and first-generation/lower socioeconomic status (PCAST, 2012). This necessitates strengthening the university faculty workforce. However, challenges to faculty development in STEM are manifold, including the recruitment, retention, and training of a diverse faculty body based on demographic characteristics and life experiences in combination with strong research and teaching identity (Whittaker and Montgomery, 2014).

Challenges to Gender-Based Equity among Faculty

The STEM community faces several challenges to attaining gender-based equity. Women have historically been underrepresented in all academic positions in STEM, especially in senior leadership roles. This is due to several factors, such as gender bias in selection, evaluation, promotion, and career advancement; masculinized workspaces; lack of support for women in caregiving roles; and lack of access to professional networking (Howe-Walsh and Turnbull, 2016; Laursen and Austin, 2020). Faculty women of color or those marginalized due to their intersecting minority identities based on race/ethnicity, class, and family education status are even more vulnerable to experiencing barriers to their advancement (Laursen and Austin, 2020). Even academic recruitment and promotion at the associate and full professor levels are not always meritocratic, and there may be subtle gender discrimination in terms of the opportunities that women get to build their networks and show their potential (Nielsen, 2016a,b).

Observed gendered differences in leadership styles (transformational vs. transactional leadership) have also been discussed in relation to the poor representation of women in STEM in various countries, including Australia, Germany, and the United Kingdom (Read and Kehm, 2016; Nash et al., 2017). Interviews with several vice-chancellors of universities in Germany and the United Kingdom reveal notions of ideal leadership styles that are culturally viewed as masculinized (assertive, directive, showing top-down authority) as opposed to their own leadership styles, which are culturally viewed as feminized (collegial, collaborative); the same masculinized qualities that are revered in men make women leaders feel less accepted and more harshly scrutinized (Read and Kehm, 2016). Female leaders often feel othered on account of deviation from the cultural conceptualization of “the embodied male leader” as being ideal, dominant, or the norm (Read and Kehm, 2016).

Female faculty in science and technology from universities in the United Kingdom report several barriers to their career advancement into leadership roles (Howe-Walsh and Turnbull, 2016). Some of these barriers include the gendered nature of the field; short-term or temporary contracts with lack of job security; experiences of bullying and harassment; male-centric networks; lack of female mentors in senior positions; direct and indirect gender-based discrimination; lack of recognition; and gendered exclusion. As a result, women feel marginalized and experience a loss of confidence, worrying that there is little support for their own advancement to senior positions owing to lack of other women in senior positions (Howe-Walsh and Turnbull, 2016). Female PhD holders in astronomy and astrophysics report negative experiences that make them consider leaving the field: impostor phenomenon, their poor relationship with graduate advisors or mentors, and the two-body problem (Ivie et al., 2016). In one Danish study with a sample size of 3293 researchers, the author found that female researchers are less likely to have international collaborations; they tend to publish more solo-authored papers, and they choose slightly lower-impact journals for publishing compared with male colleagues (Nielsen, 2016a). In South Africa, one study found that women at a research-focused institution produced less research and showed lower self-esteem compared with men, constrained by family responsibilities and lack of access to networking capital (Obers, 2015). Both research productivity and self-esteem could be improved through mentorship from department heads, although lack of enough female department heads also constrains the quality and quantity of mentorship women faculty receive (Obers, 2015).

In the life sciences, fewer than 15% PhDs transition to faculty positions across all genders after long doctoral and postdoctoral training spanning more than 10 years (Stephan, 2012). More women than men have a PhD in life sciences (>52%), yet their numbers dwindle in comparison to men as faculty at research institutions (Gibbs et al., 2014; Sheltzer and Smith, 2014). Other challenges for junior faculty in STEM include less exposure to grant-writing workshops, mentored training in research, pedagogical training, and professional development workshops to enhance research and teaching profiles (Baker et al., 2014; Stains et al., 2015). While increasing the number of women in the academic pipeline is considered to be one way of addressing gender disparities, data show that, despite an increased number of women as PhD students, postdoctorates, and junior faculty, women continue to be underrepresented in senior leadership positions and face gendered discrimination in salary, promotions, and career advancement (Monroe and Chiu, 2010).

Impostor Phenomenon among Faculty

Impostor phenomenon (popularly called “impostor syndrome”) occurs when competent, successful individuals doubt their success. They believe that they are less competent or less worthy of their positions or achievements (Clance and Imes, 1978). Instead of believing in their abilities, they attribute their success to luck, deceit, fraudulence, others’ kindness, and external factors not related to their own competence. Having self-deprecating beliefs or perceptions about one’s ability could impact one’s physical and mental health, self-presentation, sense of belonging, and socializing or networking experiences for integration and success in the academy.

Impostor phenomenon was first studied among successful, mostly White, female professionals in the United States (Clance and Imes, 1978). Although the term “impostor syndrome” or “imposter syndrome” is more popularly used in media, the term “impostor phenomenon” is more appropriate to describe the process of feeling like a fraud compared with “syndrome,” which could be associated with a stigmatic condition that needs medical intervention (email communication with one of the proponents of the term “impostor phenomenon,” Dr. Pauline Rose Clance in 2017, cited in Chakraverty, 2019, 2020b). Hence, the term “impostor phenomenon” is used throughout this paper in consultation with Dr. Clance.

The positioning of impostor phenomenon as an individual or internal trait has received criticism, because the onus of overcoming or managing rests on the individual. Recent research has focused on the environmental contributors such as workplace harassment (Chakraverty and Rishi, 2022); racial discrimination (Bernard et al., 2018; Chakraverty, 2020a, 2022a,b,c); hypercompetitive learning environments (Canning et al., 2020); and the underrepresentation of women, first-generation learners, and scholars of color in academia (Pulliam and Gonzalez, 2018; Stone et al., 2018; Vaughn et al., 2019; Canning et al., 2020; Chakraverty, 2022a,b,c).

Impostor phenomenon can impede the development of a sense of belonging in a field or domain, contributing to eventual departure from the academy (Chakraverty, 2022a). The phenomenon has been examined among different demographics in STEM, such as women (Vaughn et al., 2019), racial and/or ethnic minorities (Stone et al., 2018; Chakraverty, 2020a, 2022a,b), first-generation learners (Pulliam and Gonzalez, 2018; Canning et al., 2020), undergraduate students (Aycock et al., 2019; Peteet et al., 2015), and graduate students (Posselt, 2018; Chakraverty, 2020c; Cisco, 2020). Yet research examining impostor phenomenon among higher education faculty (especially in STEM) is sparse. Few studies have included faculty as a subsample (e.g., Vaughn et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2020), resulting in generic rather than faculty-specific findings. Overall, nine studies have specifically focused on faculty experiences of impostor phenomenon (Table 1), varying in their sample size (nine to 285 participants), data-collection instruments (both surveys and interviews), fields (STEM, music, social science, social work, radiology, and business), and other characteristics. A summary of relevant studies is presented here and in Table 1.

Impostor phenomenon among university faculty was documented as early as 1983, correlating positively with lower self-esteem, fear, self-doubt, and anxiety (Topping, 1983). Surveys from 112 faculty members at one U.S. institution also showed that impostor phenomenon was related to the teaching evaluation scores they received, advising relationships, discomfort considering themselves as mentors or role models, and mentoring a lower number of student advisees (Brems et al., 1994). Interviews with 52 UK-based business school faculty experiencing impostor phenomenon revealed that participants may be prone to insecurity, self-doubt, and thinking of academic failures as due to their professional incompetence or inadequacy; this could hamper identity development as successful academics based on their fit in a stressful, competitive environment (Knights and Clarke, 2014).

Surveys from 61 faculty members further showed that impostor phenomenon is related to lower research output, poor ability to secure extramural funding, poor performance of teaching and administrative duties, emotional exhaustion, and fears related to one’s tenure status (Hutchins, 2015). Interviews with 16 faculty members in STEM and non–STEM fields revealed specific antecedents of impostor phenomenon, including being questioned about one’s expertise, experiencing success, concerns about scholarly productivity, unfavorable comparisons with colleagues, receiving negative feedback on scholarship (e.g., academic writing and submitting research proposals), experiencing rejections, and difficulty with internalizing success (Hutchins and Rainbolt, 2017).

Impostor phenomenon has specifically been examined among early-career faculty pursuing research and teaching who experienced moderate to intense impostor phenomenon, especially in relation to research more than teaching (Sims and Cassidy, 2019). It has been examined among Black female faculty (e.g., Robinson, 2018; Fields and Cunningham-Williams, 2021), especially in relation to their job satisfaction, professional relationships, experiences of race-based microaggressions (Robinson, 2018), inauthentic self-presentation, and difficulties integrating in the predominantly White culture in academia (Fields and Cunningham-Williams, 2021). More recent research among radiology faculty at a medical center correlated impostor phenomenon with burnout (Deshmukh et al., 2022).

Overall, multiple survey studies have demonstrated faculty experiencing moderate, high, or intense impostor phenomenon in self-selected samples (Hutchins, 2015; Sims and Cassidy, 2019; Vaughn et al., 2019). While one study using 285 surveys reported higher impostor phenomenon among male university faculty (Topping, 1983), gender-based findings from other studies are inconclusive. Interestingly, among 1326 female academics (of whom 638 were tenure-track, tenured, non–tenure track, or part-time/contingent faculty), Vaughn and colleagues (2019) found that, at a mean of 62.5 out of 100 (moderate impostor phenomenon), 198 faculty members (all tenured) scored statistically significantly lower on the impostor phenomenon scale compared with master’s and PhD students.

The current study aims to address gaps in the understanding of impostor phenomenon at the faculty level, such as the lack of focus in STEM disciplines. While quantitative studies have found associations between impostor phenomenon and factors such as faculty rank, self-esteem, anxiety, teaching and advising, emotional exhaustion, and burnout, among others (Topping, 1983; Brems et al., 1994; Hutchins, 2015; Sims and Cassidy, 2019; Deshmukh et al., 2022), critical events or activities related to impostor phenomenon are underexplored. The research question that guided this inquiry was: “What kind of academic events or activities could contribute to faculty experiences of impostor phenomenon in STEM?”

Professional Identity Development

This study uses a framework of professional identity development among faculty members. Professional identity refers to social interactions in the academy whereby the actors (people holding certain identities) strive to distinguish themselves with their skills and competencies to align with certain professional values and practices (Adams et al., 2006). Professional identity development is an evolving, psychological process involving developing competencies and socializing in certain professional roles (Jarvis-Selinger et al., 2012). Socialization is the key to identity development wherein one learns to adapt to the expected norms and values of the profession (Cruess et al., 2014).

Doctoral training and experiences should ideally prepare individuals for their future paths to the professoriate through exposure to the skills and expectations required of a faculty job (Austin, 2002; Reybold, 2003). Many start preparing and training themselves for future faculty roles and learn how the professoriate works during doctoral training while closely working with faculty members during their dissertations (Austin, 2002; Reybold, 2003). Developing a faculty identity entails not just how to do research, but an understanding of departmental, institutional, and academic norms and development of scholarly and teaching identities (Reybold, 2003).

Professional identity construction occurs due to the interplay between “doing” and “being” (Pratt et al., 2006). Progressing from being a novice to an expert (from early faculty identity formation and acting the role of a faculty member to being a faculty member) involves self-determination, self-presentation, and internal validation based on academic experiences and competency development (Jarvis-Selinger et al., 2012). While producing new knowledge through research output and/or engaging in quality teaching remain the primary functions for many, the need to stay competitive globally and attract more students have forced many institutions to reshape faculty roles and responsibilities to include undertaking administrative services and procuring external research funding (Billot, 2010). The tensions between teaching and professional identity as a scientist may pose barriers to faculty pedagogical change due to the hierarchical signaling of research being prioritized over teaching, with faculty consequently developing primarily research (and not teaching) identities (Brownell and Tanner, 2012).

Impostor phenomenon could be closely tied to identity development (Clance and Imes, 1978; Bernard et al., 2018; Chakraverty, 2019; Chakraverty et al., 2022) and how faculty conduct themselves in their careers (Hutchins and Rainbolt, 2017). Research and teaching (along with professional outreach and administrative services) typically comprise the core of faculty work (Cadez et al., 2017). Transitioning from a PhD student to a faculty member (independent researcher) is a critical event involving significant role change; facing skepticism from colleagues, receiving negative reviews about one’s research (during grant and journal paper writing), and being questioned by students could make faculty members question their credibility and feel like impostors (Hutchins and Rainbolt, 2017). Additionally, impostor experiences could hamper faculty identity development in the face of stress, competition, and constant self-doubts about one’s worth and contribution to the academy (Knights and Clarke, 2014). Early-career (pre-tenure) faculty members in particular may question themselves and experience psychological distress (Dancy and Brown, 2011), lower productivity (Seritan and Mehta, 2016), and lower satisfaction (Neureiter and Traut-Mattausch, 2016).

Although Vaughn et al. (2019) had a mixed sample of 1326 women across all academic ranks (638, or 48%, of whom were faculty from different ranks), speculations about impostor phenomenon in relation to implications for faculty identity development are particularly interesting. Mean impostor sum scores of 66.8/100 indicated frequent impostor experiences, although with a large SD of 15.3 (including female faculty participants across all ranks). Higher impostor scores also correlated with lower perceived autonomy; lower relatedness; lower sense of competence; lower motivation to thrive; and the attribution of success to luck, a fluke, ease, or an advisor’s kindness rather than one’s own effort, ability, and family support. These factors, in addition to increased stress, multiple challenges to balancing work and family life, lower pay, gendered discrimination, and harassment, disproportionately pose more challenges to thriving in academia for women compared with men. This could affect the way women perceive and navigate academic roles, socializing and seeking support within their networks depending on whom they attribute their success or failure to.

Those experiencing impostor phenomenon have a distorted sense of their ability, competence, and achievement potential, often attributing success to unintentional fraudulence, getting lucky, receiving help from others, and factors extraneous to their capabilities (Chakraverty, 2019). They might be prone to insecurity, self-doubt, and attributing academic failures to their professional incompetence or inadequacy (Knights and Clarke, 2014). This could impact research output, ability to secure extramural funding, teaching, performing administrative duties (Hutchins, 2015), and identity development as a successful academic based on their fit in a stressful, competitive environment (Knights and Clarke, 2014). Impostor phenomenon is deeply tied to one’s cultural identity, personal identity, and science identity; many Native American scientists struggle to synergize all these identities (Chakraverty, 2022a). Because impostor phenomenon is deeply tied with different identities people hold salient, it is important to understand the manifestations of impostor phenomenon among higher education faculty, examining particular situations that could make them vulnerable to experiencing it.

METHODS

This study is a part of a larger, U.S.-based research study examining impostor phenomenon among several populations in STEM. In the larger study, data were collected twice using online surveys and one-on-one phone interviews from 2017 to 2018. The current study follows the same methodology. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Washington State University, a large, R1, public university in Pullman, WA.

Methodological Rationale of the Current Study

In the review of literature presented in Table 1, four out of the nine studies conducted interviews (sample size: nine to 52 faculty participants). The current study adopted a primarily qualitative approach through interviews in addition to some initial survey data collection to allow for an in-depth examination of the phenomenon. Overall, 68 participants from various STEM fields experiencing impostor phenomenon self-selected themselves to complete a survey; 56 of these participants also completed an interview (the rest either declined or did not respond to the interview invitation). Thus, a final sample of 56 surveys and corresponding interviews were used for data analysis. This methodology helped in answering the research question through an in-depth exploration of academic events or activities contributing to faculty experiences of impostor phenomenon in STEM. Survey data were used as a gatekeeping mechanism to ensure that only those who self-reported as experiencing impostor feelings participated in the interviews.

Participants and Data Collection

In 2018, the author used convenience sampling (Sadler et al., 2010) to identify and contact STEM faculty members of all ranks and demographic characteristics across the United States, requesting those who had experienced impostor phenomenon to complete an online survey. The survey link was hosted on the author’s university webpage along with information about the study and an operational definition of impostor phenomenon, that is, some individuals have difficulty owning their achievements and instead, fear being exposed as an impostor or fraud (Clance and Imes, 1978). An email with the study link and the author’s information was shared in email Listservs of professional societies (e.g., 500 Women Scientists and Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research), social media (e.g., LinkedIn), conferences (e.g., 2018 Annual Understanding Interventions that Broaden Participation in Science Careers conference), and the author’s professional contacts at various universities. All U.S.-based faculty members in STEM who have experienced impostor phenomenon were eligible to participate irrespective of their sex, race and/or ethnicity, age, current rank, or other demographic characteristics. Data were collected sequentially.

Online Survey.

Interested participants self-selected themselves to complete a onetime, online survey (5–7 minutes) with questions about their demographic backgrounds, 20 items from the validated Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (CIPS; Clance, 1985)¹ that were compulsory, and an open-ended question asking them about a recent experience of impostor phenomenon (no word limit). The open-ended question was asked to ensure that participants could articulate a personal experience based on their understanding of impostor phenomenon. The CIPS consisted of Likert-scale items with the following anchors: 1 = not at all, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, and 5 = very true; a total maximum score of 100 was possible. In the larger study, CIPS scores from 959 participants across fields and positions were analyzed to examine the psychometric properties of the scale (Lee et al., 2020).

Phone Interview.

In the last survey question, participants were asked if they would participate in a follow-up, one-on-one, optional telephone interview (∼30–40 minutes) to elaborate on their impostor experiences. Those interested voluntarily provided an email address at the end of the survey. The author promptly contacted them to schedule a semistructured interview. Interview questions were not related to their CIPS scores in the online survey (the CIPS scores were computed later). Those who mentioned in the survey that they did not feel like impostors were not contacted, even if they consented to be interviewed.

In the larger study, the author contacted three participants who had consented to be interviewed but had indicated in the survey that they did not feel like impostors. The interviews lasted only a few minutes, because none of the three participants were able to articulate experiences of impostor phenomenon. They shared participating in the study either because they wanted to learn more about the topic or because they wanted to support the author’s research, as it had been their experience that it was difficult to find study participants. None of these reasons were sufficient for participation in the study. After that, the author did not contact anyone who stated in the survey that they did not feel like an impostor.

The author developed interview questions based on her understanding of the literature gaps examining impostor phenomenon among faculty (Table 2; see also Chakraverty, 2022a, Table 1, for interview questions from another part of the larger study). Follow-up questions were asked as required. Two of the core aspects of faculty professional identity development guided the interview questions: 1) professional socialization and workplace interactions in relation to impostor experiences and support systems available (or not) for managing such experiences; and 2) specific activities faculty undertook such as research, teaching, administrative work, mentoring students, or others that could contribute to impostor experiences, and how. These aspects of faculty identity development have not been previously addressed in relation to impostor phenomenon. The interviews delved deeper into past situations when faculty felt like impostors.

At the conclusion of the interview, participants were requested to share the survey link within their academic networks to help the author find more participants through “snowball sampling” (Sadler et al., 2010). (survey → optional interview → sharing the survey link within one’s academic network). Data collection lasted 10 months, after which the author determined that adequate data had been collected for analysis and no new information would emerge if more interviews were conducted (Fusch and Ness, 2015). The interviews were transcribed through a professional transcribing company. There were no monetary incentives to participate in the study. The author conducted all the interviews.

Data Analyses

Survey.

Surveys captured demographic data about the interviewees. Additionally, individual item scores of the 20-item CIPS were added for each participant to compute total survey scores out of 100 indicating the extent to which participants felt like impostors (Clance, 1985). A higher total score indicated greater frequency and severity of impostor phenomenon. Scores ≤40 indicated few, 41–60 indicated moderate, 61–80 indicated high, and >80 indicated intense impostor experiences (Clance, 1985). CIPS scores were used to compute frequency, mean, and SD (descriptive statistics) for the current study sample, also presented in Table 3. Data were not included for the survey respondents who chose not to be interviewed.

Interview.

Interviews were coded using both a priori codes and emergent codes (Blair, 2015) and were analyzed to construct themes. After a first reading of all the interview transcripts, the author picked a priori codes from the larger study that were relevant in the current study (e.g., Chakraverty, 2020a,b,c). Examples of a priori codes used were: “judgment,” “fake,” “luck,” “deserve,” “belonging,” “mental health,” “fear,” and “conference.” Following this, the author individually read and coded the interviews with two PhD trainees from her university using both a priori codes and emergent codes developed after reading the transcripts (Blair, 2015). Examples of emergent codes included: “research,” “teaching,” “grant,” “evaluation,” “tenure,” “award,” “alienation,” “academic culture,” and “professional development.” These codes expanded the scope of our understanding of impostor phenomenon by going beyond its treatment as an individual, internal experience to consider oppressive academic climates that could activate it. The coders met three to four times during data analysis to discuss and resolve any differences in the understanding or interpretation of any segment of the interview and how codes could be applied to those segments. Using iterative comparison and inductive analysis, the interviews were analyzed to develop themes (Marshall and Rossman, 2014; Glaser and Strauss, 2017). For example, certain words or descriptions of those words or ideas in the transcript indicating codes such as “award,” “research award,” “teaching award,” “(self)-nomination,” “selection,” “apply,” “expertise,” “appreciation,” “spotlight,” “judged,” and “winning” were used to develop the third theme, “public recognition.” Using multiple modes of data collection helped in identifying participants with impostor phenomenon (by computing CIPS scores in the survey), which were further explicated using a constructivist approach (Creswell and Clark, 2017) during interviews through narrations of what it meant to experience impostor phenomenon (characterized from the operational definition of feeling lucky, fraudulent, fearful of being found out, discounting one’s abilities, and attributing success to others; Clance and Imes, 1978).

Strengths and Limitations

The present study examines, in detail, faculty narratives of impostor phenomenon. To the author’s knowledge, no prior study specifically focused on STEM disciplines has included faculty members of all ranks and used a sample of this size. Studies about impostor phenomenon among faculty are few (Table 1), representing participants from a few institutions within and outside STEM. Semistructured interviews allowed a deeper, more granular examination of the phenomenon (that survey studies do not).

Study limitations included a sample that is predominantly White and female (male participants and racial and/or ethnic minorities in STEM were underrepresented); the findings thus may not reflect the experiences of groups not represented in the study. Prior research in STEM shows that women may be more likely to experience impostor phenomenon than men (King and Cooley, 1995; Ivie and Ephraim, 2009; Ivie et al., 2016; Jöstl et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2020). This could explain the predominance of women in the sample. Second, due to the limitations of convenience and snowball sampling, participants are predominantly from universities with very high research focus (R1). Research shows that emotional distress and fear about achieving tenure could make faculty members vulnerable to impostor phenomenon (Hutchins, 2015), and pre-tenured faculty could be questioning their academic productivity, experiencing distress, and feeling like an impostor (Dancy and Brown, 2011; Seritan and Mehta, 2016). Narratives of faculty members from universities with a lower focus on research productivity are not well represented. Third, a onetime interview may not answer whether feelings of being an impostor persisted over time, or for how long. Fourth, only those who felt like impostors self-selected to participate; it is possible that those who did not experience impostor phenomenon may have also experienced similar challenges in research, teaching, and presenting themselves as faculty members. Fifth, the study did not interview those who may have left academia due to impostor phenomenon. Finally, qualitative findings are not generalizable across the larger population of U.S.-based faculty members in STEM. Future studies could focus on addressing some of these limitations.

Author Positionality

The author was a tenure-track faculty member at an R1 institution in the northwestern United States at the time of the study. As a faculty member, she was familiar with faculty experiences and had access to the faculty population. Her position, background, and experience of studying and working in the United States could have influenced how she conceptualized and conducted the study. The author identifies as female, person of color, immigrant, and non-native English speaker with graduate degrees in STEM and science education. She is a first-generation PhD and the only person in her family to hold a faculty position. She used reflexive journaling to document her possible biases. The memos she wrote after each interview became an audit trail highlighting key points discussed during the interview and her own interpretation of it. Documenting author positionality could help in addressing some of the study limitations. For example, the current sample is predominantly female and from R1 institutions, possibly because the author’s background enabled her to reach out to those with similar backgrounds.

Rigor and Trustworthiness

In addition to being cognizant of her positionality with respect to her research, the author undertook certain steps to improve the rigor and trustworthiness of the study. One, the interview questionnaire was kept simple and covered daily experiences of impostor phenomenon the participants described (Table 2). Two, the author shared interview transcripts with the respective participants, who could edit their responses to reflect accuracy (member checking; Birt et al., 2016) and have an agency in data analysis and presentation. Three, the author sought feedback from several faculty colleagues from her institution with expertise in qualitative research, conducting large-scale studies, and faculty development research while designing and implementing the study. Four, all interview questions were optional to be mindful of the potential discomfort participants could experience during the interview. The participants were informed at the beginning of the interview that they could refuse to answer any question that made them uncomfortable, stop the interview any time, and/or withdraw the transcript after the interview if they wished to. The author contacted each participant within 24 hours of the interview to ensure that they did not experience any psychological discomfort after the interview (none of them said that they did). Finally, the author created a Twitter handle during the study to apprise everyone (including the participants) of the scholarship that would be emerging out of this research, inviting all participants to connect with her, if interested. This was done intentionally to shift the author’s role from being a data extractor to a sharer of the knowledge that participants helped create (San Pedro and Kinloch, 2017).

FINDINGS

Fifty-six participants came from 42 higher education institutions (35 R1 universities or universities with very high research activity, four R2 universities or universities with high research activity, and three baccalaureate colleges) from 23 U.S. states and Washington, DC. This was based on the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (n.d.). Survey analysis (Table 3) revealed that participants were predominantly White and female. Emergent interview themes with participant quotes are presented below and in Table 4. Participants felt like impostors with respect to both conducting research (publishing, writing grants, and making conference presentations) and teaching (content knowledge and pedagogical practices). Five themes from interview analysis related to impostor phenomenon: 1) peer comparison, 2) faculty evaluation, 3) public recognition, 4) the anticipatory fear of not knowing, and, 5) a perceived lack of competency (Table 4). To ensure anonymity, faculty rank or department is not mentioned unless it was a part of a quote or needed for context. However, participant rank, pseudonym, and field are presented in Table 5.

Theme 1: Peer Comparison

Individuals tend to self-evaluate and contextualize their competencies and characteristics by comparing themselves with their peers in a social setting (Festinger, 1954). Such comparisons could be conscious or subconscious, used to asses one’s abilities accurately for career advancement. In this study, participants from all ranks compared themselves unfavorably with their peers, feeling insecure, unworthy, incompetent, and with nothing valuable to offer. Transitioning from being a PhD student or postdoctorate to a faculty member made participants feel unqualified, mistakenly selected, and like impostors. Sarah, like many others, expressed surprise at even being selected for a faculty interview, deeming herself less competent or less deserving than other applicants from better-ranked universities. Emily experienced anxiety and panic attacks before interviews. To grapple with these panic attacks, she prepared weeks in advance:

Research.

Participants receiving research funding doubted themselves, suspecting that the grant that funded their research was poorly written and not as competitive. On receiving federal funding, Jane felt, “My colleagues earned it and I was not a real contributor to our success. I did not have the same level of experience in that application as they did.” Jane, Martha, and Rose felt surprised at receiving the National Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER Award, the most prestigious award for early-career faculty members. Jane felt she received the grant “because my name sounds a lot like a peer of mine who works at an Ivy League University and our research areas overlap a bit.” Even as an associate professor with many years of grant-writing experience, Lucy experienced self-doubt and felt undeserving of the NSF grant she had recently received, explaining, “My research is not as high-level, and I do not work particularly fast compared with many colleagues.” Amy shared that she did not deserve the prestigious National Institutes of Health (NIH) Pathway to Independence Award (a K99 Career Transition Award) after a postdoc, because she felt she was less productive compared with her colleagues. “It seems like others of equal rank have an easier time bringing things to completion or know how to negotiate papers into publication,” she added.

Ellen felt like a “lone wolf” for not being at a top institution. “There are large centers that get multimillion-dollar funding for this [research] and here we are in a small academic institution. It’s difficult to break through in such a highly competitive area. So you wonder, ‘Should you be there?’” Grace felt a lack of belonging because her peers

Roger felt that his peers were brighter, with longer curricula vitae and more success to show, because they were “always in their labs talking about some obscure scientific stuff.” On being promoted to associate professor, Claudia felt like “I had not accomplished nearly as much as others who were promoted. If I’m a leader in this field, my field has some problems.” Cynthia felt overwhelmed at conferences, because others there seemed more competent. She spoke in particular about a peer:

Teaching.

Participants felt inferior when comparing themselves with other teachers who they thought taught better. Some felt that, when they shared their teaching and/or classroom management challenges, their peers were dismissive, indifferent, or replied that they do not face such issues. There was a lack of support system for those who were new teachers. Sharon, a faculty since 3 years, shared:

Theme 2: Faculty Evaluation

Faculty evaluations for tenure, promotion, and career advancement are mainly dependent on two factors: research productivity and teaching quality (Cadez et al., 2017). The anticipation of such evaluation made some participants judge themselves negatively. They felt that they were not good enough, not producing enough work, and were impostors. Tenure evaluations and annual reviews caused stress. The tenure-track journey seemed particularly lonely; some questioned their value or contribution to the field, because their papers and grant applications were frequently rejected. Michelle spoke about a toxic academic culture where people are told that they are not good enough and rarely get the recognition they deserve, adding,

Even approvals or positive reinforcements did not necessarily quell these fears. On receiving positive feedback, Sonia wondered if she got lucky because the reviewers had not noticed the flaws in her research.

Research.

Conducting research involves creative problem solving and thinking of new and interesting ideas, all of which requires not only hard work, but creativity and luck. Some doubted their ability to conduct research, were self-critical of their ideas, and felt others were better at conducting research and generating data. Others feared that someone might challenge their research findings and call them a fraud, questioning their faculty positions. Jennifer shared:

Ellen described the constant evaluation of everything she did that heightened her impostor phenomenon. She had to be productive all the time.

Writing grants made faculty members of all ranks feel like impostors. Competitive grants had high rates of rejection, which some internalized as incompetence, doubting their effort and the quality of their work. Bill shared, “You learn to have a thick skin and grow with criticism, but there is still that feeling of being constantly rejected.” Faculty members across all ranks felt inadequate when applying for large grants, especially when it entailed proposing partnerships with colleagues well known in the field. Some worried about being entrusted with a lot of money to produce something novel, fearing that their ideas were not worth funding. Even those with many years of grant-writing experience felt like impostors. Megan shared that, while her grant received excellent scores,

Frank shared that unconstructive peer reviews in particular made him experience impostor phenomenon:

Such fears induced self-doubt, procrastination, and a fear that Frank was clueless about the idea he had proposed. Liz shared, “This leads me to read, and reread repeatedly. I find myself cramming. It seems like an inefficient and grueling process.”

Harsh journal reviews made some participants feel judged, experiencing a dissonance between how they versus the peer reviewers perceived their research. “I really thought that this was high-quality work, but this is really not what is good in the field and I got totally smacked down. I’m just not calibrated appropriately. The reviewer of my paper completely shred[ded] everything,” Shirley shared. It took her months to work on the reviews objectively. Instead of viewing herself as a field expert, she let the rejection define her potential as a scientist, feeling like she did not know what she was doing and was not good enough. Ronald shared:

Receiving harsh reviews affected productivity. A publication was viewed as permanent record, putting one’s work out there for colleagues to judge. Monica wondered:

Presenting research at conferences (in front of an audience) caused anxiety, making some uncomfortable for being in the spotlight and fearful of being evaluated harshly. Jessica expressed this fear:

Many felt overwhelmed and anxious about meeting well-known members of their fields at conferences. David shared, “Whenever I’m meeting somebody new, I’m always wondering, ‘Are they laughing on the inside?,’ or ‘Are they judging me?,’ and because of that, I can never remember somebody’s name.” The spontaneity of these interactions were nerve-racking, “chatting with people that you’ve never met, hoping that you don’t somehow slip up and reveal your lack of knowledge.”

Faculty members with certain personality traits feared in-person interaction and talking about their research in front of an audience. Mary shared,

Such fears and anxieties had health repercussions, including insomnia. Jerry did not sleep for 3 days before a conference.

David described the fear of freezing while answering questions. He would tend to remember the image of someone who intimidated him during his talks, adding, “I haven’t frozen in a long time, but it’s always there as a possibility.”

Teaching.

Teaching undergraduate and/or graduate courses made some feel underqualified and like an impostor, especially for new faculty members who received little formal training in teaching during their PhD/postdoctorate. Nina taught an upper-division genetics lab, and “despite my entire career using transgenic model systems of Drosophila and finishing my postdoc in a quantitative genetics lab, I feel that I’m just waiting for them to realize that they have made a mistake.”

Other participants felt like impostors because of new pedagogical approaches they used. Naomi tried new ways of making her teaching more interesting, but feared things may not have been taught before this way and somebody might question why she was doing that. “When I’m teaching, I worry about it. I have to go back and find evidence-based practices. Kinda doing the new things, that’s when I’m most likely to feel like an impostor.”

Theme 3: Public Recognition

In academia, it is common practice to publicly recognize meritorious work through competitive, prestigious awards (Bazner et al., 2021). Faculty members felt like impostors after receiving public recognition in the form of awards (both research and teaching awards), criticizing themselves for not having worked hard enough to get recognition. “Definitely any time that there is an award coming my way, that’s when the impostor syndrome attacks,” Grace shared. Many felt reluctant to even apply for awards. Paula shared, “The issue is that I don’t apply for awards to begin with. I can think of many instances of awards that allow self-nominations for which I may have qualified, but I never have the guts to apply.”

Research Awards.

Faculty members of all ranks felt undeserving and uncomfortable when nominated for awards in recognition of their research, feeling less qualified than others who won in previous years. Joanna shared, “I had done the entirety of the analysis and worried that my conclusions were wrong due to ignorance. I’m not a subject matter expert and felt like the scientific contribution was perhaps not as great as I hoped.” Ellen felt like an impostor on receiving a national award “given to the top 2% among 1200 applicants for presenting a topic that was innovative, transformative, providing a significant contribution to the discipline.”

Teaching Awards.

Those who got teaching awards suspected that their student evaluations must not have been strong enough and that they received the award because few people were considered for it. “I did not feel that I was a strong candidate for the award,” shared Robert, who was chosen for the highest university-wide teaching award, adding, “I put in a lot of effort, but continually feel I fall short as a teacher due to being behind in grading, making mistakes.” On getting the “Outstanding Teaching Award,” Monica shared:

Additionally, some faculty members felt like impostors when appreciated by their students. Sonia felt uncomfortable when students regarded her as their favorite teacher, adding, “Those activities where I’m getting compliments and awards worsen impostor syndrome. It has nothing to do with me. Any kind of recognition is really hard for me.”

Theme 4: The Anticipatory Fear of Not Knowing

Fear of the unknown is considered one of the oldest and strongest fears that is associated with distress due to perceived unknowns or perceived lack of information (Carleton, 2016). In the current study, participants felt like impostors when there was a fear and anxiety in anticipation of not knowing certain things despite being experts in their respective fields. For example, when regarded as an expert in the field, Tara feared:

Research.

Participants feared not fully understanding others’ research during conference presentations. Becky shared, “You feel like you should be understanding what’s going on, but not quite, that can definitely cause impostor syndrome. Just talking with people about their research makes me feel pretty overwhelmed. Everybody’s gonna know the answers except me.” At conferences, participants feared being asked spontaneous questions that could expose their weaknesses and lack of knowledge in the field. Aria feared:

Lynne shared similar anxieties, not knowing different theoretical frameworks used in others’ research, hesitating to ask questions, because others could judge her as an impostor. She added, “I dread it, I wouldn’t understand half of it and couldn’t ask questions because everyone would think I was stupid. I would just hate that I come off being like, ‘What am I doing here?’”

Aria shared that while interacting with other mathematicians,

Teaching.

Teaching was viewed as a performance; participants felt they should know all the facts and be able to perform well. “Getting up in front of the class. Even though I’ve been teaching for so long, I still feel like I should be doing better than I do,” Kari shared.

To compensate for impostor feelings, some overprepared their lectures, using multiple textbooks to be ready for any student question. While teaching, Tara might “have to field questions from students or have to explain a complicated topic in the best way possible. Those are spikes in my impostor syndrome.”

Participants felt they did not always know how to teach well or who to ask for help. When something did not work, either due to lack of experience or trying something for the first time, participants berated themselves, considering it to be their fault. Some felt anxious about not being able to be answer student questions. Maya dreaded being asked questions, sharing:

Theme 5: A Perceived Lack of Competency

Participants tended to feel like impostors when they believed that they lacked core competencies as a faculty member in some of the important areas of their profession, such as research and teaching. Some were surprised at getting a faculty position and doubted if they had the skills to keep their job, succeed, earn tenure, and get promoted. Jay, who did not think he deserved a faculty position even after 3 years of being a faculty member, summarized the constant self-doubt he experienced, sharing:

Research.

Some participants doubted their own research competencies. Adam shared:

Those who did not prolifically publish felt like impostors. Some were not confident about their articulation and communication skills/style. Roger feared, “I feel like I have knowledge, but I don’t have the words to say it yet. They’re gonna know how inarticulate I am. Written communication is not my area. I doubt my ability to communicate.” Some felt they did not deserve the federal grants they received because of their inability to publish as much as their peers. Others worried about not being able to keep up with multiple projects, grant writing, and publishing. Annie felt that she was involved superficially in a number of projects, adding, “I worry that I can’t keep up. There’s so much literature out there. It’s publishing and trying to keep up with the evolving field where I feel the most impostor syndrome.”

Finding a position was a long and challenging process, and in spite of obtaining grants (such as a K99 transitional grant), participants wondered if they were competent. Those who were in a department different from their PhD specialization also felt like impostors. Zeenat explained, “This position was not entirely in my field and was quite a stretch for me given my educational background.” To explain the extent of her fears, Fiona explained:

For some faculty members, such fears persisted over time, even after being promoted. Karen added, “I still feel like I’m the faculty member with the least value. They must have lost all the other better candidate files at some point.” Participants continued to feel insecure even when they received affirmation from colleagues. Linda shared, “I question myself every day if I’m capable of this. My colleagues tell me I’m doing a good job, but I worry that they have rose-colored glasses and a very unrealistic view of me.”

Interestingly, some who described research as difficult were less critical of their teaching. Fiona shared,

Teaching.

Content-wise, those who taught a new course or had not taught specific content in a long time felt like impostors. Natasha, who was teaching cellular respiration for the first time in 10 years since she studied it herself, shared, “I got the basics, the equation, but I didn’t know the nitty-gritty of that to go on, so I totally felt like an impostor in front of my students.” She felt nervous about the course content, which was exhausting. While teaching an upper-level class on plant identification, Susan experienced impostor phenomenon, because she was new to the area and did not know the native plants very well. She explained:

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

In this study, the following themes were constructed based on faculty experiences in relation to their impostor experiences in research and teaching in STEM: peer comparison, faculty evaluation, public recognition, the anticipatory fear of not knowing, and a perceived lack of competency. This study has two unique contributions to the literature. First, it shows that antecedents of the impostor phenomenon could be similar for academics across the STEM pipeline (e.g., PhD students, postdoctorates, and faculty). This is supported by findings from the larger study, in which PhD students and postdoctorates in STEM who experienced impostor phenomenon were interviewed (Chakraverty, 2020b,c). Findings indicated some of the common antecedents of impostor phenomenon. This includes a fear of public recognition (e.g., receiving awards), comparing oneself unfavorably with one’s peers, fear of public speaking or scientific writing, hesitation to apply knowledge, and feeling undeserving of and unqualified for a role. It is possible that such insecurities around lack of research competencies or identity development as a scholar may be long-term for those experiencing impostor phenomenon. Addressing this phenomenon early on among PhD students and postdoctorates (some of whom are future faculty members) might ensure that more faculty learn to manage their impostor feelings or fewer faculty experience impostor phenomenon in the first place. Interestingly, a survey study with 1326 women in academia across all ranks showed a moderate degree of impostor phenomenon among tenured faculty (mean 62.53/100), master’s students (mean 67.79/100), and doctoral students (mean 69.31/100; Vaughn et al., 2019). While there is some overlap between the findings of the current study with that of Hutchins and Rainbolt’s (2017) study that interviewed 16 faculty members across two institutions, the current study made an in-depth examination of experiences across all faculty ranks and identified additional themes such as faculty evaluation, public recognition, the anticipatory fear of not knowing, and a perceived lack of competency.

Second, even among faculty members of different ranks and experience levels, antecedents of the impostor phenomenon could be similar, characterized by a persistent fear of being exposed as incompetent or incapable. This could have implications for professional development activities for PhD students and early-career researchers, which could be tailored to address both competency development (writing, public speaking, teaching) and improving sense of belonging through better support systems, mentorship, role modeling, networking, and community building.

Impostor phenomenon could be prevalent in hypercompetitive academic environments with a culture of “publish or perish,” where achievement goals are often open-ended and undefined, publications take a long time, and funding and support systems are sparse (Hutchins, 2015). This may make those from the marginalized groups, such as women and racial and/or ethnic minorities, question their place in the profession (Clance and Imes, 1978; Martinez et al., 2007; Sheltzer and Smith, 2014; Jöstl et al., 2015; Vaughn et al., 2019). Many faculty members, especially early career faculty, experience impostor phenomenon because of the nature of academia, where achievements are celebrated but failures are not normalized, leading to feelings of inadequacy and a distorted view of one’s abilities (Woolston, 2016). Further, the anticipatory fear of the unknown is associated with certain maladaptive responses that tend to overestimate threat, increase one’s reactivity to uncertainty, and trigger avoidance mechanisms, such as avoiding social interactions (Carleton, 2016).

A somewhat overlooked facet is how external environments could contribute to impostor phenomenon. The larger study found that, despite being portrayed as an internal phenomenon, external, negative academic environments, including sexual and nonsexual harassment, could make women experience impostor phenomenon (Chakraverty and Rishi, 2022). Additionally, faculty members of all genders experienced academic incivility from their students (Lampman, 2012), rendering the emergence of these insecurities neutral to authoritarian relationships or power differences (Limeri et al., 2019). Faculty members who experience negative academic environments may avoid activities that involve their interaction with students, such as supervision and mentoring; they may lecture more (rather than using student-centered, active-learning practices); they may discourage student questions, and consequently, they may be seen as less-effective teachers and rated poorly on their teaching evaluations (Brems et al., 1994).

A strong identity and a sense of belonging are key to success in a field (Alston et al., 2017; Strange, 2020). While examining professional socialization in relation to faculty identity development, impostor phenomenon (that is described as a personal experience) could be viewed as stemming from negative academic environments and interactions in which some fail to see themselves thriving despite their competencies (e.g., women in male-dominated fields; Chakraverty and Rishi, 2022), racial and/or ethnic minorities at predominantly White institutions (Chakraverty, 2022a), and education researchers working with science researchers (Chakraverty, 2021). Integration into a profession could be influenced by organizational cultures; socialization experiences could vary by one’s identity and professional environment (Felder et al., 2014). Prior research has identified several challenges to developing an identity and belongingness in STEM, including the lack of adequate mentoring, networking opportunities, professional development, and support while transitioning between jobs or training phases (Butts et al., 2012; Thomas et al., 2015; Chakraverty et al., 2018, 2022). Mentorship support could be especially valuable for women in improving their retention and advancement, providing scholarly support (e.g., in grant writing), reducing isolation through informational and psychosocial support (Chesler et al., 2010), and helping them manage their impostor feelings.

CONCLUSION

Key challenges in strengthening the STEM workforce include an oversupply of PhD students and postdoctorates with fewer faculty positions available and a workforce that is predominantly male and White, especially at research-intensive institutions. Women and people of color are underrepresented, especially in higher ranks in the professoriate, and are more impacted by lack of career flexibility (Alberts et al., 2014; Villablanca et al., 2011). This signals a perception that faculty careers are meant only for a few from specific backgrounds, which might deter those from underrepresented and marginalized backgrounds to aspire for a faculty career. That, along with a hypercompetitive environment, expectations of high research productivity (Horta, 2009), and an undefined training time spanning over a decade (Kaplan, 2012), adds to the complexity of meeting the needs of the workforce (PCAST, 2012). While considerable effort is put into broadening interest and participation in STEM careers (Dabney et al., 2012; Dasgupta and Stout, 2014), it is also important to focus our attention on those individuals already in STEM careers who may not be achieving their fullest potential because of several traits related to impostor phenomenon (Chakraverty, 2013). A deeper examination of how impostor phenomenon manifests among faculty members will not only help in designing tailored mentorship and professional development opportunities for them, but also for PhD students and postdoctorates who will constitute the future faculty workforce.

FOOTNOTES

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

REFERENCES