Dataset Information

Women in Academic Medicine: Measuring Stereotype Threat Among Junior Faculty.

ABSTRACT: Gender stereotypes in science impede supportive environments for women. Research suggests that women's perceptions of these environments are influenced by stereotype threat (ST): anxiety faced in situations where one may be evaluated using negative stereotypes. This study developed and tested ST metrics for first time use with junior faculty in academic medicine.Under a 2012 National Institutes of Health Pathfinder Award, Stanford School of Medicine's Office of Diversity and Leadership, working with experienced clinicians, social scientists, and epidemiologists, developed and administered ST measures to a representative group of junior faculty.174 School of Medicine junior faculty were recruited (62% women, 38% men; 75% assistant professors, 25% instructors; 50% white, 40% Asian, 10% underrepresented minority). Women reported greater susceptibility to ST than did men across all items including ST vulnerability (p < 0.001); rejection sensitivity (p = 0.001); gender identification (p < 0.001); perceptions of relative potential (p = 0.048); and, sense of belonging (p = 0.049). Results of career-related consequences of ST were more nuanced. Compared with men, women reported lower beliefs in advancement (p = 0.021); however, they had similar career interest and identification, felt just as connected to colleagues, and were equally likely to pursue careers outside academia (all p > 0.42).Innovative ST metrics can provide a more complete picture of academic medical center environments. While junior women faculty are susceptible to ST, they may not yet experience all of its consequences in their early careers. As such, ST metrics offer a tool for evaluating institutional initiatives to increase supportive environments for women in academic medicine.

SUBMITTER: Fassiotto M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4790213 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Women in Academic Medicine: Measuring Stereotype Threat Among Junior Faculty.

Fassiotto Magali M Hamel Elizabeth Otto EO Ku Manwai M Correll Shelley S Grewal Daisy D Lavori Philip P Periyakoil V J VJ Reiss Allan A Sandborg Christy C Walton Gregory G Winkleby Marilyn M Valantine Hannah H

Journal of women's health (2002) 20151110 3

<h4>Background</h4>Gender stereotypes in science impede supportive environments for women. Research suggests that women's perceptions of these environments are influenced by stereotype threat (ST): anxiety faced in situations where one may be evaluated using negative stereotypes. This study developed and tested ST metrics for first time use with junior faculty in academic medicine.<h4>Methods</h4>Under a 2012 National Institutes of Health Pathfinder Award, Stanford School of Medicine's Office of ...[more]

PMID: 26555562

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceBecause mentorship is critical for professional development and career advancement, it is essential to examine the status of mentorship and identify challenges that junior surgical faculty (assistant and associate professors) face obtaining effective mentorship.ObjectiveTo evaluate the mentorship experience for junior surgical faculty and highlight areas for improvement.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study was an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study including an anonymous survey on mentorship followed by semistructured interviews to expand on survey findings. Junior surgical faculty from 18 US academic surgery programs were included in the anonymous survey and interviews. Survey responses between "formal" (assigned by the department) vs "informal" (sought out by the faculty) mentors and male vs female junior faculty were compared using χ2 tests. Interview responses were analyzed for themes until thematic saturation was achieved. Survey responses were collected from November 2022 to August 2023, and interviews conducted from July to December 2023.ExposureMentorship from formal and/or informal mentors.Main outcomes and measuresSurvey gauged the availability and satisfaction with formal and informal mentorship; interviews assessed broad themes regarding mentorship.ResultsOf 825 survey recipients, 333 (40.4%) responded; 155 (51.7%) were male and 134 (44.6%) female. Nearly all respondents (319 [95.8%]) agreed or strongly agreed that mentorship is important to their surgical career, especially for professional networking (309 respondents [92.8%]), career advancement (301 [90.4%]), and research (294 [88.3%]). However, only 58 respondents (18.3%) had a formal mentor. More female than male faculty had informal mentors (123 [91.8%] vs 123 [79.4%]; P = .003). Overall satisfaction was higher with informal mentorship than formal mentorship (221 [85.0%] vs 40 [69.0%]; P = .01). Most male and female faculty reported no preferences in gender or race and ethnicity for their mentors. When asked if they had good mentor options if they wanted to change mentors, 141 (47.8%) responded no. From the interviews (n = 20), 6 themes were identified, including absence of mentorship infrastructure, preferred mentor characteristics, and optimizing mentorship.Conclusions and relevanceAcademic junior surgical faculty agree mentorship is vital to their careers. However, this study found that few had formal mentors and almost half need more satisfactory options if they want to change mentors. Academic surgical programs should adopt a framework for facilitating mentorship and optimize mentor-mentee relationships through alignment of mentor-mentee goals and needs.

Project description:IntroductionDespite the increasing diversity of individuals entering medicine, physicians from racial and sexual minority groups continue to experience bias and discrimination in the workplace. The objective of this study was to determine the current experiences and perceptions of discrimination on the basis of race and sexual orientation among academic emergency medicine (EM) faculty.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of EM faculty across six programs. Survey items included the Overt Gender Discrimination at Work (OGDW) Scale adapted for race and sexual orientation, and the frequency and source of experienced and observed discrimination. Group comparisons were made using t-tests or chi-square analyses, and relationships between race or sexual orientation, and we evaluated physicians' experiences using correlation analyses.ResultsA total of 141 out of 352 (40.1%) subjects completed at least a portion of the survey. Non-White physicians reported higher mean racial OGDW scores than their White counterparts (13.4 vs 8.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference, -7.7 - -2.9). Non-White EM faculty were also more likely to report having experienced discriminatory treatment based on race than were White EM faculty (48.0% vs 12.6%; CI for difference, 16.6% - 54.2%), although both groups were equally likely to report having observed race-based discrimination of another physician. EM faculty who identified as sexual minorities reported higher mean sexual minority OGDW scores than their heterosexual counterparts (11.1 vs 7.1; 95% CI for difference, -7.3 - -0.6). There were no significant differences between sexual minority and heterosexual faculty in their reports of experiencing or observing discrimination based on sexual orientation.ConclusionEM faculty from racial and sexual minority groups perceived more discrimination based on race or sexual orientation in their workplace than their majority counterparts. EM faculty regardless of race or sexual orientation were similar in their observations of discriminatory treatment of another physician based on race or sexual orientation.

Dataset Information

Women in Academic Medicine: Measuring Stereotype Threat Among Junior Faculty.

Publications

Women in Academic Medicine: Measuring Stereotype Threat Among Junior Faculty.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets