Women Faculty Distressed: Descriptions and Consequences of Academic Contrapower Harassment.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lampman C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5322483 | biostudies-other | 2016
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC4790213 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFor more than two decades, national career development programs (CDPs) have addressed underrepresentation of women faculty in academic medicine through career and leadership curricula. We evaluated CDP participation impact on retention.MethodsWe used Association of American Medical Colleges data to compare 3268 women attending CDPs from 1988 to 2008 with 17,834 women and 40,319 men nonparticipant faculty similar to CDP participants in degree, academic rank, first year of appointment in rank, and home institution. Measuring from first year in rank to departure from last position held or December 2009 (study end date), we used Kaplan-Meier curves; Cox survival analysis adjusted for age, degree, tenure, and department; and 10-year rates to compare retention.ResultsCDP participants were significantly less likely to leave academic medicine than their peers for up to 8 years after appointment as Assistant and Associate Professors. Full Professor participants were significantly less likely to leave than non-CDP women. Men left less often than non-CDP women at every rank. Participants attending more than one CDP left less often than those attending one, but results varied by rank. Patterns of switching institutions after 10 years varied by rank; CDP participants switched significantly less often than men at Assistant and Associate Professor levels and significantly less often than non-CDP women among Assistant Professors. Full Professors switched at equal rates.ConclusionNational CDPs appear to offer retention advantage to women faculty, with implications for faculty performance and capacity building within academic medicine. Intervals of retention advantage for CDP participants suggest vulnerable periods for intervention.
| S-EPMC4939381 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5526590 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC11375519 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7514380 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeFew researchers have explored the negotiation experiences of academic medical faculty even though negotiation is crucial to their career success. The authors sought to understand medical faculty researchers' experiences with and perceptions of negotiation.MethodBetween February 2010 and August 2011, the authors conducted semistructured, in-depth telephone interviews with 100 former recipients of National Institutes of Health mentored career development awards and 28 of their mentors. Purposive sampling ensured a diverse range of viewpoints. Multiple analysts thematically coded verbatim transcripts using qualitative data analysis software.ResultsParticipants described the importance of negotiation in academic medical careers but also expressed feeling naïve and unprepared for these negotiations, particularly as junior faculty. Award recipients focused on power, leverage, and strategy, and they expressed a need for training and mentorship to learn successful negotiation skills. Mentors, by contrast, emphasized the importance of flexibility and shared interests in creating win-win situations for both the individual faculty member and the institution. When faculty construed negotiation as adversarial and/or zero-sum, participants believed it required traditionally masculine traits and perceived women to be at a disadvantage.ConclusionsAcademic medical faculty often lack the skills and knowledge necessary for successful negotiation, especially early in their careers. Many view negotiation as an adversarial process of the sort that experts call "hard positional bargaining." Increasing awareness of alternative negotiation techniques (e.g., "principled negotiation," in which shared interests, mutually satisfying options, and fair standards are emphasized) may encourage the success of medical faculty, particularly women.
| S-EPMC3699307 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The authors conducted a prospective longitudinal study from 2009 to 2016 to assess the short and long-term impact of a formal mentorship program on junior faculty satisfaction and productivity. Junior faculty mentees enrolled in the program and junior faculty without formal mentorship were administered surveys before and after the program to assess satisfaction with their mentoring experiences. Long-term retention, promotion, and funding data were also collected. Twenty-three junior faculty mentees and 91 junior faculty controls were included in the study. Mentees came from the Departments of Radiation Oncology and Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Management. After participating in the mentorship program, mentees demonstrated an increase in satisfaction from baseline in five of seven domains related to mentoring, while controls experienced no significant change in satisfaction in six of the seven domains. At long-term follow up, mentees were more likely than controls to hold senior faculty positions (percent senior faculty: 47% vs. 13%, p = 0.030) despite no difference in initial administrative rank. When comparing the subset of faculty who were Instructors at baseline, mentees were more likely to be funded and/or promoted than controls (p = 0.030). A majority of mentees reported that the program strengthened their long-term success, and many maintained their original mentoring relationships and formed new ones, highlighting the strong culture of mentorship that was instilled. Several short-term and long-term benefits were fostered from this formal mentorship program. These findings highlight the potential impact of mentorship programs in propagating a culture of mentorship and excellence.
| S-EPMC6264475 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStudies demonstrate that women physicians are less likely than men to be full professors. Comprehensive evidence examining whether sex differences in faculty rank exist in academic cardiology, adjusting for experience and research productivity, is lacking. Therefore, we evaluated for sex differences in faculty rank among a comprehensive, contemporary cohort of US cardiologists after adjustment for several factors that impact academic advancement, including measures of clinical experience and research productivity.MethodsWe identified all US cardiologists with medical school faculty appointments in 2014 by using the American Association of Medical Colleges faculty roster and linked this list to a comprehensive physician database from Doximity, a professional networking website for doctors. Data on physician age, sex, years since residency, cardiology subspecialty, publications, National Institutes of Health grants, and registered clinical trials were available for all academic cardiologists. We estimated sex differences in full professorship, adjusting for these factors and medical school-specific fixed effects in a multivariable regression model.ResultsAmong 3810 cardiologists with faculty appointments in 2014 (13.3% of all US cardiologists), 630 (16.5%) were women. Women faculty were younger than men (mean age, 48.3 years versus 53.5 years, P<0.001), had fewer total publications (mean number: 16.5 publications versus 25.2 publications; P<0.001), were similarly likely to have National Institutes of Health funding (proportion with at least 1 National Institutes of Health award, 10.8% versus 10.4%; P=0.77), and were less likely to have a registered clinical trial (percentage with at least 1 clinical trial, 8.9% versus 11.1%; P=0.10). Among 3180 men, 973 (30.6%) were full professors in comparison with 100 (15.9%) of 630 women. In adjusted analyses, women were less likely to be full professors than men (adjusted odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.94; P=0.02; adjusted proportions, 22.7% versus 26.7%; absolute difference, -4.0%; 95% confidence interval, -7.5% to -0.7%).ConclusionsAmong cardiology faculty at US medical schools, women were less likely than men to be full professors after accounting for several factors known to influence faculty rank.
| S-EPMC5308800 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite long-running efforts to increase gender diversity among tenured and tenure-track faculty in the U.S., women remain underrepresented in most academic fields, sometimes dramatically so. Here, we quantify the relative importance of faculty hiring and faculty attrition for both past and future faculty gender diversity using comprehensive data on the training and employment of 268,769 tenured and tenure-track faculty rostered at 12,112U.S. PhD-granting departments, spanning 111 academic fields between 2011 and 2020. Over this time, we find that hiring had a far greater impact on women's representation among faculty than attrition in the majority (90.1%) of academic fields, even as academia loses a higher share of women faculty relative to men at every career stage. Finally, we model the impact of five specific policy interventions on women's representation, and project that eliminating attrition differences between women and men only leads to a marginal increase in women's overall representation-in most fields, successful interventions will need to make substantial and sustained changes to hiring in order to reach gender parity.
| S-EPMC11236417 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although several studies have shown that marijuana use can adversely affect academic achievement among adolescents, less research has focused on its impact on postsecondary educational outcomes. This study utilized data from a large longitudinal cohort study of college students to test the direct and indirect effects of marijuana use on college grade point average (GPA) and time to graduation, with skipping class as a mediator of these outcomes. A structural equation model was evaluated taking into account a variety of baseline risk and protective factors (i.e., demographics, college engagement, psychological functioning, alcohol and other drug use) thought to contribute to college academic outcomes. The results showed a significant path from baseline marijuana use frequency to skipping more classes at baseline to lower first-semester GPA to longer time to graduation. Baseline measures of other drug use and alcohol quantity exhibited similar indirect effects on GPA and graduation time. Over time, the rate of change in marijuana use was negatively associated with rate of change in GPA, but did not account for any additional variance in graduation time. Percentage of classes skipped was negatively associated with GPA at baseline and over time. Thus, even accounting for demographics and other factors, marijuana use adversely affected college academic outcomes, both directly and indirectly through poorer class attendance. Results extend prior research by showing that marijuana use during college can be a barrier to academic achievement. Prevention and early intervention might be important components of a comprehensive strategy for promoting postsecondary academic achievement.
| S-EPMC4586361 | biostudies-literature