A global call for action to include gender in research impact assessment.

Global investment in biomedical research has grown significantly over the last decades, reaching approximately a quarter of a trillion US dollars in 2010. However, not all of this investment is distributed evenly by gender. It follows, arguably, that scarce research resources may not be optimally invested (by either not supporting the best science or by failing to investigate topics that benefit women and men equitably). Women across the world tend to be significantly underrepresented in research both as researchers and research participants, receive less research funding, and appear less frequently than men as authors on research publications. There is also some evidence that women are relatively disadvantaged as the beneficiaries of research, in terms of its health, societal and economic impacts. Historical gender biases may have created a path dependency that means that the research system and the impacts of research are biased towards male researchers and male beneficiaries, making it inherently difficult (though not impossible) to eliminate gender bias. In this commentary, we - a group of scholars and practitioners from Africa, America, Asia and Europe - argue that gender-sensitive research impact assessment could become a force for good in moving science policy and practice towards gender equity. Research impact assessment is the multidisciplinary field of scientific inquiry that examines the research process to maximise scientific, societal and economic returns on investment in research. It encompasses many theoretical and methodological approaches that can be used to investigate gender bias and recommend actions for change to maximise research impact. We offer a set of recommendations to research funders, research institutions and research evaluators who conduct impact assessment on how to include and strengthen analysis of gender equity in research impact assessment and issue a global call for action.

Addressing disparities in academic medicine: what of the minority tax?

BACKGROUND: The proportion of black, Latino, and Native American faculty in U.S. academic medical centers has remained almost unchanged over the last 20 years. Some authors credit the "minority tax"-the burden of extra responsibilities placed on minority faculty in the name of diversity. This tax is in reality very complex, and a major source of inequity in academic medicine. DISCUSSION: The "minority tax" is better described as an Underrepresented Minority in Medicine (URMM) faculty responsibility disparity. This disparity is evident in many areas: diversity efforts, racism, isolation, mentorship, clinical responsibilities, and promotion. The authors examine the components of the URMM responsibility disparity and use information from the medical literature and from human resources to suggest practical steps that can be taken by academic leaders and policymakers to move toward establishing faculty equity and thus increase the numbers of black, Latino, and Native American faculty in academic medicine.

Experiencing the culture of academic medicine: gender matters, a national study.

BACKGROUND: Energized and productive faculty are critical to academic medicine, yet studies indicate a lack of advancement and senior roles for women. OBJECTIVE: Using measures of key aspects of the culture of academic medicine, this study sought to identify similarity and dissimilarity between perceptions of the culture by male and female faculty. DESIGN: The C - Change Faculty Survey was used to collect data on perceptions of organizational culture. PARTICIPANTS: A stratified random sample of 4,578 full-time faculty at 26 nationally representative US medical colleges (response rate 52 %). 1,271 (53 %) of respondents were female. MAIN MEASURES: Factor analysis assisted in the creation of scales assessing dimensions of the culture, which served as the key outcomes. Regression analysis identified gender differences while controlling for other demographic characteristics. KEY RESULTS: Compared with men, female faculty reported a lower sense of belonging and relationships within the workplace (T = -3.30, p < 0.01). Self-efficacy for career advancement was lower in women (T = -4.73, p < 0.001). Women perceived lower gender equity (T = -19.82, p < 0.001), and were less likely to believe their institutions were making changes to address diversity goals (T = -9.70, p < 0.001). Women were less likely than men to perceive their institution as family-friendly (T = -4.06, p < 0.001), and women reported less congruence between their own values and those of their institutions (T = -2.06, p < 0.05). Women and men did not differ significantly on levels of engagement, leadership aspirations, feelings of ethical/moral distress, perception of institutional commitment to faculty advancement, or perception of institutional change efforts to improve support for faculty. CONCLUSIONS: Faculty men and women are equally engaged in their work and share similar leadership aspirations. However, medical schools have failed to create and sustain an environment where women feel fully accepted and supported to succeed; how can we ensure that medical schools are fully using the talent pool of a third of its faculty?

Mentoring faculty in academic medicine. A new paradigm?

In this paper, we discuss an alternative structure and a broader vision for mentoring of medical faculty. While there is recognition of the need for mentoring for professional advancement in academic medicine, there is a dearth of research on the process and outcomes of mentoring medical faculty. Supported by the literature and our experience with both formal dyadic and group peer mentoring programs as part of our federally funded National Center of Leadership in Academic Medicine, we assert that a group peer, collaborative mentoring model founded on principles of adult education is one that is likely to be an effective and predictably reliable form of mentoring for both women and men in academic medicine.

Helping medical school faculty realize their dreams: an innovative, collaborative mentoring program.

Junior faculty wishing to achieve successful careers in academic medicine face many challenges. To facilitate faculty in their career development, the authors implemented and evaluated an innovative collaborative, or peer-group, mentoring program at their medical school. Based on Rogerian and adult learning principles, the program incorporated development of skills in key areas for career development, a structured values-based approach to career planning, and instruction in scholarly writing. The 80-hour program has so far been conducted twice over two academic years (1999-2001) with 18 faculty (50% women). Quantitative and qualitative methods were used in the evaluation. Program attendance was 89%. All participants completed a written academic development plan, an exercise they rated as valuable. They also completed an average of one to three manuscripts for publication. Evaluation data highlighted the critical nature of a supportive learning environment and the reasons participants chose to attend the program consistently. Key meaningful outcomes for most participants were: (1) identification of their core values; (2) a structured process of short- and long-term career planning based on these core values; (3) the development of close, collaborative relationships; (4) development of skills in such areas as gender and power issues, negotiation and conflict management, scholarly writing, and oral presentation, and (5) improved satisfaction linked to participants' decisions to remain in academic medicine. Participants developed a sense of personal transformation and empowerment. The authors conclude that collaborative mentoring offers a new approach to faculty development that addresses limitations of traditional approaches in a satisfying and cost-effective way.

Collaboration in academic medicine: reflections on gender and advancement.

PURPOSE: Collaboration in academic medicine is encouraged, yet no one has studied the environment in which faculty collaborate. The authors investigated how faculty experienced collaboration and the institutional atmosphere for collaboration. METHOD: In 2007, as part of a qualitative study of faculty in five disparate U.S. medical schools, the authors interviewed 96 medical faculty at different career stages and in diverse specialties, with an oversampling of women, minorities, and generalists, regarding their perceptions and experiences of collaboration in academic medicine. Data analysis was inductive and driven by the grounded theory tradition. RESULTS: Female faculty expressed enthusiasm about the potential and process of collaboration; male faculty were more likely to focus on outcomes. Senior faculty experienced a more collaborative environment than early career faculty, who faced numerous barriers to collaboration: the hierarchy of medical academe, advancement criteria, and the lack of infrastructure supportive of collaboration. Research faculty appreciated shared ideas, knowledge, resources, and the increased productivity that could result from collaboration, but they were acutely aware that advancement requires an independent body of work, which was a major deterrent to collaboration among early career faculty. CONCLUSIONS: Academic medicine faculty have differing views on the impact and benefits of collaboration. Early career faculty face concerning obstacles to collaboration. Female faculty seemed more appreciative of the process of collaboration, which may be of importance for transitioning to a more collaborative academic environment. A reevaluation of effective benchmarks for promotion of faculty is warranted to address the often exclusive reliance on individualistic achievement.

Humanising medical education through faculty development: linking self-awareness and teaching skills.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a longitudinal faculty development programme for medical school faculty, focused on enhancing learner-centred teaching skills, by integrating traditional elements of education, focusing on knowledge, skills and attitudes, with the non-traditional process elements of community building, self-awareness and relationship formation. METHODS: This year-long programme enrolled faculty from a range of clinical departments at a single institution. The participants gathered for day-long sessions in each of 9 months and also met at lunchtime once a month for "booster" meetings. Sessions were organised according to content areas identified as relevant to enhancing teaching skills. In addition to each content area, a variety of experiential and process learning methods were incorporated and modelled in each session. The impact of the programme was assessed using self-report data after each session, and together with paired interviews at the completion of the programme. EVALUATION: Programme attendance was 97%. Qualitative thematic and content analysis showed that faculty reported renewed energy and enthusiasm for teaching, as well as skills mastery. Faculty also reported significant improvements in self-awareness and habits of lifelong learning. Many faculty members felt that a singular benefit of the programme was developing and nurturing personal as opposed to instrumental relationships. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to successfully convene clinical faculty from different departments in the same faculty development programme with little or no concern for competition and conflict. The key to success is integrating content and process dimensions into a framework of community building and collective engagement. From the participants' perspective, skills and confidence, which by self-report increased for all participants, was less consequential than the opportunity to learn about themselves and their relationships to others in a safe environment. We have conducted this programme for 5 successive years.