Search

Background: A key recommendation from the landmark National Academies report called for research examining experiences of underrepresented and/or vulnerable groups, including people of color and sexual- and gender-minority people. We examine the prevalence of gender policing harassment (GPH), heterosexist harassment (HH), and racialized sexual harassment (RSH), by gender, LGBTQ+, race, and department grouping, which has not been previously examined in academic medicine. Materials and Methods: All faculty (n = 2723), fellows, residents, and first through third year medical students (n = 1822) at the University of Michigan Medical School (UMMS) who had been working at the organization for at least 1 year were invited to complete a 20-minute online survey. We assessed harassment within the past year, perpetrated by insiders (i.e., staff, students, and faculty) and from patients and patients' families. Results: A total of 705 faculty (25.9% of the targeted sample) and 583 trainees (32.0% of the targeted sample) were in the analytic sample. Women were significantly more likely to experience GPH from both sources than men, and LGBTQ+ individuals were more likely to face HH from both sources than cisgender heterosexual participants. Underrepresented minorities, Asian/Asian American, and female participants had higher rates of RSH perpetrated by insiders. There were significant department-group differences across harassment types. Conclusions: Less-studied forms of harassment are common within academic medicine and are perpetrated from various sources. Identity-based harassment should be investigated further to gain a comprehensive understanding of its impact within academic medicine. Clinical Trial Registration Number not applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trans people are targeted with widespread prejudice and discrimination in the United States. In order to better understand this hostility, we examined how different gender beliefs (gender traditionalism, gender self-esteem, feminist attitudes, and feminist identity) are associated with cisgender heterosexual individuals' trans prejudice. We found that cisgender heterosexual men reported more trans prejudice, more gender traditionalism, less feminist attitudes, and a weaker feminist identity than cisgender heterosexual women. Participants who reported less traditional gender beliefs and more feminist attitudes reported less trans prejudice. Although feminist identity was not associated with trans prejudice for cisgender heterosexual women, cisgender heterosexual men who more strongly identified as feminists reported less trans prejudice. These findings underline the complexity and multiplicity of gender beliefs and their distinct associations with trans prejudice. Our results also have implications for clinicians and feminist activists, calling on them to critically examine their own gender beliefs and to advocate for the inclusion of trans people within their respective contexts, as well as trans rights more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A landmark National Academies report highlighted the need for rigorous evaluation of sexual harassment in medicine. We examined the prevalence and impact of sexual harassment using the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire, the standard for measurement of sexual harassment, but which has not been previously applied within academic medicine. Materials and Methods: A 20-minute online survey was administered to all faculty who had been working at University of Michigan Medical School for at least 1 year (n = 2723). We assessed sexual harassment within the past year from insiders (i.e., from staff, students, and faculty) and from patients and patients' families. We also evaluated mental health, job satisfaction, sense of safety at work, and turnover intentions. Results: In the final sample (n = 705; which included 25.9% of the originally targeted population), most respondents, 82.5% of women and 65.1% of men, reported at least one incident of sexual harassment from insiders in the past year; 64.4% of women and 44.1% of men reported harassment from patients and patients' families. The most frequently experienced dimension of sexual harassment for women and men was sexist gender harassment. Increased experiences of harassment were independently associated with lower mental health, job satisfaction, and sense of safety at work, as well as increased turnover intentions, with no significant interactions by gender. Conclusions: Sexual harassment against medical faculty is alarmingly common at an institution that is not expected to be atypical. Interventions must address sexual harassment, which affects mental health and career outcomes of male and female physicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific research—especially high-impact research—is increasingly being performed in teams that are interdisciplinary and demographically diverse. Nevertheless, very little research has investigated how the climate on these diverse science teams affects data sharing or the experiences of their members. To address these gaps, we conducted a quantitative study of 266 scientists from 105 NSF-funded interdisciplinary environmental science teams. We examined how team climate mediates the associations between team diversity and three outcomes: satisfaction with the team, satisfaction with authorship practices, and perceptions of the frequency of data sharing. Using path analyses, we found that individuals from underrepresented groups perceived team climate more negatively, which was associated with lower satisfaction with the team and more negative perceptions of authorship practices and data sharing on the team. However, individuals on teams with more demographic diversity reported a more positive climate than those on teams with less demographic diversity. These results highlight the importance of team climate, the value of diverse teams for team climate, and barriers to the full inclusion and support of individuals from underrepresented groups in interdisciplinary science teams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer-identified) employees commonly experience sexual harassment at work. The perceptions of lay observers of this harassment, such as their coworkers and managers, likely influence beliefs about appropriate individual and organizational responses to harassment. Thus, we conducted an experiment (n = 279 U.S. college students) to examine (a) whether four motivations (power, prejudice, gender policing, and sexual attraction) were perceived to underlie harassment toward LGT individuals; (b) how these motivations were related to perceived acceptability of the harassment; and (c) and how acceptability was related to recommended responses to the harassment. We found that compared to lesbian, gay, or cisgender heterosexual targets, participants perceived harassment toward transgender targets as less acceptable when they viewed it as more motivated by power and prejudice and less by attraction. Compared to male targets, participants perceived sexual harassment toward female targets as less acceptable when they viewed it as more motivated by prejudice. Finally, perceiving the harassment as less acceptable was associated with recommending that the target report the harassment. These results suggest that harassment targeting men and gay and lesbian employees may be minimized, underlining the need for organizations to protect against employees' mistreatment and challenge beliefs about sexual harassment motivations and acceptability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As scientific teams in academia have become increasingly large, interdisciplinary, and diverse, more attention has been paid to honorary authorship (i.e., giving authorship to those not making a significant contribution). Our study examined whether honorary authorship occurs because of the desire to include all or many team members. Interviews with project principal investigators (n = 6) and early-career project members (n = 6) from 6 interdisciplinary environmental science research teams revealed that principal investigators frequently employed inclusion-motivated honorary authorship but that this practice had some negative impacts on early-career team members with less power and status, thereby undermining true inclusion of those from underrepresented groups. We believe our findings are of import not only for environmental scientists, but also for scholars who are interested in issues of authorship decision-making regardless of disciplinary affiliation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Faculty diversity has received increased attention from researchers and institutions of higher education, yet faculty demographics have not changed substantially for many underrepresented groups. Several barriers to the retention of women and faculty of color have been offered, including a lack of belonging, discrimination, social exclusion, and tokenism. Epistemic exclusion, scholarly marginalization rooted in disciplinary and identity-based biases, is theorized to act as another barrier to the retention of these faculty. The present study examines the effect of scholarly devaluation, a primary component of epistemic exclusion, on faculty workplace outcomes using data from 1,341 tenure-track faculty from a predominantly White, research-intensive institution. We found that women and underrepresented faculty of color reported higher perceptions of scholarly devaluation. Further, scholarly devaluation was associated with higher intentions to leave the university and this relationship was mediated by lower job satisfaction and poorer perceptions of the workplace climate. Notably, the negative consequences of perceiving scholarly devaluation were found for all faculty, not just women and faculty of color. We discuss the implications of these findings for retaining marginalized faculty and for institutions of higher education more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]