Search

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.

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.

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]

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]

Overinclusive authorship practices such as honorary or guest authorship have been widely reported, and they appear to be exacerbated by the rise of large interdisciplinary collaborations that make authorship decisions particularly complex. Although many studies have reported on the frequency of honorary authorship and potential solutions to it, few have probed how the underlying dynamics of large interdisciplinary teams contribute to the problem. This article reports on a qualitative study of the authorship standards and practices of six National Science Foundation-funded interdisciplinary environmental science teams. Using interviews of the lead principal investigator and an early-career member on each team, our study explores the nature of honorary authorship practices as well as some of the motivating factors that may contribute to these practices. These factors include both structural elements (policies and procedures) and cultural elements (values and norms) that cross organizational boundaries. Therefore, we provide recommendations that address the intersection of these factors and that can be applied at multiple organizational levels. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]