Search

Women are less successful than men in renewing R01 grants from the National Institutes of Health. Continuing to probe text mining as a tool to identify gender bias in peer review, we used algorithmic text mining and qualitative analysis to examine a sample of critiques from men's and women's R01 renewal applications previously analyzed by counting and comparing word categories.We analyzed 241 critiques from 79 Summary Statements for 51 R01 renewals awarded to 45 investigators (64% male, 89% white, 80% PhD) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 2010 and 2014. We used latent Dirichlet allocation to discover evaluative "topics" (i.e., words that co-occur with high probability). We then qualitatively examined the context in which evaluative words occurred for male and female investigators. We also examined sex differences in assigned scores controlling for investigator productivity.Text analysis results showed that male investigators were described as "leaders" and "pioneers" in their "fields," with "highly innovative" and "highly significant research." By comparison, female investigators were characterized as having "expertise" and working in "excellent" environments. Applications from men received significantly better priority, approach, and significance scores, which could not be accounted for by differences in productivity.Results confirm our previous analyses suggesting that gender stereotypes operate in R01 grant peer review. Reviewers may more easily view male than female investigators as scientific leaders with significant and innovative research, and score their applications more competitively. Such implicit bias may contribute to sex differences in award rates for R01 renewals.

Many studies find that female faculty in academic medicine, science, and engineering experience adverse workplace climates. This study longitudinally investigates whether department climate is associated with future research productivity and whether the associations are stronger for female than male faculty.Two waves of a faculty climate survey, institutional grant records, and publication records were collected for 789 faculties in academic medicine, science, and engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 2000 and 2010. Research productivity was measured as Number of Publications and Number of Grants awarded, and department climate was measured with scales for professional interactions, department decision-making practices, climate for underrepresented groups, and work/life balance. Ordinary least squares and negative binomial regression methods were used to assess gender differences in productivity, influences of department climate on productivity, and gender differences in effects of climate on productivity.Female faculty published fewer articles and were awarded fewer grants in the baseline period, but their productivity did not differ from male faculty on these measures in subsequent years. Number of Publications was positively affected by professional interactions, but negatively affected by positive work/life balance. Number of Grants awarded was positively affected by climate for underrepresented groups. These main effects did not differ by gender; however, some three-way interactions illuminated how different aspects of department climate affected productivity differently for men and women in specific situations.In perhaps the first study to assess the longitudinal impact of department climate on faculty research productivity, positive department climate is associated with significantly greater productivity for all faculty-women and men. However, some positive aspects of climate (specifically, work/life balance) may be associated with lower productivity for some female faculty at specific career periods. These findings suggest that departments that wish to increase grants and publications would be wise to foster a positive workplace climate.

While women have been well represented in medical school and biomedical doctoral degree programs, they do not comprise half of academic medicine faculty positions. Furthermore, there is a significant paucity of women in academic medicine leadership positions, as evidenced by the fact that only 16% of dean positions at United States Medical schools are filled by women. In this commentary, the authors review the state of women in academic medicine and argue that increased representation of women in the academic workforce will lead to economic gains, increased scientific discovery, and improvements to women's health.

Background: Given the persistent disparity in the advancement of women compared with men faculty in academic medicine, it is critical to develop effective interventions to enhance women's careers. We carried out a cluster-randomized, multifaceted intervention to improve the success of women assistant professors at a research-intensive medical school. Materials and Methods: Twenty-seven departments/divisions were randomly assigned to intervention or control groups. The three-tiered intervention included components that were aimed at (1) the professional development of women assistant professors, (2) changes at the department/division level through faculty-led task forces, and (3) engagement of institutional leaders. Generalized linear models were used to test associations between assignment and outcomes, adjusting for correlations induced by the clustered design. Results: Academic productivity and work self-efficacy improved significantly over the 3-year trial in both intervention and control groups, but the improvements did not differ between the groups. Average hours worked per week declined significantly more for faculty in the intervention group as compared with the control group (−3.82 vs. −1.39 hours, respectively, p = 0.006). The PhD faculty in the intervention group published significantly more than PhD controls; however, no differences were observed between MDs in the intervention group and MDs in the control group. Conclusions: Significant improvements in academic productivity and work self-efficacy occurred in both intervention and control groups, potentially due to school-wide intervention effects. A greater decline in work hours in the intervention group despite similar increases in academic productivity may reflect learning to “work smarter” or reveal efficiencies brought about as a result of the multifaceted intervention. The intervention appeared to benefit the academic productivity of faculty with PhDs, but not MDs, suggesting that interventions should be more intense or tailored to specific faculty groups.

ObjectiveWomen are under-represented in academia. Causative factors include challenges of career-family integration. We evaluated factors reflecting institutional culture (promotion, retention, hiring, and biasing language in promotion letters) as part of an intervention to help shift culture and raise awareness of flexibility policies at the University of California, Davis (UCD).Materials and methodsData on faculty use of family-friendly policies were obtained at baseline, and surveys for policy awareness were conducted pre(2010)/post(2013) an NIH-funded study educational intervention. Data on hires, separations, and promotions were obtained pre(2007-2009, 2234 person-year data points)/post(2010-2012, 2384 person-year data points) intervention and compared by logistic regression and for gender differences. Department promotion letters (53) were also analyzed for biasing language.ResultsPolicy use was overall low, highest for female assistant professors, and for maternity leave. Awareness significantly increased for all policies postintervention. Promotions decreased, likely because of increases in advancement deferrals or tenure clock extensions. Pre/postintervention, female and male hires were near parity for assistant professors, but female hires were substantially lower than males for associate (54% less likely, p = 0.03) and full professors (70% less likely, p = 0.002). Once hired, women were no more likely to separate than men. Fewer associate/full professors separated than assistant professors (p = 0.002, p

By 2006, women constituted 34% of academic medical faculty, reaching a critical mass. Theoretically, with critical mass, culture and policy supportive of gender equity should be evident. We explore whether having a critical mass of women transforms institutional culture and organizational change.Career development program participants were interviewed to elucidate their experiences in academic health centers (AHCs). Focus group discussions were held with institutional leaders to explore their perceptions about contemporary challenges related to gender and leadership. Content analysis of both data sources revealed points of convergence. Findings were interpreted using the theory of critical mass.Two nested domains emerged: the individual domain included the rewards and personal satisfaction of meaningful work, personal agency, tensions between cultural expectations of family and academic roles, and women's efforts to work for gender equity. The institutional domain depicted the sociocultural environment of AHCs that shaped women's experience, both personally and professionally, lack of institutional strategies to engage women in organizational initiatives, and the influence of one leader on women's ascent to leadership.The predominant evidence from this research demonstrates that the institutional barriers and sociocultural environment continue to be formidable obstacles confronting women, stalling the transformational effects expected from achieving a critical mass of women faculty. We conclude that the promise of critical mass as a turning point for women should be abandoned in favor of "critical actor" leaders, both women and men, who individually and collectively have the commitment and power to create gender-equitable cultures in AHCs.

Gender inequalities in the careers of faculty in academic medicine could partially be attributed to an organizational climate that can exclude or be nonsupportive of women faculty. This study explores the climate for women faculty from a systems perspective at the organizational and individual levels based on the perceptions of women faculty. Race differences were also investigated.Cross-sectional survey data from women faculty (N = 3127) at 13 purposively sampled medical schools and an institutional assessment of organizational characteristics were used. Organizational factors related to the climate for women were identified using bivariate statistics. The association between perceived climate for women and organizational characteristics, individual perceptions of the work environment and individual career, and personal characteristics with control variables were investigated using hierarchical linear regression models. Organizational effects by race/ethnicity were estimated using interaction terms.The climate for women faculty varied across institutions and by classification as minority-serving institutions (MSIs). Respondent's report of existence of an office for women's affairs, trust in leadership, and satisfaction with mentoring were positively associated with the climate for women. Perceived workplace discrimination and work-family conflict were inversely associated with a positive climate. No race/ethnicity differences were observed in the multivariable analysis.The climate for women faculty in academic medicine should not be regarded constant across organizations, specifically between MSIs and non-MSIs. Efforts to advance a positive climate for women could focus on improving trust in leadership, increasing support for structures/offices for women, and mitigating perceived discrimination and work-family conflict.