Identifying Gender Disparities and Barriers to Measuring the Status of Female Faculty: The Experience of a Large School of Medicine

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Women in academic medicine are not attaining parity with men in several domains. This issue is not only one of fairness; some funding agencies are requesting data on gender benchmarking. However, most published reports on gender disparities have not included examination of trends or actionable recommendations to address them. Materials and Methods: The Dean of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine charged the Committee on the Status of Women (CSW) with conducting a comprehensive review of gender equity. In 2014, the CSW identified key domains important for academic success and created a sustainable framework to monitor trends by gender. Utilizing data from multiple key sources, the CSW measured differences in the domains of academic promotion, leadership, and satisfaction. Results: Gender differences were present in each domain. Data were not centralized and not readily available for most domains. The CSW recommended strategies to address gender disparities and created a set of measurable recommendations to monitor progress. The recommendations include requiring detailed descriptions of departmental organizational leadership charts; diverse compositions of both search committees and applicant pools; increased proportion of female faculty in top-tier leadership positions; and transparent departmental promotions criteria and processes. Conclusions: To maintain progress, we recommend that data be readily and easily accessible from a central institutional registry rather than come from multiple sources, that data be analyzed on a regular basis, and that results be shared across the institution to ensure transparency and accountability.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1569-1575
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Women's Health
Volume28
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2019

Fingerprint

Women's Rights
Medicine
Benchmarking
Information Storage and Retrieval
Social Responsibility
Parity
Registries

Keywords

  • academic medicine
  • faculty satisfaction
  • gender disparity
  • gender inequity
  • leadership
  • promotion
  • women's status

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

@article{e1160646c628449c99604728d705a39c,
title = "Identifying Gender Disparities and Barriers to Measuring the Status of Female Faculty: The Experience of a Large School of Medicine",
abstract = "Background: Women in academic medicine are not attaining parity with men in several domains. This issue is not only one of fairness; some funding agencies are requesting data on gender benchmarking. However, most published reports on gender disparities have not included examination of trends or actionable recommendations to address them. Materials and Methods: The Dean of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine charged the Committee on the Status of Women (CSW) with conducting a comprehensive review of gender equity. In 2014, the CSW identified key domains important for academic success and created a sustainable framework to monitor trends by gender. Utilizing data from multiple key sources, the CSW measured differences in the domains of academic promotion, leadership, and satisfaction. Results: Gender differences were present in each domain. Data were not centralized and not readily available for most domains. The CSW recommended strategies to address gender disparities and created a set of measurable recommendations to monitor progress. The recommendations include requiring detailed descriptions of departmental organizational leadership charts; diverse compositions of both search committees and applicant pools; increased proportion of female faculty in top-tier leadership positions; and transparent departmental promotions criteria and processes. Conclusions: To maintain progress, we recommend that data be readily and easily accessible from a central institutional registry rather than come from multiple sources, that data be analyzed on a regular basis, and that results be shared across the institution to ensure transparency and accountability.",
keywords = "academic medicine, faculty satisfaction, gender disparity, gender inequity, leadership, promotion, women's status",
author = "Kuo, {Irene C.} and Levine, {Rachel B.} and Gauda, {Estelle B.} and Joann Bodurtha and Janice Clements and Barbara Fivush and Lisa Ishii",
year = "2019",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1089/jwh.2018.7610",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "1569--1575",
journal = "Journal of Women's Health",
issn = "1540-9996",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Identifying Gender Disparities and Barriers to Measuring the Status of Female Faculty

T2 - The Experience of a Large School of Medicine

AU - Kuo, Irene C.

AU - Levine, Rachel B.

AU - Gauda, Estelle B.

AU - Bodurtha, Joann

AU - Clements, Janice

AU - Fivush, Barbara

AU - Ishii, Lisa

PY - 2019/11

Y1 - 2019/11

N2 - Background: Women in academic medicine are not attaining parity with men in several domains. This issue is not only one of fairness; some funding agencies are requesting data on gender benchmarking. However, most published reports on gender disparities have not included examination of trends or actionable recommendations to address them. Materials and Methods: The Dean of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine charged the Committee on the Status of Women (CSW) with conducting a comprehensive review of gender equity. In 2014, the CSW identified key domains important for academic success and created a sustainable framework to monitor trends by gender. Utilizing data from multiple key sources, the CSW measured differences in the domains of academic promotion, leadership, and satisfaction. Results: Gender differences were present in each domain. Data were not centralized and not readily available for most domains. The CSW recommended strategies to address gender disparities and created a set of measurable recommendations to monitor progress. The recommendations include requiring detailed descriptions of departmental organizational leadership charts; diverse compositions of both search committees and applicant pools; increased proportion of female faculty in top-tier leadership positions; and transparent departmental promotions criteria and processes. Conclusions: To maintain progress, we recommend that data be readily and easily accessible from a central institutional registry rather than come from multiple sources, that data be analyzed on a regular basis, and that results be shared across the institution to ensure transparency and accountability.

AB - Background: Women in academic medicine are not attaining parity with men in several domains. This issue is not only one of fairness; some funding agencies are requesting data on gender benchmarking. However, most published reports on gender disparities have not included examination of trends or actionable recommendations to address them. Materials and Methods: The Dean of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine charged the Committee on the Status of Women (CSW) with conducting a comprehensive review of gender equity. In 2014, the CSW identified key domains important for academic success and created a sustainable framework to monitor trends by gender. Utilizing data from multiple key sources, the CSW measured differences in the domains of academic promotion, leadership, and satisfaction. Results: Gender differences were present in each domain. Data were not centralized and not readily available for most domains. The CSW recommended strategies to address gender disparities and created a set of measurable recommendations to monitor progress. The recommendations include requiring detailed descriptions of departmental organizational leadership charts; diverse compositions of both search committees and applicant pools; increased proportion of female faculty in top-tier leadership positions; and transparent departmental promotions criteria and processes. Conclusions: To maintain progress, we recommend that data be readily and easily accessible from a central institutional registry rather than come from multiple sources, that data be analyzed on a regular basis, and that results be shared across the institution to ensure transparency and accountability.

KW - academic medicine

KW - faculty satisfaction

KW - gender disparity

KW - gender inequity

KW - leadership

KW - promotion

KW - women's status

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85075094466&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85075094466&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/jwh.2018.7610

DO - 10.1089/jwh.2018.7610

M3 - Article

C2 - 31268398

AN - SCOPUS:85075094466

VL - 28

SP - 1569

EP - 1575

JO - Journal of Women's Health

JF - Journal of Women's Health

SN - 1540-9996

IS - 11

ER -