Literature DB >> 26418619

Patterns of Feedback on the Bridge to Independence: A Qualitative Thematic Analysis of NIH Mentored Career Development Award Application Critiques.

Anna Kaatz1, Melissa Dattalo2, Caitlin Regner3, Amarette Filut1, Molly Carnes4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: NIH Mentored Career Development (K) Awards bridge investigators from mentored to independent research. A smaller proportion of women than men succeed in this transition. The aim of this qualitative study was to analyze reviewers' narrative critiques of K award applications and explore thematic content of feedback provided to male and female applicants.
METHOD: We collected 88 critiques, 34 from 9 unfunded and 54 from 18 funded applications, from 70% (n = 26) of investigators at the University of Wisconsin-Madison with K awards funded between 2005 and 2009 on the first submission or after revision. We qualitatively analyzed text in the 5 critique sections: candidate, career development plan, research plan, mentors, and environment and institutional commitment. We explored thematic content within these sections for male and female applicants and for applicants who had received a subsequent independent research award by 2014.
RESULTS: Themes revealed consistent areas of criticism for unfunded applications and praise for funded applications. Subtle variations in thematic content appeared for male and female applicants: For male applicants criticism was often followed by advice but for female applicants it was followed by questions about ability; praise recurrently characterized male but not female applicants' research as highly significant with optimism for future independence. Female K awardees that obtained subsequent independent awards stood out as having track records described as "outstanding."
CONCLUSION: This exploratory study suggests that K award reviewer feedback, particularly for female applicants, should be investigated as a potential contributor to research persistence and success in crossing the bridge to independence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26418619      PMCID: PMC4741200          DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2015.5254

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)        ISSN: 1540-9996            Impact factor:   2.681


  33 in total

1.  Sex differences in application, success, and funding rates for NIH extramural programs.

Authors:  Jennifer Reineke Pohlhaus; Hong Jiang; Robin M Wagner; Walter T Schaffer; Vivian W Pinn
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 6.893

2.  Do students' and authors' genders affect evaluations? A linguistic analysis of Medical Student Performance Evaluations.

Authors:  Carol Isaac; Jocelyn Chertoff; Barbara Lee; Molly Carnes
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 6.893

3.  A persistent problem. Traditional gender roles hold back female scientists.

Authors:  Anna Ledin; Lutz Bornmann; Frank Gannon; Gerlind Wallon
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 8.807

4.  Gender distribution of U.S. medical school faculty by academic track type.

Authors:  Anita P Mayer; Janis E Blair; Marcia G Ko; Sharonne N Hayes; Yu-Hui H Chang; Suzanne L Caubet; Julia A Files
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 6.893

5.  Gender differences in experiences of K-awardees: beyond space, resources and science.

Authors:  Amparo C Villablanca; Lydia P Howell
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  A quantitative linguistic analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 application critiques from investigators at one institution.

Authors:  Anna Kaatz; Wairimu Magua; David R Zimmerman; Molly Carnes
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 6.893

7.  The positive impact of a facilitated peer mentoring program on academic skills of women faculty.

Authors:  Prathibha Varkey; Aminah Jatoi; Amy Williams; Anita Mayer; Marcia Ko; Julia Files; Janis Blair; Sharonne Hayes
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2012-03-23       Impact factor: 2.463

8.  The effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: a cluster randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Molly Carnes; Patricia G Devine; Linda Baier Manwell; Angela Byars-Winston; Eve Fine; Cecilia E Ford; Patrick Forscher; Carol Isaac; Anna Kaatz; Wairimu Magua; Mari Palta; Jennifer Sheridan
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 6.893

9.  Integration of women's health into an internal medicine core curriculum for medical students.

Authors:  J Nicolette; M B Jacobs
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 6.893

10.  Constructed criteria: redefining merit to justify discrimination.

Authors:  Ericluis Uhlmann; Geoffrey L Cohen
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2005-06
View more
  5 in total

1.  Are Female Applicants Disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health Peer Review? Combining Algorithmic Text Mining and Qualitative Methods to Detect Evaluative Differences in R01 Reviewers' Critiques.

Authors:  Wairimu Magua; Xiaojin Zhu; Anupama Bhattacharya; Amarette Filut; Aaron Potvien; Renee Leatherberry; You-Geon Lee; Madeline Jens; Dastagiri Malikireddy; Molly Carnes; Anna Kaatz
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2017-03-10       Impact factor: 2.681

2.  Gender, Race, and Grant Reviews: Translating and Responding to Research Feedback.

Authors:  Monica Biernat; Molly Carnes; Amarette Filut; Anna Kaatz
Journal:  Pers Soc Psychol Bull       Date:  2019-05-15

Review 3.  How Gender Stereotypes May Limit Female Faculty Advancement in Communication Sciences and Disorders.

Authors:  Nicole Rogus-Pulia; Ianessa Humbert; Christine Kolehmainen; Molly Carnes
Journal:  Am J Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  2018-11-21       Impact factor: 2.408

4.  Perceptions of Pressures to Alter or Misrepresent Time Allocation Among Clinician-Researchers With NIH Career Development Awards.

Authors:  Michelle H Moniz; Kent A Griffith; Rochelle D Jones; Christina Mangurian; Reshma Jagsi
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 6.893

5.  Occupational segregation by gender in veterinary specialties: Who we are choosing, or who is choosing us.

Authors:  Samantha L Morello; Jordan Genovese; Anne Pankowski; Emma A Sweet; Scott J Hetzel
Journal:  Vet Surg       Date:  2021-07-05       Impact factor: 1.618

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.