René Carapinha1,2, Caitlin M McCracken3, Erica T Warner1,4, Emorcia V Hill1, Joan Y Reede1,5. 1. 1 Office for Diversity Inclusion and Community Partnership, Harvard Medical School , Boston, Massachusetts. 2. 2 Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School , Boston, Massachusetts. 3. 3 The Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center , Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. 4 Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital , Boston, Massachusetts. 5. 5 Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard School of Public Health , Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
PURPOSE: 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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
PURPOSE: 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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Elizabeth A Guancial; Cynthia Cooper Worobey; Lori E Henault; Yuchiao Chang; Rebecca Starr; Nancy J Tarbell; Elaine M Hylek Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-07-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gary C Butts; Jerry Johnson; A Hal Strelnick; Maria L Soto-Greene; Beverly Williams; Elizabeth Lee-Rey Journal: Mt Sinai J Med Date: 2008-12-01
Authors: Linda H Pololi; Arthur T Evans; Brian K Gibbs; Edward Krupat; Robert T Brennan; Janet T Civian Journal: Acad Med Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Karen M Freund; Anita Raj; Samantha E Kaplan; Norma Terrin; Janis L Breeze; Tracy H Urech; Phyllis L Carr Journal: Acad Med Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 6.893
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
Authors: Phyllis L Carr; Deborah Helitzer; Karen Freund; Alyssa Westring; Richard McGee; Patricia B Campbell; Christine V Wood; Amparo Villablanca Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-07-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Courtney E Harris; Stephanie D Clark; Sherry S Chesak; Tejinder K Khalsa; Manisha Salinas; Amy C S Pearson; Amy W Williams; Susan M Moeschler; Anjali Bhagra Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes Date: 2021-04-30