BACKGROUND: The gender gap in academia is long-standing. Failure to ensure that our academic faculty reflect our student pool and national population deprives Canada of talent. We explored the gender distribution and perceptions of the gender gap at a Canadian university-affiliated, hospital-based research institute. METHODS: We completed a sequential mixed-methods study. In phase 1, we used the research institute's registry of scientists (1999-2014) and estimated overall prevalence of a gender gap and the gap with respect to job description (e.g., associate v. full-time) and research discipline. In phase 2, we conducted qualitative interviews to provide context for phase 1 data. Both purposive and snowball sampling were used for recruitment. RESULTS: The institute included 30.1% (n = 62) women and 69.9% (n = 144) men, indicating a 39.8% gender gap. Most full-time scientists (60.3%, n = 70) were clinicians; there were 54.2% more male than female clinician scientists. Ninety-five percent of basic scientists were men, indicating a 90.5% gap. Seven key themes emerged from 21 interviews, including perceived impact of the gender gap, factors perceived to influence the gap, recruitment trends, presence of institutional support, mentorship and suggestions to mitigate the gap. Several factors were postulated to contribute to the gender gap, including unconscious bias in hiring. INTERPRETATION: A substantial gender gap exists within this research institute. Participants identified strategies to address this gap, such as establishing transparent search processes, providing opportunities for informal networking and mentorship of female scientists and establishing institutional support for work-life balance.
BACKGROUND: The gender gap in academia is long-standing. Failure to ensure that our academic faculty reflect our student pool and national population deprives Canada of talent. We explored the gender distribution and perceptions of the gender gap at a Canadian university-affiliated, hospital-based research institute. METHODS: We completed a sequential mixed-methods study. In phase 1, we used the research institute's registry of scientists (1999-2014) and estimated overall prevalence of a gender gap and the gap with respect to job description (e.g., associate v. full-time) and research discipline. In phase 2, we conducted qualitative interviews to provide context for phase 1 data. Both purposive and snowball sampling were used for recruitment. RESULTS: The institute included 30.1% (n = 62) women and 69.9% (n = 144) men, indicating a 39.8% gender gap. Most full-time scientists (60.3%, n = 70) were clinicians; there were 54.2% more male than female clinician scientists. Ninety-five percent of basic scientists were men, indicating a 90.5% gap. Seven key themes emerged from 21 interviews, including perceived impact of the gender gap, factors perceived to influence the gap, recruitment trends, presence of institutional support, mentorship and suggestions to mitigate the gap. Several factors were postulated to contribute to the gender gap, including unconscious bias in hiring. INTERPRETATION: A substantial gender gap exists within this research institute. Participants identified strategies to address this gap, such as establishing transparent search processes, providing opportunities for informal networking and mentorship of female scientists and establishing institutional support for work-life balance.
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: Pavel V Ovseiko; Trisha Greenhalgh; Paula Adam; Jonathan Grant; Saba Hinrichs-Krapels; Kathryn E Graham; Pamela A Valentine; Omar Sued; Omar F Boukhris; Nada M Al Olaqi; Idrees S Al Rahbi; Anne-Maree Dowd; Sara Bice; Tamika L Heiden; Michael D Fischer; Sue Dopson; Robyn Norton; Alexandra Pollitt; Steven Wooding; Gert V Balling; Ulla Jakobsen; Ellen Kuhlmann; Ineke Klinge; Linda H Pololi; Reshma Jagsi; Helen Lawton Smith; Henry Etzkowitz; Mathias W Nielsen; Carme Carrion; Maite Solans-Domènech; Esther Vizcaino; Lin Naing; Quentin H N Cheok; Baerbel Eckelmann; Moses C Simuyemba; Temwa Msiska; Giovanna Declich; Laurel D Edmunds; Vasiliki Kiparoglou; Alison M J Buchan; Catherine Williamson; Graham M Lord; Keith M Channon; Rebecca Surender; Alastair M Buchan Journal: Health Res Policy Syst Date: 2016-07-19
Authors: Marie Bismark; Jennifer Morris; Laura Thomas; Erwin Loh; Grant Phelps; Helen Dickinson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-11-16 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Louise Caffrey; David Wyatt; Nina Fudge; Helena Mattingley; Catherine Williamson; Christopher McKevitt Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-09-08 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jeanna Parsons Leigh; Chloe de Grood; Rebecca Brundin-Mather; Alexandra Dodds; Emily A FitzGerald; Laryssa Kemp; Sara J Mizen; Liam Whalen-Browne; Henry T Stelfox; Kirsten M Fiest Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2022-01-18
Authors: Christie Rampersad; Todd Alexander; Elisabeth Fowler; Sunny Hartwig; Adeera Levin; Norman D Rosenblum; Susan Samuel; Chris Wiebe; Julie Ho Journal: Can J Kidney Health Dis Date: 2021-09-02
Authors: Zamir Merali; Armaan K Malhotra; Michael Balas; Gianni R Lorello; Alana Flexman; Tara Kiran; Christopher D Witiw Journal: CMAJ Date: 2021-10-18 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Jeanna Parsons Leigh; Chloe de Grood; Sofia Ahmed; Karen Bosma; Karen E A Burns; Robert Fowler; Alison Fox-Robichaud; Sangeeta Mehta; Tina Mele; Sharon E Straus; Nubia Zepeda; Laryssa Kemp; Kirsten Fiest; Henry Thomas Stelfox Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-06-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Tanja Hüsch; Axel Haferkamp; Christian Thomas; Joachim Steffens; Paolo Fornara; Jennifer Kranz Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-07-04 Impact factor: 4.226