Men Faculty Research Articles

Sticky Floor, Broken Ladder, and Glass Ceiling in Internal Medicine Academic Ranking, Leadership, and Research Productivity.

Despite more women entering medicine, substantial gender disparities remain in various medical disciplines. This study explores the extent of these disparities in Canadian academic internal medicine, particularly in academic ranks, leadership positions, and research productivity. Cross-sectional. Faculty physicians within internal medicine and subspecialties. Data on faculty physicians with Medical Doctorate (MD), Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO), or Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) degrees were compiled from 17 internal medicine programs listed in the Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS). Research metrics were obtained using Elsevier's Scopus, and analyses were performed with Stata v14.2. Among 5099 physician faculty members in internal medicine, 34% were women, and 66% were men. Among the faculty members holding leadership positions, 68% were men, and 32% were women. There was a significant difference in h-index between men and women physician faculty members (p ≤ 0.001), with men having a higher research output. Across all academic ranks, men faculty had higher median h-index values: Assistant Professor (12 vs. 9), Associate Professor (20 vs. 16), and Professor (40 vs. 30). Women were underrepresented in the procedural specialties, while only a few internal medicine subspecialties, such as palliative medicine and geriatrics, had a women predominance. Our study underscores existing gender disparity within academic internal medicine in Canada, aligning with global trends. Women remain disproportionately underrepresented in academic ranks, leadership positions, and research productivity. Addressing these disparities necessitates a systemic and multifaceted approach, encompassing policy reforms, mentorship, and fostering an inclusive work environment.

A persistent gender pay gap among faculty in a public university system.

Despite movements towards gender parity within academia, women faculty continue to be paid less than men. While previous research has explained the gap using academic rank/seniority and productivity, existing findings are limited by either their examination of base pay or reliance on self-reported data. Here we extend the analysis beyond base pay, link faculty salary records of one public university system in the U.S. to the OpenAlex bibliometric database, and separately analyze the gender pay gap in the base (grade) and other pay (off-grade). Using stepwise regression models, we find that faculty rank accounts for a significant gap in the base pay while performance-based variables such as H-index or specialization do not play a crucial role. For other pay, no variables stand out in explaining the substantial pay gap between women and men faculty. Our results suggest that a primary source of the remaining gender pay gap is the off-grade pay. Different policy approaches are required to reduce the gender pay gap depending on the specific type of salary being targeted.

Disease Site Specialization in the Academic Radiation Oncology Workforce: Evidence of Gender Differences

Because some stakeholders within medicine seek to diversify and attain greater workforce equity, it is critical to understand gender-based divisions within specialization. Radiation oncology (RO) has one of the smallest proportions of women representation of all specialties, and to our knowledge, no prior studies have investigated gender differences in all the disease site specializations within RO. Thus, we analyzed the relationship between gender and disease site(s) treated in academic RO (ARO). Faculty gender and disease site(s) treated by faculty from ARO departments were collected via publicly available department websites in January 2020. X2 analyses were conducted to assess differences between the proportions of women faculty treating each disease site. Of 1337 ARO faculty, 408 (30.5%) were identified as women. Breast, gynecology, and pediatrics had the largest proportions of women faculty (all >40%; P < .001). A majority (53%; P < .001) of women ARO faculty treated breast. Genitourinary, thoracic, and head and neck had the smallest proportions of women faculty (all <25%; P < .001). Women ARO faculty were twice as likely to treat breast and gynecologic malignancies compared with men faculty (risk ratio [RR] with 95% CI, 2.01 [1.75-2.50]; P < .001 and RR [95% CI], 2.06 [1.72-2.79]; P <.001, respectively). Men ARO faculty were 3 times more likely to treat genitourinary cancer compared with women faculty (RR [95% CI], 0.40 [0.34-0.48]; P < .001). There was no difference in the mean number of disease sites treated between women and men ARO faculty (2.63 vs 2.53; P = .29). Gender differences in disease site specialization were observed in ARO. Future research into the drivers of disease site selection should be explored.

Exploring the stability of the gender gap in faculty perceptions of gender climate at a rural regional university.

Increasing awareness of gender barriers and biases in academic institutions is an essential component of institutional change strategies to promote equity and inclusion. There is an established perception gap in recognizing gender inequities in the workplace, whereby men faculty under acknowledge the stressors, barriers, and biases faced by their women faculty colleagues. This study explored the gender gap in faculty perceptions of institutional diversity climate at a rural comprehensive regional university in the United States. In addition to gender, differences across academic discipline and time were explored using 2 (men and women) x 2 (STEM and other) x 2 (2017 and 2022) between-groups ANOVAs. Results revealed a gender gap that persisted across time and perceptions of stressors, diversity climate, student behavior, leadership, and fairness in promotion/tenure procedures, with marginalized (women) faculty consistently reporting greater barriers/concern for women faculty relative to the perceptions of their men faculty colleagues. These findings are largely consistent with the extant literature and are discussed both with regard to future research directions and recommendations for reducing the perception gap and addressing institutional barriers to gender equity.

Gender and the legal academy

Abstract This Foreword examines what we describe as a “gender gap” in the legal academy. The gap can be seen most clearly in the significantly lower proportion of tenured women faculty members than of men faculty members in most parts of the world, but it is evident in many other aspects too, including the fact that women in academia are often clustered in a “pink ghetto” with lower pay, status, and job security. We begin by outlining the nature of the academic gender gap and some of the obstacles to its removal or reduction, before considering the reasons this gap should be a matter for concern. Two kinds of reasons for such concern are offered: consequences-based and justice-based. The Foreword concludes by suggesting a number of ways in which the gender gap might be addressed, arguing for attention to be paid to the risk of pursuing apparent solutions which may have the effect of entrenching or exacerbating aspects of the problem. Ultimately, we argue that what is needed is not just a larger proportion of women in law schools, but a more just and feminist legal academy along multiple intersecting dimensions.

DEPARTMENT CHAIR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN WOMEN STEM FACULTY CAREER PROGRESSION AND SUCCESS

The purpose of this qualitative collective case study was to explore the perceptions and experiences of women faculty in STEM disciplines of the role of their department chair in their career progression and success. Of specific interest in the study were how they described the level of advocacy of department chair in their success and career progression, and how they described the knowledge and actions of their department chair relative to establishing and maintaining a collegial and equitable working environment. The study was framed by a conceptual framework that supports the role of the department chair responsibilities in faculty success. The study settings were two public, large, highest research-intensive universities located in the southern United States. Participants were 20 women STEM faculty. The findings indicated that many of the participants perceived that their department chair lacked sufficient training to advocate for them, did not always understand the differences in experiences between women and men faculty in STEM, nor their role and responsibility for ensuring collegial and equitable working environment. Some participants identified that their department chairs were committed to the work of equity and ensured department collegiality.

Returning home: Reflections on cultural capital cultivated for Black men faculty through multicultural affairs work.

Returning home: Reflections on cultural capital cultivated for Black men faculty through multicultural affairs work.

When and why is faculty mentorship effective for underrepresented students in STEM? A multicampus quasi-experiment.

Faculty mentorship can be one solution to addressing the participation and persistence gaps between underrepresented groups (URGs) and overrepresented group members in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). However, little is known about the mechanisms underlying effective STEM faculty mentorship. The present study (a) investigates if faculty mentorship impacts STEM identity, attitudes, belonging, and self-efficacy; (b) compares students' perceptions of women versus men faculty mentorship support functions; and (c) uncovers the mentorship support mechanisms underlying impactful faculty mentorship. The present research sampled ethnic-racial minority URG undergraduate students pursuing STEM majors across eight institutions (N = 362; age = 24.85; 36.6% Latinx, 30.6% Black, and 4.6% multiracial; 60.1% women). The study's overall quasi-experimental design adopted a one-factor two-level (faculty mentorship status: yes, no) between-subjects design. Among the participants who reported having a faculty mentor, we also examined faculty mentor gender (women vs. men) as a between-subjects variable. Faculty mentorship had a positive impact on URG students' STEM identity, attitudes, belonging, and self-efficacy. Furthermore, mentorship support functions indirectly predicted identity, attitudes, belonging, and self-efficacy among URG mentees who had women compared to men faculty mentors. Implications for how STEM faculty, regardless of their gender identity, can be effective mentors to URG students are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Exploring gender influences in the quality of workplace-based assessments.

Workplace-based assessments are an important tool for trainee feedback and as a means of reporting expert judgments of trainee competence in the workplace. However, the literature has demonstrated that gender bias can exist within these assessments. We aimed to determine whether gender differences in the quality of workplace-based assessment data exist in our residency training program. This study was conducted at the University of Ottawa in the Department of Emergency Medicine. Four end-of-shift workplace-based assessments completed by men faculty and four completed by women faculty were randomly selected for each resident during the 2018-2019 academic year. Two blinded raters scored each workplace-based assessment using the Completed Clinical Evaluation Report Rating (CCERR), a published nine-item quantitative measure of workplace-based assessment quality. A 2 × 2 mixed measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) of resident gender and faculty gender was conducted, with mean CCERR score as the dependent variable. The ANOVA was repeated with mean workplace-based assessment rating as the dependent variable. A total of 363 workplace-based assessments were analyzed for 46 residents. There were no significant effects of faculty or resident gender on the quality of workplace-based assessments (p = 0.30). There was no difference in mean workplace-based assessment ratings between women and men residents (p = 0.92), and no interaction between resident and faculty gender (p = 0.62). Mean CCERR score was 25.8, SD = 4.2, indicating average quality assessments. We did not find faculty or resident gender differences in the quality of workplace-based assessments completed in our training program. While the literature has previously demonstrated gender bias in trainee assessments, our results are not surprising as assessment culture varies by institution and program. Our study cautions against generalizing gender bias across contexts, and offers an approach that educators can use to evaluate whether gender bias in the quality of trainee assessments exists within their program.

Work-Life Balance and Academic Productivity Among College of Medicine Faculty During the Evolution of the COVID-19 Pandemic: The New Normal.

Work and home stress, productivity, and self-care of academic medicine faculty in Spring 2021 was contrasted to faculty's experience in the Spring of 2020, both of which were relatively compared with the prepandemic period. A 93-question survey was sent to academic medicine faculty at an urban public university medical center in March 2020 and again in March 2021. Demographic, family, and academic characteristics, work distribution and productivity before and during the pandemic, perceived stress related to work and home activities, and self-care data compared with the prepandemic period were collected. Differences were assessed using chi-square or Fisher exact tests. Student t-test was used for the difference in mean values, while logistic regression was used to determine predictors of work stress. Two hundred thirty-one faculty completed the survey in Spring 2020 and 118 faculty responded in Spring 2021. The proportion of faculty reporting increased work and home stress decreased in Spring 2021 compared with Spring 2020. A higher proportion of women compared with men reported increased work stress in both surveys. In Spring 2021, work stress decreased significantly for men but not for women. Home stress decreased significantly for women in Spring 2021 but remained stable for the men faculty. Research productivity increased for both genders in Spring 2021, but a greater percentage of women reported disturbed sleep and diet. There were no differences in home stress levels between genders when caring for young children. Men faculty are more likely to adapt to the "new normal" by lowering work stressors and increasing productivity, whereas women's continued high work stress and increased productivity may occur at the expense of decreased self-care. The challenges associated with having young children continue to affect the productivity and well-being of all faculty.

Gender Difference in Teaching Evaluation Scores of Pediatric Faculty.

To evaluate associations between faculty gender and milestone-based teaching assessment scores assigned by residents. We performed a retrospective cohort study of milestone-based clinical teaching assessments of pediatric faculty completed by pediatric residents at a mid-sized residency program from July 2016 to June 2019. Assessments included 3 domains (Clinical Interactions, Teaching Skills, Role Modeling/Professionalism) comprised of a total of 11 sub-competency items. We used multilevel logistic regression accounting for repeat measures and clustering to evaluate associations between faculty gender and assessment scores in the 1) top quartile, 2) bottom quartile, or 3) top-box (highest score). Findings were adjusted for faculty rank and academic track, and resident year and gender. Over 3 years, 2889 assessments of 104 faculty were performed by 91 residents. Between assessments of women and men faculty, there were no significant differences in the odds of receiving a score in the top quartile for the 3 domains (Clinical aOR 0.99, P = .86; Teaching aOR 0.99, P = .93; Role Modeling aOR 0.87, P = .089). However, assessments of women were more likely to receive a score in the bottom quartile in both Teaching (aOR 1.23, P = .019) and Role Modeling (aOR 1.26, P = .008). Assessments of women also had lower odds of receiving the highest score in 6 of 11 sub-competencies. Results suggest that gender bias may play a role in resident assessments of pediatric faculty. Future studies are needed to determine if findings are replicated in other settings and to identify opportunities to reduce the gender gap in pediatric academic medicine.

Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in a Department of Pediatrics.

The last substantial description of gender discrimination and harassment described in the journal Pediatrics was in 2019. It is unclear whether the field has made progress toward its goal of equity. We aimed to describe: (1) the recent gender-equity climate according to women and men faculty in the department of pediatrics at a single, large academic center, and (2) institutional efforts to address persistent gender discrimination and harassment. In late 2020, we distributed an anonymous survey to all department faculty that included demographic data, a modified version of the Overt Gender Discrimination at Work Scale, questions about experiences/witnessed discriminatory treatment and sexual harassment, and if those experiences negatively affected career advancement. Of 524 pediatrics faculty, 290 (55%) responded. Compared with men, women more commonly reported gender discrimination (50% vs. 4%, P < .01) and that their gender negatively affected their career advancement (50% vs 9%, P < .01). More than 50% of women reported discriminatory treatment at least annually and 38% recognized specific sexist statements; only 4% and 17% of men reported the same (P < .01 for both). We concluded that a disproportionately low number of male faculty recognized the harassment female faculty experienced. In the 18 months since, our department and university have made efforts to improve salary equity and parity in leadership representation, created an anonymous bias-reporting portal, mandated bias training, and implemented new benchmarks of "professionalism" that focus on diversity. Although we acknowledge that culture change will take time, we hope our lessons learned help promote gender equity in pediatrics more broadly.

Gender Differences in Emergency Medicine Attending Physician Comments to Residents: A Qualitative Analysis

Prior studies have revealed gender differences in the milestone and clinical competency committee assessment of emergency medicine (EM) residents. To explore gender disparities and the reasons for such disparities in the narrative comments from EM attending physicians to EM residents. This multicenter qualitative analysis examined 10 488 narrative comments among EM faculty and EM residents between 2015 to 2018 in 5 EM training programs in the US. Data were analyzed from 2019 to 2021. Differences in narrative comments by gender and study site. Qualitative analysis included deidentification and iterative coding of the data set using an axial coding approach, with double coding of 20% of the comments at random to assess intercoder reliability (κ, 0.84). The authors reviewed the unmasked coded data set to identify emerging themes. Summary statistics were calculated for the number of narrative comments and their coded themes by gender and study site. χ2 tests were used to determine differences in the proportion of narrative comments by gender of faculty and resident. In this study of 283 EM residents, of whom 113 (40%) identified as women, and 277 EM attending physicians, of whom 95 (34%) identified as women, there were notable gender differences in the content of the narrative comments from faculty to residents. Men faculty, compared with women faculty, were more likely to provide either nonspecific comments (115 of 182 [63.2%] vs 40 of 95 [42.1%]), or no comments (3387 of 10 496 [32.3%] vs 1169 of 4548 [25.7%]; P < .001) to men and women residents. Compared with men residents, more women residents were told that they were performing below level by men and women faculty (36 of 113 [31.9%] vs 43 of 170 [25.3%]), with the most common theme including lack of confidence with procedural skills. In this qualitative study of narrative comments provided by EM attending physicians to residents, multiple modifiable contributors to gender disparities in assessment were identified, including the presence, content, and specificity of comments. Among women residents, procedural competency was associated with being conflated with procedural confidence. These findings can inform interventions to improve parity in assessment across graduate medical education.

Gender Differences in National Institutes of Health Grant Submissions Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Introduction: Emerging data suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted women in academic medicine, potentially eliminating recent gains that have been made toward gender equity. This study examined possible pandemic-related gender disparities in research grant submissions, one of the most important criteria for academic promotion and tenure evaluations. Methods: Data were collected from two major academic institutions (one private and one public) on the gender and academic rank of faculty principal investigators who submitted new grants to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) during COVID-19 (March 1st, 2020, through August 31, 2020) compared with a matched period in 2019 (March 1st, 2019, through August 31, 2019). t-Tests and chi-square analyses compared the gender distribution of individuals who submitted grants during the two periods of examination. Results: In 2019 (prepandemic), there was no significant difference in the average number of grants submitted by women compared with men faculty. In contrast, women faculty submitted significantly fewer grants in 2020 (during the pandemic) than men. Men were also significantly more likely than women to submit grants in both 2019 and 2020 compared with submitting in 2019 only, suggesting men faculty may have been more likely than their women colleagues to sustain their productivity in grant submissions during the pandemic. Discussion: Women's loss of extramural funding may compound over time, as it impedes new data collection, research progress, and academic advancement. Efforts to support women's research productivity and career trajectories are urgently needed in the following years of pandemic recovery.

Predictors of faculty narrative evaluation quality in medical school clerkships.

Narrative approaches to assessment provide meaningful and valid representations of trainee performance. Yet, narratives are frequently perceived as vague, nonspecific and low quality. To date, there is little research examining factors associated with narrative evaluation quality, particularly in undergraduate medical education. The purpose of this study was to examine associations of faculty- and student-level characteristics with the quality of faculty member's narrative evaluations of clerkship students. The authors reviewed faculty narrative evaluations of 50 students' clinical performance in their inpatient medicine and neurology clerkships, resulting in 165 and 87 unique evaluations in the respective clerkships. The authors evaluated narrative quality using the Narrative Evaluation Quality Instrument (NEQI). The authors used linear mixed effects modelling to predict total NEQI score. Explanatory covariates included the following: time to evaluation completion, number of weeks spent with student, faculty total weeks on service per year, total faculty years in clinical education, student gender, faculty gender, and an interaction term between student and faculty gender. Significantly higher narrative evaluation quality was associated with a shorter time to evaluation completion, with NEQI scores decreasing by approximately 0.3 points every 10 days following students' rotations (p = .004). Additionally, women faculty had statistically higher quality narrative evaluations with NEQI scores 1.92 points greater than men faculty (p = .012). All other covariates were not significant. The quality of faculty members' narrative evaluations of medical students was associated with time to evaluation completion and faculty gender but not faculty experience in clinical education, faculty weeks on service, or the amount of time spent with students. Findings advance understanding on ways to improve the quality of narrative evaluations which are imperative given assessment models that will increase the volume and reliance on narratives.

"Why bother?": Barriers to reporting gender and sexual harassment in emergency medicine.

Gender and sexual harassment in emergency medicine (EM) is persistent in the workplace but remains underreported. Barriers to reporting in EM are largely unknown. This study explored barriers to reporting gender and sexual harassment among EM faculty and residents and potential improvements to reporting systems. We conducted semistructured interviews with EM faculty and residents across the United States, utilizing purposive sampling to ensure diverse representation. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded by two independent investigators. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation and prominent themes were identified from coded data. A total of 32 interviews were completed with women and men faculty and residents. Prominent themes were identified representing compounding barriers to reporting. Participants described confusion over what constitutes a reportable definition of gender and sexual harassment, unfamiliarity with reporting processes, and multiple avenues (both informal and formal through departmental, hospital, and institutional systems) for reporting. Participants expressed limited confidence in formal reporting systems and related several perceived and actual negative outcomes of reporting. A number of improvements were recommended centering around creating reporting systems that supported, empowered, and protected survivors; improving transparency about reporting processes; and ensuring accountability at a departmental and institutional level. Significant barriers to reporting exist and deter individuals from reporting. Given the negative consequences of ongoing gender and sexual harassment, emergency departments and institutions must take responsibility to reduce barriers and support individuals throughout the reporting process.

Association Between Resident Race and Ethnicity and Clinical Performance Assessment Scores in Graduate Medical Education.

To assess the association between internal medicine (IM) residents' race/ethnicity and clinical performance assessments. The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of clinical performance assessment scores at 6 U.S. IM residency programs from 2016 to 2017. Residents underrepresented in medicine (URiM) were identified using self-reported race/ethnicity. Standardized scores were calculated for Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies. Cross-classified mixed-effects regression assessed the association between race/ethnicity and competency scores, adjusting for rotation time of year and setting; resident gender, postgraduate year, and IM In-Training Examination percentile rank; and faculty gender, rank, and specialty. Data included 3,600 evaluations by 605 faculty of 703 residents, including 94 (13.4%) URiM residents. Resident race/ethnicity was associated with competency scores, with lower scores for URiM residents (difference in adjusted standardized scores between URiM and non-URiM residents, mean [standard error]) in medical knowledge (-0.123 [0.05], P = .021), systems-based practice (-0.179 [0.05], P = .005), practice-based learning and improvement (-0.112 [0.05], P = .032), professionalism (-0.116 [0.06], P = .036), and interpersonal and communication skills (-0.113 [0.06], P = .044). Translating this to a 1 to 5 scale in 0.5 increments, URiM resident ratings were 0.07 to 0.12 points lower than non-URiM resident ratings in these 5 competencies. The interaction with faculty gender was notable in professionalism (difference between URiM and non-URiM for men faculty -0.199 [0.06] vs women faculty -0.014 [0.07], P = .01) with men more than women faculty rating URiM residents lower than non-URiM residents. Using the 1 to 5 scale, men faculty rated URiM residents 0.13 points lower than non-URiM residents in professionalism. Resident race/ethnicity was associated with assessment scores to the disadvantage of URiM residents. This may reflect bias in faculty assessment, effects of a noninclusive learning environment, or structural inequities in assessment.

MP10-09 ACADEMIC PRODUCTIVITY AMONGST UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITY UROLOGISTS AT ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 May 2022MP10-09 ACADEMIC PRODUCTIVITY AMONGST UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITY UROLOGISTS AT ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS David Tella, Bahrom Ostad, David Barquin, Caleigh Smith, Rebecca King, Christopher Ballantyne, Tracy Downs, Kirsten Greene, and Nora Kern David TellaDavid Tella More articles by this author , Bahrom OstadBahrom Ostad More articles by this author , David BarquinDavid Barquin More articles by this author , Caleigh SmithCaleigh Smith More articles by this author , Rebecca KingRebecca King More articles by this author , Christopher BallantyneChristopher Ballantyne More articles by this author , Tracy DownsTracy Downs More articles by this author , Kirsten GreeneKirsten Greene More articles by this author , and Nora KernNora Kern More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002532.09AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Underrepresented minorities (URMs) and women are underrepresented in urology and may face obstacles in promotions. No study has identified academic productivity of URMs in urology compared to non-URMs which motivated our primary aim. Our secondary aim was to identify academic productivity of women compared to men. METHODS: A database was created from 145 ACGME accredited urology residency programs (1,644 residents and 2,131 faculty). Demographic data was obtained from departmental websites, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Doximity. URM status was determined by origin of name, photo, biography, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Doximity. URM status was defined as Black, Hispanic, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. A PubMed query was performed to determine publication (pub) output. URM status, gender, post-graduate year/years out of practice, and Doximity rank for institution were factors in multivariable analysis. RESULTS: For residents, there were 145 (9%) URMs and 1499 (91%) non-URMs. The median number of total pubs was 2 (IQR 1,5) for URMs and 2 (IQR 1,5) for non-URMs (p=0.54). The median number of first/last author pubs was 1 (IQR 0,2) for URMs and 1 (IQR 0,2) for non-URM residents (p=0.79). There were 465 (28%) women and 1179 (72%) men residents. The median of total pubs was 2 (IQR 0,4) for women and 2 (IQR 1,6) for men (p=0.003). The median of first/last author pubs was 1 (IQR 0,2) for women and 1 (IQR 0,2) for men residents (p=0.14). For faculty, there were 184 (9%) URMs and 1947 (91%) non-URMs. For faculty, the median number of total pubs was 12 (IQR 3,32) for URMs and 19 (IQR 6,45) for non-URMs (p=0.0002). The median number of first/last author pubs was 4.5 (IQR 1,12) for URMs and 7 (IQR 2,20) for non-URM faculty (p=0.0002). There were 372 (17%) women and 1759 (83%) men faculty. The median of total pubs was 11 (IQR 5,25) for women and 20 (IQR 6,49) for men (p =<0.0001). The median of first/last author pubs was 4 (IQR 1,10.5) for women and 8 (IQR 2,22) for men faculty (p =<0.001). On multivariable analysis, there was no difference in total pubs and first/last author pubs for URMs vs non-URMs (p=0.88 and p=0.42 for residents, p=0.30 and p=0.80 for faculty). However, there remained a difference between genders for residents and faculty with respect to total pubs but not first/last author pubs (p=0.002 and p=0.10 for residents, p=0.004 and p=0.07 for faculty). CONCLUSIONS: When controlling for multiple factors, academic productivity was not different in URMs and non-URMs for both residents and faculty. Men residents and faculty had more total pubs compared to women. Source of Funding: None © 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 207Issue Supplement 5May 2022Page: e149 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information David Tella More articles by this author Bahrom Ostad More articles by this author David Barquin More articles by this author Caleigh Smith More articles by this author Rebecca King More articles by this author Christopher Ballantyne More articles by this author Tracy Downs More articles by this author Kirsten Greene More articles by this author Nora Kern More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...

Men’s Perceptions of the Value of Women Leaders in Higher Education

This qualitative research study, framed by social role theory, explored the perceptions of 20 men faculty and academic administrators at doctoral-granting highest research-intensive universities located in the Southwestern region of the U.S. The focus of the study was their perceptions of the value of women leaders, the differences between how men and women are valued in higher education, and the stereotypes and challenges that contribute to how women are valued as leaders. Findings from this study show that men faculty and administrators do not always value women as leaders; differences between academia and industry may exist surrounding how women are valued as leaders; institutional leadership may perpetuate the devaluation of women as leaders; and the value of women in higher education leadership remains a reflection of how women are valued in society. Differences between how men and women are valued were also explored, finding that men faculty and administrators may not see the differences in value based on gender; gender differences exist in regards to standards for evaluation and reward in higher education; and women are perceived to devalue themselves. Challenges that contribute to how women are valued were identified, including the continuation of homosociality that promotes men supporting other men, and the existence of stereotypes and biases that give men an advantage and undermine women in leadership roles. Keywords: social value, women’s leadership, gender

“I Do Not Speak as Freely”: Gendered Views on Campus Carry at a Research University

As campus carry policies are implemented at colleges and universities across the country, the concern for the safety of students, faculty members, and campus community members has heightened. In the state of Texas, broad sweeping campus carry policies were recently enacted by Texas State Legislature that allows individuals to conceal carry firearms within educational spaces on campus. Within these educational spaces, faculty members are often relied upon to deliver educational content without having their Second Amendment speech rights chilled by the prospect of loaded firearms within a classroom. Given this tension, this study fills an important gap in the research and explains how faculty members view campus carry as it relates to their personal safety and professional work. This study employed a mixed methods design (survey and qualitative) to expound upon the attitudes toward campus carry of 226 faculty and staff members working in a large research-intensive university within the state of Texas. Results suggest strong gender differences between how faculty members view campus carry policies and their safety on campus, with women often reporting feeling less safe and less able to perform their job duties under the pressure and anxiety of campus carry policies. Ultimately, this study’s results imply that women faculty members may more less safe, more marginalized, and further victimized by campus carry laws than men faculty members, transgressing gender equity progress in the professoriate, as women have been traditionally underrepresented on college faculties.