Full Professor Level Research Articles

Sex Diversity and Equity Among Fellows of the American Orthopaedic Association.

We hypothesized that women are underrepresented among fellows of the American Orthopaedic Association (AOA) relative to their prevalence among faculty at departments of orthopaedic surgery. Clinical faculty at departments of orthopaedic surgery that are affiliated with residency training programs were analyzed for AOA membership. Participation-to-prevalence ratios (PPRs) were calculated for men and women with AOA membership relative to their prevalence among orthopaedic surgeon faculty. A PPR of <0.8 or >1.2 indicated under- or overrepresentation, respectively. PPR values between 0.8 and 1.2 indicated equivalent representation. Sex disparities in AOA membership were explored by academic rank and orthopaedic subspecialty. There were 4,310 orthopaedic surgery faculty, and 998 (23.2%) had AOA membership. Overall, women formed the minority of members in the AOA study cohort (11.4%), but they had equivalent representation relative to their prevalence among faculty (10.0%, PPR = 1.14, p = 0.210). In the AOA study cohort, women were the minority at each academic rank, including assistant professor (20.2% versus 79.8%, p < 0.001), associate professor (16.8% versus 83.2%, p < 0.001), and full professor (7.0% versus 93.0%, p < 0.001). However, women had greater representation in the AOA study cohort at each academic rank than would be expected based on their prevalence among faculty, including the assistant (PPR = 1.45), associate (PPR = 1.56), and full (PPR = 1.27) professor levels. Similarly, in the AOA study cohort, women were the minority in each orthopaedic subspecialty, but were only underrepresented in pediatric orthopaedics (PPR = 0.74). Women had greater representation in the AOA study cohort than would be expected by their prevalence among faculty in hand surgery (PPR = 1.51) and orthopaedic sports medicine (PPR = 1.33). In contrast, men had equivalent representation in each orthopaedic subspecialty. Women form a minority group in the AOA, but they exhibit greater representation in the AOA than would be expected based on their prevalence among faculty at each academic rank, and they have greater representation than men, who exhibit equivalent representation across all academic ranks. Collectively, these results disproved our hypothesis, and suggest that women are participating in the AOA at rates that are greater than their prevalence among faculty. Equitable participation of women in orthopaedic surgery is necessary to promote diversity and inclusion in the specialty. The AOA may be an important catalyst for future positive diversity and inclusion efforts within orthopaedic surgery.

Gender disparities in promotions and exiting in UK Russell Group universities

ABSTRACT A theoretical model of promotion and exits is presented incorporating statistical discrimination and bias, with both leading to a lower likelihood of promotion and a higher probability of exiting academia earlier for women. Using UK panel data, we confirm the model’s predictions that women academics are considerably under-represented in higher academic grades, and especially that gender gaps are largest at Full Professor level (e.g. we show that, cet. par. women took some 8.5 years more than men to achieve Associate Professor and then a further 6.1 years more to secure a Full Professorship). The policy implications of the results suggest that UK universities should emphasize the importance of organizational culture, evaluation practices and institutional procedures when hiring and promoting both men and women.

Sex Disparities Among Fellowship Program Directors in Orthopaedic Surgery.

Women are underrepresented in the orthopaedic surgery workforce in the U.S. The purpose of this study was to elucidate the representation of women among fellowship program directors (PDs) in orthopaedic surgery. This was a retrospective cohort study of fellowship PDs in orthopaedic surgery during the 2022 to 2023 academic year. Academic, training, and demographic characteristics were collected from internet-based resources. Participation-to-prevalence ratios (PPRs) were calculated for both men and women. A PPR of <0.8 indicated underrepresentation and a PPR of >1.2 indicated overrepresentation. Bivariate analyses were utilized to assess the correlation between sex diversity and geographic region and between sex diversity and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accreditation status. The relationship between the median annual salary and the sex diversity of each orthopaedic subspecialty was analyzed with use of the Pearson correlation coefficient. This study included 600 fellowship PDs, 40 (6.7%) of whom were women. In total, 24.5% of the fellowship PDs were assistant professors (8.8% women versus 91.2% men, p < 0.001); 26.2% were associate professors (9.6% women versus 90.4% men, p < 0.001); 36.8% were full professors (4.5% women versus 95.5% men, p < 0.001); and 12.5% were unranked (2.7% women versus 97.3% men, p < 0.001). The representation of women increased with academic rank, as reflected in their prevalence at the assistant (PPR = 0.67), associate (PPR = 0.77), and full professor (PPR = 0.80) levels. Among the orthopaedic subspecialties, musculoskeletal oncology (19.0%), pediatric orthopaedics (14.6%), and hand surgery (12.6%) had the highest proportions of women fellowship PDs. PPRs were lowest for orthopaedic sports medicine (PPR = 0.35), shoulder and elbow (PPR = 0.45), and adult reconstruction (PPR = 0.52). Women PDs had equitable representation in musculoskeletal oncology (PPR = 1.17), hand surgery (PPR = 1.02), foot and ankle (PPR = 0.84), and orthopaedic trauma (PPR = 0.80). Median subspecialty compensation was negatively correlated with the prevalence of women among fellowship PDs (r = -0.70, p = 0.036). Geographic region was not associated with sex diversity (p = 0.434), but programs with ACGME accreditation had significantly more women fellowship PDs than those without (11.0% versus 3.9%, p < 0.001). Women are underrepresented among orthopaedic fellowship PDs, especially in certain subspecialties (orthopaedic sports medicine, shoulder and elbow, and adult reconstruction). More research is needed to understand the barriers that impact the representation of women among leadership positions in orthopaedic surgery. Greater sex diversity among fellowship PDs may help to increase the recruitment of women into orthopaedic subspecialties. The equitable consideration of orthopaedic surgeons from all backgrounds for leadership positions can increase workforce diversity, which may improve the vitality of the orthopaedic community.

Women Are Underrepresented Among Principal Investigators of Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Clinical Trials in the United States.

Leadership of clinical trials confers national recognition and promotes academic advancement. We hypothesized that women would be underrepresented among principal investigators (PIs) of hip and knee arthroplasty clinical trials in the United States. A query of hip and knee arthroplasty clinical trials from 2015 to 2021 was performed on ClinicalTrials.gov. Clinical trials were included if they involved a U.S.-based orthopaedic-surgeon PI. We analyzed the sex representation of arthroplasty PIs among junior-level (assistant professor) and senior-level (associate or full professor) faculty. Participation-to-prevalence ratios (PPRs) were calculated by comparing the sex representation among arthroplasty PIs with that among academic arthroplasty faculty at institutions conducting hip and knee arthroplasty clinical trials. A PPR of <0.8 indicated underrepresentation and a PPR of >1.2 indicated overrepresentation. A total of 157 clinical trials involving 192 arthroplasty PIs were included. Of these PIs, only 2 (1.0%) were women. PIs were mostly funded by academic institutions (66%) and industry (33%). U.S. federal sources funded a minority (1%) of PIs. Of the 243 male arthroplasty faculty who were eligible, 190 men (78.2%) served as PIs. In contrast, of the 17 female arthroplasty faculty who were eligible, only 2 women (11.8%) served as PIs (p < 0.001). Across the entire cohort of arthroplasty PIs, women were underrepresented (PPR = 0.16), whereas men were equitably represented (PPR = 1.06). Women were underrepresented at the assistant professor (PPR = 0.0), associate professor (PPR = 0.52), and full professor (PPR = 0.58) levels. Women were underrepresented among PIs of hip and knee arthroplasty clinical trials, which may lead to disparities in academic promotion and advancement. More research is needed to understand the potential barriers to female leadership of clinical trials. Greater awareness and engagement are needed to create sex equity in clinical trial leadership for hip and knee arthroplasty research. The underrepresentation of women among arthroplasty PIs may lead to fewer options in surgical providers for patients and may limit access to musculoskeletal care for certain patient populations. A diverse arthroplasty workforce can promote attention to issues that disproportionately affect historically underrepresented and vulnerable patient populations.

The Complicated Middle of the Academic Deanery

The complicated and ever-growing roles of assistant and associate deans (A-deans) can often be compared to those of middle managers. With responsibilities that are rapidly expanding and often unclear or overlapping with other personnel, A-deans may face identity crises. Additionally, because they are often not at the full professor level, they may experience difficulty achieving promotion. In this commentary, the authors call for increased awareness of the challenges associated with these roles and suggest opportunities for change. To maximize effectiveness in their roles, the Academy and colleges/schools are encouraged to explore workload/expectations for A-deans and associated reward structures, including promotion and tenure guidelines with explicit recognition for the important role(s) they play. A-deans are also encouraged to advocate for infrastructure and responsibilities that support both their academic institution and their own individual professional goals.

November 2022 Placement Ads

November 2022 Placement Ads

Equal Representation Does Not Mean Equal Opportunity: Women Academics Perceive a Thicker Glass Ceiling in Social and Behavioral Fields Than in the Natural Sciences and Economics.

In the study of women in academia, the focus is often particularly on women’s stark underrepresentation in the math-intensive fields of natural sciences, technology, and economics (NTE). In the non-math-intensive of fields life, social and behavioral (LSB) sciences, gender issues are seemingly less at stake because, on average, women are well-represented. However, in the current study, we demonstrate that equal gender representation in LSB disciplines does not guarantee women’s equal opportunity to advance to full professorship—to the contrary. With a cross-sectional survey among N = 2,109 academics at mid-level careers (i.e., assistant and associate professors) in the Netherlands, we test the hypothesis that in LSB (more than NTE), female academics perceive to hit a “thicker” glass ceiling—that is, they see a sharper contrast between the high representation of women at the lower compared to the top levels. We test whether this predicts female academics’ lower estimated chances to reach full professorship relative to men in LSB (but not NTE). We introduce a novel perceived glass ceiling index (GCI), calculated based on academics’ perceptions of the share of women and men in their direct work environment minus their perceptions of gender ratio among full professors in their field. Results confirm that the perceived glass ceiling is thicker in the non-math-intensive LSB compared to math-intensive NTE fields. Furthermore, only in LSB (but not NTE), women perceived a thicker glass ceiling than men. Moreover, only among female academics, the thicker the perceived glass ceiling, the lower their estimated chances to become full professor 1 day. Combined, a moderated mediation showed that for women only, a thicker perceived glass ceiling in LSB compared to NTE disciplines predicted their lower estimated chances to advance to full professor level. No such mediation occurred for men. We conclude that women’s higher numerical representation in LSB disciplines does not negate a male-dominant normative standard about academic leadership and success. Paradoxically, the perceived odds for female academics to reach the top of their field are lower in fields where they are relatively highly represented, and this may pose unique barriers to women’s perceived opportunities for career success.

Subspecialty Selection Impacts Research Productivity and Faculty Rank of Academic Orthopaedic Surgeons.

Faculty promotion and research productivity are important for the overall career trajectory of academic orthopaedic surgeons. The purpose of this study was to investigate the role that subspecialty and demographic factors play in research productivity and academic advancement among orthopaedic surgeons. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of academic rank among orthopaedic surgeons in 2018. We identified academic orthopaedic programs in the United States from the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA) and collected publicly available data for surgeons, including fellowship training, gender, faculty rank, geographic region, and years since residency, from institutional websites. Research productivity was defined with the Hirsch index (h-index) from Scopus, and the m-index was calculated from the surgeon's h-index and the date of the first publication. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to determine the variables that are associated with associate professorship, full professorship, and the h-index. In this study, we identified and included 2,879 academic orthopaedic surgeons. Completion of a fellowship in foot and ankle (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 2.45 [1.17 to 5.15]), sports medicine (2.15 [1.12 to 4.15]), trauma (2.83 [1.42 to 5.66]), hand and upper extremity (2.20 [1.13 to 4.28]), musculoskeletal oncology (3.28 [1.49 to 7.21]), or upper-extremity reconstruction (3.20 [1.31 to 7.81]) was associated with associate professorship. Completion of a trauma fellowship was associated with full professorship (2.93 [1.27 to 6.77]). Completion of a fellowship in adult reconstruction (difference in least-squares means [95% confidence interval]: 5.01 [1.22 to 8.81]), sports medicine (4.52 [1.00 to 8.04]), spine (5.40 [1.63 to 9.18]), or upper-extremity reconstruction (10.64 [6.15 to 15.12]) or the completion of multiple fellowships (5.12 [1.27 to 8.94]) were independently associated with a higher h-index. Women had significantly lower h-indices than men at the assistant (median [interquartile range]: 3 [1 to 6] versus 4 [2 to 8]) and full professor (17 [12 to 26] versus 22 [13 to 34]) levels. There were no differences in the m-index between men and women at any academic rank. Orthopaedic subspecialty selection is independently associated with research productivity and academic rank. The differences in research productivity may be important to consider when evaluating orthopaedic surgeons for promotion. While female surgeons had lower h-indices than their male counterparts, this difference was not seen when using the m-index.

Assessment of Differences in Academic Rank and Salary by Gender and Race Among United States Academic Radiation Oncologists

Assessment of Differences in Academic Rank and Salary by Gender and Race Among United States Academic Radiation Oncologists

Race, gender, and scholarly impact: Disparities for women and faculty of color in clinical psychology.

We sought to determine if gender and race are associated with scientific impact, scholarly productivity, career advancement, and prestige. Publicly available data on publications, h-index, advancement, and prestige were assessed across core faculty in all American Psychological Association-accredited clinical psychology programs at R1 institutions in the United States (87 programs, 918 scientists). There were significant effects of both gender and race on productivity and impact, which were most apparent among the most senior faculty. Men and white faculty in associate and full professor ranks had higher scholarly productivity and impact. Among associate professors, men were more likely to get tenure earlier, even when controlling for scientific impact (h-index). Neither gender nor race was associated with prestige among full professors. These findings, along with under-representation of non-White faculty across levels (11.2%) and women at the full professor level (42.8%), suggest disparities in academic clinical psychology that must be addressed.

Gender Disparities in Academic Rank and Writing amongst Medical Faculty Members

Introduction:&#x0D; Pakistan is a developing country with rich cultural values. With increased urban development and high workforce demands in the labor market during the last two decades, we have seen a positive shift in the stereotypical paradigm with an immense influx of female students in all fields of education including medicine. Although there is increased representation of female doctors, their academic contribution and representation in higher academic ranks seem scarce.&#x0D; Objective:&#x0D; In this study, we investigate gender differences in academic ranks and research in renowned Medical Institutions of Pakistan.&#x0D; Methods:&#x0D; Websites of three institutions were used to identify male and female faculty members, their respective publications were counted using “Pakmedinet.com” and “Scholar.google.com”.&#x0D; Results:&#x0D; A one-way ANOVA showed a significant difference in the male-female ratio at higher academic ranks. This ratio drastically increases at the Full Professor level where males are three times more than female Professors. ANOVA results also show that publications by male faculty members are significantly higher than females. Even on the same rank, women have not published their work in the same capacity as men.&#x0D; Conclusion:&#x0D; The results are in alignment with several previous studies that indicate gender disparities between males and females especially as they climb up the academic ladder. Publications are a measure of academic productivity. This study suggests that although female representation as faculty members have increased over the years, their lack of frequent publications might be a factor that hinders women in advancing in academic ranks.&#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; Keywords:&#x0D; Gender imbalance, Academic productivity, Medical institutions, Pakistan.&#x0D;

A comprehensive analysis of the demographics and citation-based productivity of radiation oncologists practicing at comprehensive cancer centers.

11001 Background: Academic radiation oncology represents a constantly changing landscape. We sought to determine the demographic makeup of the current academic radiation oncology workforce. Methods: Internet searches of the 51 National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers were conducted in September 2019. The Scopus database was subsequently searched in December 2019 to ascertain the h-index for each radiation oncologist. H-indices were analyzed by faculty rank (junior faculty versus associate professor versus full professor) and gender. Variables were coalesced for statistical analysis using Fisher’s exact test and two-tailed t-tests. Results: Analysis of 993 radiation oncologists revealed that 53.6% are junior faculty, 24.8% are associate professors, and 21.7% are full professors. The average radiation oncologist has been an MD for 19.6 years; 32.5% (232/993) are women, and less than 5% (47/993) are underrepresented minorities (URM). Of the 51 department chairs, 11.8% are women and 5.6% are underrepresented minorities. Women are significantly underrepresented among full professors (odds ratio = 1.78; p = 0.010) and departmental chairs (odds ratio = 3.80; p = 0.0007); there was no significant difference for assistant professorship (p = 0.067) nor associate professorship (p = 0.348). The overall mean h-index for all faculty was 17.64. Mean h-index was 8.21 for junior faculty, 18.46 for associate professors, and 40.05 for full professors; these differences were statistically significant (p &lt; 0.0001). The overall mean h-index was 19.35 for men (n = 668) and 14.11 for women (n = 323); this difference was statistically significant (p &lt; 0.0001). Conclusions: The majority of academic radiation oncologists are assistant professors; fewer than 5% are underrepresented minorities. Men comprise more than two-thirds of the workforce, and are significantly overrepresented at the full professor (by 78%) and departmental chair (by 280%) levels in academic radiation oncology. The average radiation oncologist at a comprehensive cancer center has published more than 17 manuscripts cited at least 17 times. Contrary to previous findings comparing male and female residents, the difference in academic productivity by gender among faculty was statistically significant. These findings provide objective data to assess the radiation oncology academic workforce and provide a useful benchmark to measure change going forward.

Suggestions for Improving Invited Speaker Diversity To Reflect Trainee Diversity.

Within the field of biomedical research in the United States, the proportion of underrepresented minorities at the Full Professor level has remained consistently low, even though trainee demographics are becoming more diverse. Underrepresented groups face a complex set of barriers to achieving faculty status, including imposter syndrome, increased performance expectations, and patterns of exclusion. Institutionalized racism and sexism have contributed to these barriers and perpetuated policy that excludes underrepresented minorities. These barriers can contribute to decreased feelings of belonging, which may result in decreased retention of underrepresented minorities. Though some universities have altered their hiring practices to increase the number of underrepresented minorities in the applicant pool, these changes have not been sufficient. Here we argue that departmental invited seminar series can be used to provide trainees with scientific role models and increase their sense of belonging while institutions work towards more inclusive policy. In this study, we investigated the demographics (gender and race) of invited seminar speakers over 5 years to the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Michigan. We also investigated current trainee demographics and compared them to invited speaker demographics to gauge if our trainees were being provided with representation of themselves. We found that invited speaker demographics were skewed towards Caucasian men, and our trainee demographics were not being represented. From these findings, we proposed policy change within the department to address how speakers are being invited with the goal of increasing speaker diversity to better reflect trainee diversity. To facilitate this process, we developed a set of suggestions and a web-based resource that allows scientists, committees, and moderators to identify members of underserved groups. These resources can be easily adapted by other fields or subfields to promote inclusion and diversity at seminar series, conferences, and colloquia.

September 2019 Placement Ads

September 2019 Placement Ads

Gender Disparity in Academic Neurosurgery.

BackgroundIn the 1960s, less than 10% of medical school graduates were women. Today, almost half of all medical school graduates are women. Despite the significant rise in female medical school graduates, there continues to be a large gender gap in most subspecialties, particularly surgical subspecialties such as neurosurgery.ObjectiveThe purpose of our study was to assess the factors contributing to differences in the academic ranks of male and female staff in academic neurosurgery programs in Canada and the United States (US).MethodsData about women in academic neurosurgery was collected from a number of sources, including Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA), Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS) FRIEDA, ACGME, CaRMS, Pubmed, and Scopus, to create a database of all neurosurgeons in the US and Canada. The analysis included neurosurgeons in academic and leadership ranks and also the H index, citations, publications, citations per year, and publications per year.ResultsWomen represent only 12% of neurosurgeons in the US and Canada. When gender is further analyzed by academic appointment, women represent just over 12% of neurosurgeons at the assistant and associate professor levels (15.44% and 13.27%, respectively) but significantly less at the full professor level (5.84%). Likewise, only 7.45% of women hold first-in command leadership positions while 4.69% hold second-in-command positions within their institutions.ConclusionsThe existing data shows that women are significantly under-represented in academic neurosurgery. Lack of role models, experience, limited scientific output, and aspirations of a controlled lifestyle could be the potential contributing factors.

The Gender Pay Gap for Behavior Analysis Faculty.

We examined publicly available faculty salaries for men and women faculty members at 16 university programs accredited by the Association for Behavior Analysis International (ABAI). Overall, 52.4% of the 103 faculty members were women, although there were twice as many men as women at the full-professor level. Our data suggest that ABAI-accredited training programs pay women less than men at all academic levels. Both in absolute terms and relative to the wage gap reported in other areas of psychology, the difference in mean wages for women and men in our sample was substantial. The mean salaries of men were 13%, 6%, and 15% greater than those of women at the assistant-, associate-, and full-professor levels, respectively. At all levels, the highest salary reported was earned by a man, and the lowest salary was earned by a woman. This is an embarrassment for our discipline. It is time for a change, and we behavior analysts have the tools to make change happen. Let us put those tools to good use.

Influence of Academic Productivity on Gender Disparity in Academic Interventional Radiology.

OBJECTIVE. This study aimed to determine the effect of academic productivity measured using surrogate metrics, including h-index, publication number, and citation number, on the advancement of academic interventional radiology (IR) staff. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Publicly available data on faculty members in IR departments across academic institutions in Canada and the United States were collected. Gender, academic ranking, leadership position (if any), publication number, citation number, years of active research, and h-index were collected for each faculty member, and these data were used to create a prediction equation. RESULTS. Four hundred twenty IR faculty members met the inclusion criteria for this study. Overall, women were the minority, representing 10% of all IR faculty. Women in academic IR attained academic ranks at a rate comparable to that of men, with 59% of women attaining the rank of assistant professor and 32% attaining associate professor, compared with 59% of men at the assistant professor and 25% at the associate professor level. A trend toward lower female representation was present at the full professor level (women, 8%; men, 15%) but this difference did not reach statistical significance. Leadership position by gender as a percentage of their overall representation in the field was also similar between women and men (first-in-command women, 15%; first-in-command men, 15%; second-in-command women, 2%; second-in-command men, 2%). No significant difference was found between women and men in terms of academic achievement metrics, including publication number, citation number, h-index, and years of active research. CONCLUSION. Women in academic IR achieve similar publication metrics as men and attain promotion to higher academic rank and leadership positions equal to their overall representation in the field. However, women remain the minority among academic IR faculty across North America.

Work–life policies and female faculty representation in US doctoral‐granting economics departments

AbstractThis article examines the relationships between work–life policies and female faculty representation and promotion at US doctoral‐granting economics departments. The data were collected in 2012 on tenure‐track and tenured full‐time faculty from 125 departments and updated in 2018 to include promotion status. Variables include individuals and their educational backgrounds, professional experience and publications. Only publications and experience are statistically significant for predicting academic rank for the female subsample, and the impact of publications is much larger for women compared with men. Work–life policies differ in explaining the representation of women across academic ranks. Dual‐career policies have a positive effect on female representation at the assistant and associate levels but do not have a statistically significant impact at the full professor level. National Science Foundation ADVANCE grantee universities have increased female representation across all ranks, but the effect is the smallest at the full professor level. Work–life policies are insignificant in predicting promotion.

#Me_Who Anatomy of Scholastic, Leadership, and Social Isolation of Underrepresented Minority Women in Academic Medicine.

In academic medicine, under-represented minority women physician-scientists (URMWP)* are uncommon, particularly in leadership positions. Data from the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) show that among internal medicine chairs, there are 12 Asian males, 10 African/American (blacks; 9 men), 7 Hispanics (2 females) and 137 whites (21 females). In the top 40 ranked cardiology programs, there are no female cardiology chiefs, whereas there are at least 10, 2, 1 and 24 Asian, black, Hispanic and white males respectively. There are more URMWP than URM males, yet URMWP are less likely to be professors and occupy leadership positions in academia. Specifically, among United States medical school faculty, relative proportions at assistant, associate and full professor levels according to race/ethnicity and gender have remained essentially unchanged over the past 20 years. AAMC information demonstrates that only 11%, 9%, 11% and 24% of Asian, black, Hispanic and white women are full professors compared with 21%, 18%, 19% and 36% of Asian, black, Hispanic and white men. Additionally, while there are representative proportions of women and Asians at the lowest faculty levels, they have not equitably progressed in academic medicine, likely reflecting discrimination and structural/organizational barriers that are also applicable to black and Hispanic females 1 .

Gender comparisons of social work faculty using H-Index scores

The objective of this study is to determine the role of gender and faculty rank in explaining variance in individual research impact and productivity for social work doctoral faculty. Research impact and productivity were assessed with the H-Index, which is a widely used citation index measure that assesses the quality and quantity of published research articles. We compared the individual H-Index scores for all doctoral level social work faculty from doctoral programs in the United States (N = 1699). Differences in H-Index means were assessed between genders at each tenure-track faculty rank, and between faculty ranks for each gender. Both gender and faculty rank were associated with differences in scholarly impact and productivity. Although men had higher H-Index scores than women in all faculty ranks, the gender gap was the greatest between men and women at the Full Professor level. The gender gap was least pronounced at the Associate Professor level, where women's H-Index scores were closer to those of men. Results support previous studies in which women in the social sciences have lower H-Index scores than men. The diminished gap between men and women at the Associate Professor level may suggest that women get promoted to Full Professor less frequently than men at comparable career milestones. While the results of this study are consistent with the argument that women face unique barriers to academic promotion and other forms of academic success in social work, these results do not explain any specific barriers that may cause the gender gap.