Peering Through the Glass Ceiling: A Mixed Methods Study of Faculty Perceptions of Gender Barriers to Academic Advancement in Infectious Diseases

Abstract

Background The drivers of the gap in advancement between men and women faculty in academic Infectious Diseases (ID) remain poorly understood. This study sought to identify key barriers to academic advancement among faculty in ID and offer policy suggestions to narrow this gap. Methods During the 2019 IDWeek, we conducted focus groups with women faculty members at all ranks and men Full Professors, then we administered a brief survey regarding work-related barriers to advancement to the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) membership. We report themes from the 4 focus group discussions that are most closely linked to policy changes and descriptive analyses of the complementary survey domains. Results Policy change suggestions fell into 3 major categories: (1) Policy changes for IDSA to implement; (2) Future IDWeek Program Recommendations; and (3) Policy Changes for IDSA to Endorse as Best Practices for ID Divisions. Among 790 faculty respondents, fewer women reported that their institutional promotion process was transparent and women Full Professors were significantly more likely to have been sponsored. Conclusions Sponsorship and informed advising about institutional promotions tracks may help to narrow the advancement gap. The Infectious Disease Society of America should consider ambitious policy changes within the society and setting expectations for best practices among ID divisions across the United States.

Wondering If I’d Get There Quicker If I Was a Man: Factors Contributing to Delayed Academic Advancement of Women in Infectious Diseases

“…The spectrum of emergent themes was broad and included work-related barriers, such as limited sponsorship opportunities and lack of effective promotions advising, and also more personal and cultural barriers to advancement. Work-related themes included inadequate advising and unachievable metrics for academic promotion, ineffective sponsorship of junior faculty, and lack of advocacy for change from those in positions of power, which we reported elsewhere [ 20 ]. In addition to specific work-related barriers, several new themes emerged and were also believed to contribute substantially to disparities in academic advancement.…”

“… a Themes addressed in present manuscript. Other themes listed represent organizational/work-specific barriers to academic advancement reported previously with associated policy change recommendations [ 20 ]. …”

“…We conducted four 60-minute, in-person focus groups with ID faculty members during IDWeek 2019 as previously described [ 20 ]. Participants were recruited through the IDSA using email invitations targeted to members registered to attend IDWeek.…”

“…To do this, we conducted a series of focus groups with ID faculty, because this offered a way for participants to share rich personal perspectives on the drivers of gender-related gaps in promotion and the impact of these inequities on their professional careers. We previously reported on findings relating to policy implications from these focus groups as part of a mixed-methods study on gender disparities in academic promotion with Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) members [ 20 ]. In this study, we report on a broader suite of themes from these focus group discussions in an effort to enrich understanding of the fullest spectrum of factors contributing to gender disparities in academic advancement in ID.…”

Joint ESCMID, FEMS, IDSA, ISID and SSI position paper on the fair handling of career breaks among physicians and scientists when assessing eligibility for early-career awards

“…Though gender balance in the biomedical sciences is being achieved at the student level in some countries [ 1 ], women professionals remain a minority in academic biomedical settings, where they are significantly less likely to hold leadership positions or be granted research funding [ 2 , 3 ]. Reasons for the imbalance are manifold, as there are several points of exit from the ‘leaky pipeline’.…”