PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Qualitative ResearchViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Institutional

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Item type:Publication,
    Can’t bibliometric analysts do better? How quality assessment without field expertise does not work: A comment on G. Madison and T. Söderlund: Comparisons of scientific quality indicators across peer-reviewed journal articles with more or less gender perspective: Gender studies can do better Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Lykke, N.
    The article is an invited comment on Guy Madison and Therese Söderlund (M&S): Comparisons of content and scientific quality indicators across peer-reviewed journal articles with more or less gender perspective: Gender studies can do better. Scientometrics 115(3):1161–1183. The article pinpoints a series of serious problems in M&S’s quantitative quality assessment and analysis of the field of gender studies, pertaining to their overall conceptual framework, their general approach and their specific analysis. It is argued that the over-arching problem in M&S’s study is their lack of expert knowledge of the field of gender studies, their lack of respect for differences between qualitative and quantitative research, and their research design, which is biased towards quantitative social and natural science research. Firstly, it is demonstrated that a key concept, ‘gender perspective’, is used in an incoherent and confusing way in M&S’s analysis. Secondly, it is argued that the confusion is not an isolated definitional problem, but related to a series of slippages between M&S’s source of inspiration (Ganetz in Genusvetenskapliga projektansökningar inom humaniora-samhällsvetenskap – en uppföljning av Vetenskapsrådets beredning och utfall år 2004. Vetenskapsrådets rapportserie, Stockholm 15/2005, 2005) and their own adoption of the category. Thirdly, differences between qualitative and quantitative research, and between hermeneutic and explanatory knowledge production, are discussed more broadly to sustain the argument that the mentioned slippages occur, because M&S transfer analytical tools from Ganetz’ qualitative study, based on a peer review methodology, to a quantitative quality assessment, carried out without field specific expert knowledge. It is argued that, to be adequate and relevant, a quality assessment would need to respect these differences, and develop tools and research designs accordingly. Fourthly, the validity of M&S’s content analysis—the core of their study—is questioned in detail because of its use of inadequate analytical categories, and because of its exclusion of central elements from the analysis. Finally, it is argued that the bias in M&S’s research design is reproduced in their results. © 2018, The Author(s).
  • Item type:Publication,
    Impact of a Women-focused Professional Organization on Academic Retention and Advancement: Perceptions From a Qualitative Study Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Lin, Michelle P.
    ;
    Lall, Michelle D.
    ;
    Samuels-Kalow, Margaret
    ;
    Das, Devjani
    ;
    Linden, Judith A.
    OBJECTIVES: Organizations to promote career networking and mentorship among women are recommended as a best practice to support the recruitment and retention of women physicians; however, the impact of such organizations is unknown. Our primary objective is to describe the impact of a national woman-focused organization for academic emergency physicians on retention and advancement. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews of past and present organization leaders, as well as members at varying stages in their careers. Physicians with experience in qualitative methods conducted interviews and coded all transcripts using inductive content analysis techniques. Themes were reviewed and discussed to ensure consensus. RESULTS: We performed 17 interviews lasting 20 to 30 minutes each, resulting in 476 total minutes of transcript. Participants represented varying stages of career experience, ranging from 2 to 35 years since residency completion (median = 9.5 years). Median years of participation in the woman-focused organization was 10 years. Over half (53%) of participants were past presidents of the organization. The dominant themes encompassed facilitating academic advancement through scholarly productivity, leadership experiences, awards, and promotions; mentorship and sponsorship; peer support and collaborations; reduced professional isolation; and initiatives to address systemic gender inequities and challenges, including strategies to navigate bias, promote pay equity, and advocate for family-friendly workplace policies. DISCUSSION: Active participation in a woman-focused professional organization enhances members' career retention and advancement by creating opportunities and relationships that facilitate leadership, enabling scholarly work to advance equity and inclusion, and cultivating a sense of belonging. While challenges and barriers persist, the myriad benefits of a women-focused professional organization reported by members and leaders represent important steps toward greater equity for women and other underrepresented groups in academic medicine.
  • Item type:Publication,
    How Women in Biomedical PhD Programs Manage Gender Consciousness as They Persist Toward Academic Research Careers Open PDF 
    (2016)
    Remich, Robin
    ;
    Jones, Remi
    ;
    Wood, Christine V.
    ;
    Campbell, Patricia B.
    ;
    McGee, Richard
    PURPOSE: Women remain underrepresented as biomedical faculty and are more likely than white and Asian men to lose interest in faculty careers in graduate school. However, some women maintain interest in academic research careers during PhD training and are the most likely candidates for faculty positions. This study explored how these women described and interpreted gender issues at early stages in their training. METHOD: Annual interviews from 2009 to 2014 with 22 female PhD students aspiring to research faculty careers were analyzed using an iterative, content analysis approach rooted in the interview data. Focusing on career intentions and experiences with gender, race, and ethnicity, authors arrived at 11 themes which describe a range of gendered experiences and strategies. RESULTS: Of the 22 women, 19 (86%) acknowl edged systemic gender inequities in science and/or reported instances of bias, while 15 of them also said they had not yet experienced unequal treatment. All 22 described using at least one "gender-explicit strategy," where they based decisions on gender or in response to perceived biases. "Gender-agnostic strategies" emerged for 12 (55%) who doubted that gender will affect their career. CONCLUSIONS: Findings show that women biomedical PhD students continue to face conditions that can lead to unequal treatment; gender biases continue to persist. Students displayed a range of perceptions and strategies in response to these conditions at this early training stage. Following these students over time will determine whether these or other strategies are required and sufficient to enable persistence toward academic careers.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Silent Bias: Challenges, Obstacles, and Strategies for Leadership Development in Academic Medicine-Lessons From Oral Histories of Women Professors at the University of Kansas Open PDF 
    (2016)
    Pingleton, Susan K.
    ;
    Jones, Emily V. M.
    ;
    Rosolowski, Tacey A.
    ;
    Zimmerman, Mary K.
    PURPOSE: Despite dramatic increases in female learners and junior faculty, a significant gap remains in female leadership in academic medicine. To assess challenges and obstacles encountered, strategies for academic success, and lessons learned for leadership development, the authors conducted an in-depth study of women full professors. METHOD: The authors used a qualitative oral history approach, interviewing 87% of the cohort of female full professors at one Midwestern medical school in 2013 using a pretested, open-ended, semistructured interview guide. Interviews were videotaped and the audio recordings transcribed. Content was sorted into categories and key themes identified within each category. RESULTS: Participants described significant challenges: being treated with "silent bias," "being ignored," and being seen as an "other." Coping strategies included downplaying, keeping a distance, employing humor, and using symbols (e.g., white coat) to carefully present themselves. Explanations for success included intelligence, meritocracy, being even-tempered, and carefully constructing femininity. The participants recommended individual skills and actions to prepare for leadership development. Virtually all women could describe an individual mentor (sponsor), usually male, who provided essential assistance for their career success. At the same time, they stressed the importance of institutional support for diversity, especially with child care. CONCLUSIONS: Attaining "full professor" status is the pinnacle of academic success. Women who successfully navigated this academic ladder describe significant external and internal challenges that require multiple strategies to overcome. Leadership development entails a combination of individual support through mentors and sponsors, self-education and reflection, and organizational structural support to promote diversity.
  • Item type:Publication,
    No Room to "Lean In": A Qualitative Study on Gendered Barriers to Promotion and Leadership. Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Ellinas, Elizabeth H.
    ;
    Kaljo, Kristina
    ;
    Patitucci, Teresa N.
    ;
    Novalija, Jutta
    ;
    Byars-Winston, Angela
    INTRODUCTION: The gender gap in professorship and leadership roles persists in academic medicine, whereas reasons for these disparities remain unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Open-ended text responses to a 2013 faculty engagement survey were analyzed by using the grounded theory and consensual qualitative analysis techniques. The authors grouped 491 faculty's text responses into descriptive codes and three themes: (1) No Obstacles, (2) Barriers to Success, and (3) Concerns Regarding Processes. Demographics of codes were compared by using chi-square analysis. RESULTS: Male faculty identified barriers that included negative views of leadership or leaders. Female faculty, especially those in clinical roles, expressed barriers related to role overload, including that the demands of their current positions prevented advancement or addition of further roles, no matter how desirable further roles may be. Women also shared that considerable self-promotion was required to receive acknowledgement of their work and support by leadership. CONCLUSION: A proposed framework depicts male and female faculty's concerns on a continuum. No Obstacle and Process Concerns were relatively gender neutral, whereas large gender disparities occurred within the Barriers to Success theme. Women's barriers largely revolved around internal obstacles (I can't do any more), and men's barriers largely revolved around external factors (leaders are impeding my progress). Resources are needed to mitigate work overload specifically for female faculty, and to ensure that all faculty are both engaged in advanced career opportunities and encouraged to pursue leadership positions.