MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092218560 · doi:10.1111/medu.14392

Attaining full professor: Women’s and men’s experiences in medical education

2020· article· en· W3092218560 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lara Varpio, Emily Harvey, Debbie Jaarsma, Nancy Dudek, Margaret Hay, Kathy Day, Karlen S Bader-Larsen, Jennifer Cleland

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiversity and Career in Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeQualitative researchNarrative inquiryPromotion (chess)Gender studiesPsychologyMedical educationGerontologyMedicineSociologySocial sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The underrepresentation of women among senior faculty members in medical education is a longstanding problem. The purpose of this international qualitative investigation was to explore women and men's experiences of attaining full professorship and to investigate why women remain underrepresented among the senior faculty ranks. METHODS: Conducted within a social constructionist orientation, our qualitative study employed narrative analysis. Two female and two male participants working in medical education were recruited from five nations: Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States. All participants held an MD or PhD. During telephone interviews, participants narrated the story of their careers. The five faculty members on the research team were also interviewed. Their narratives were included in analysis, rendering their experiences equal to those of the participants. RESULTS: A total of 24 full professors working in medical education were interviewed (n = 15 females and n = 9 males). While some aspects were present across all narratives (ie personal events, career milestones and facilitating and/or impeding factors), participants' experience of those aspects differed by gender. Men did not narrate fatherhood as a role navigated professionally, but women narrated motherhood as intimately connected to their professional roles. Both men and women narrated career success in terms of hard work and overcoming obstacles; however, male participants described promotion as inevitable, whereas women narrated promotion as a tenuous navigation of social structures towards uncertain outcomes. Female and male participants encountered facilitators and inhibitors throughout their careers but described acting on those experiences differently within the cultural contexts they faced. DISCUSSION: Our data suggest that female and male participants had different experiences of the work involved in achieving full professor status. Understanding these gendered experiences and their impact on career progression is an important advancement for better understanding what leads to the underrepresentation of women among senior faculty members in medical education.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical EducationSame topicDiversity and Career in MedicineFrench-language works237,207