The Culturally Aware Mentoring (CAM) workshop was developed to help biomedical faculty gain awareness and skills to work more effectively with racially and ethnically minoritized mentees. The purpose of this paper is to present evaluation findings from a national cluster randomized comparative study in which CAM was delivered in an online format. We evaluated data from the primary arm of this study, which included 231 biomedical faculty from 12 universities.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFPurpose: Recognition that cultural stereotypes can unintentionally perpetuate inequities throughout academic medicine has led to calls for "implicit bias training" without strong evidence to support these recommendations and some evidence of potential harm. The authors sought to determine the effectiveness of a single 3-hour workshop in helping department of medicine faculty overcome implicit stereotype-based bias and in improving the climate in the working environment.
Method: A multisite cluster randomized controlled study (October 2017 to April 2021) with clustering at the level of divisions within departments and participant-level analysis of survey responses involved 8,657 faculty in 204 divisions in 19 departments of medicine: 4,424 in the intervention group (1,526 attended a workshop) and 4,233 in the control group.
Introduction: To study the effectiveness of any educational intervention for faculty requires first that they attend the training. Using attendance as a measure of faculty engagement, this study examined factors associated with the percentage of faculty in divisions of departments of medicine who attended a workshop as part of a multisite study.
Methods: Between October 2018 and March 2020, 1675 of 4767 faculty in 120 divisions of 14 departments of medicine attended a 3-hour in-person workshop as part of the Bias Reduction in Internal Medicine (BRIM) initiative.
Many institutions of higher education are investing in "implicit bias training" as a mechanism to improve diversity and inclusion on their campuses. In this study, we describe an effort to implement this training in the form of a 3-hour workshop delivered to faculty members in the College of Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Evaluation form data collected immediately post-workshop, and in-person interviews and survey data collected 6-12 months post-workshop, were used to measure the effectiveness of the intervention.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Womens Health (Larchmt)
September 2021
Female scientists, who are more likely than their male counterparts to study women and report findings by sex/gender, fare worse in the article peer review process. It is unknown whether the gender of research participants influences the recommendation to publish an article describing the study. Reviewers were randomly assigned to evaluate one of three versions of an article abstract describing a clinical study conducted in men, women, or individuals.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFTo help prepare future faculty in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) to teach undergraduates, more research universities are offering teaching development (TD) programs to doctoral students who aspire to academic careers. Using social cognitive career theory, we examine the effects of TD programs on early-career STEM scholars' sense of self-efficacy as postsecondary teachers. In 2011, a survey questionnaire was administered to 2156 people who in 2009 were doctoral students in STEM departments at three U.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: Many studies find that female faculty in academic medicine, science, and engineering experience adverse workplace climates. This study longitudinally investigates whether department climate is associated with future research productivity and whether the associations are stronger for female than male faculty.
Method: Two waves of a faculty climate survey, institutional grant records, and publication records were collected for 789 faculties in academic medicine, science, and engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 2000 and 2010.
Background: Women are less successful than men in renewing R01 grants from the National Institutes of Health. Continuing to probe text mining as a tool to identify gender bias in peer review, we used algorithmic text mining and qualitative analysis to examine a sample of critiques from men's and women's R01 renewal applications previously analyzed by counting and comparing word categories.
Methods: We analyzed 241 critiques from 79 Summary Statements for 51 R01 renewals awarded to 45 investigators (64% male, 89% white, 80% PhD) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 2010 and 2014.
Purpose: Prior text analysis of R01 critiques suggested that female applicants may be disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer review, particularly for renewals. NIH altered its review format in 2009. The authors examined R01 critiques and scoring in the new format for differences due to principal investigator (PI) sex.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF