Archive for January, 2011

Women and Search Committees

Tuesday, January 4th, 2011

Studies of faculty development initiatives often fail to match the rigorous standards of randomized trials. In Spain, however,  two economists took advantage of a natural experiment to measure the impact of gender on promotion committees.

Spanish candidates for academic promotion compete against a national pool. Review panels are selected by lottery. So, over the course of thousands of decisions from 2002 to 2006, panels formed that consisted of all men and different combinations of men and women.

The study found that for promotion to associate professor, the gender composition of the reviewers did not make a difference in whether female candidates received promotion. When it came to promotions to full professor, though, having a female member of the committee increases a female candidate’s chance of success by 14 percent.

Their conclusions point to the need for review committees to reflect the diversity of the institution. They do not mention whether the data also show the same effect for underrepresented minority candidates, but the logic may work the same way. Curiously, the authors found in another paper that female-majority committees are less likely to promote women than ones where just a few women participate.

The Productivity Gap

Monday, January 3rd, 2011

In the academic world, scholarly publications are a form of currency. The more articles you have, the "richer" you are professionally. Since medical leaders tend to come from the ranks of the most intellectually wealthy academics, a gap in productivity could explain why more men than women achieve leadership positions.

To test that theory, researchers at the Mayo Clinic analyzed the careers of senior male and female faculty. Their results, published in January's Academic Medicine, show that "women produced a mean of 1.94 fewer publications than men per year throughout the first 27 years of service. However, after 27 years of service, mean publications by women increased to 2.72 publications per year compared with a mean of 1.15 publications per year by men."

Women's productivity lagged behind men's for the first part of their careers but then surpassed men's. Their attainment of leadership positions did not reflect this trend. Only half of the women surveyed ever held a leadership role while 70% of the men did.

The study suggests that academic productivity at mid-career is not a good predictor of later achievement. Consequently, the criteria for selecting leaders should include a broad slate of indicators.