Although on average women are underrepresented in academic science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) departments at universities, an underappreciated fact is that women's representation varies widely across STEM disciplines. Past research is fairly silent on how local variations in gender composition impact faculty experiences. This study fills that gap. A survey of STEM departments at a large research university finds that women faculty in STEM are less professionally satisfied than male colleagues only if they are housed in departments where women are a small numeric minority. Gender differences in satisfaction are largest in departments with less than 25% women, smaller in departments with 25-35% women, and nonexistent in departments approaching 50% women. Gender differences in professional satisfaction in gender-unbalanced departments are mediated by women's perception that their department's climate is uncollegial, faculty governance is non-transparent, and gender relations are inequitable. Unfavorable department climates also predict retention risk for women in departments with few women, but not in departments closer to gender parity. Finally, faculty who find within-department mentors to be useful are more likely to have a favorable view of their department's climate, which consequently predicts more professional satisfaction. Faculty gender and gender composition does not moderate these findings, suggesting that mentoring is equally effective for all faculty.

No abstract

No abstract

As cases of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) increase worldwide, research design has placed additional emphasis on social and behavioral factors that affect ADRD symptomatology and quality of life. Despite this, few studies have incorporated people living with ADRD as research partners. We propose five community-engaged recommendations for incorporating people living with ADRD into future research as full collaborators. The proposed recommendations center the experiences of people living with ADRD as crucial contributions to scientific inquiry. The guidelines are based on experiences at a two-day “Empowering Partnerships” workshop in 2019; post-workshop activity continued through 2021 with ongoing collaborations, analysis, and reflective practice. The workshop and subsequent conversations engaged a network of people living with ADRD, informal carepartners, and researchers to collectively build their capacities to partner in all aspects of person-centered research. To empower people living with ADRD as research partners, we recommend that research teams 1) create a flexible schedule of communication and/or meetings to accommodate a wide range of ADRD symptoms, 2) generate team-specific communication strategies/guidelines, 3) incorporate lived experiences of people living with ADRD into research protocols, 4) involve people living with ADRD in all aspects of a project, beginning in the developmental stages, and 5) incorporate skilled facilitators to facilitate communication between stakeholder groups. This multi-vocal approach to research will diversify ADRD research and ensure that projects align with the priorities and capacities of principal stakeholders by incorporating individuals with a wide range of cognitive capabilities that more fully represent the diversity of ADRD experiences.

No abstract