Gender differences in compensation in academic medicine: the results from four neurological specialties within the University of California Healthcare System

Henderson, Michael T.; Fijalkowski, Natalia; Wang, Sean K.; Maltenfort, Mitch; Zheng, Luo; Ratliff, John K.; Moshfeghi, Andrew A; Moshfeghi, Darius M.

doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1266-y

Cited by 13 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Subspecialty-specific salary reviews in primary care, emergency medicine, pediatrics, and life sciences show a similar pattern of gender inequities even within a field and with similar work. 2,4,8–12 Even in new fields, such as hospital medicine, women earn substantially less than their male colleagues, although working similar hours. 13,14 Recent work has also demonstrated that there are significant gender inequities in institutional research support.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inequities in Academic Compensation by Gender: A Follow-up to the National Faculty Survey Cohort Study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors alone and do not reflect the views of the National Institutes of Health, the funders of this study. None of the funders were involved in the design of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or the decision to approve publication of the finished manuscript.Previous presentations: National Meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine, San Diego CA, April 18, 2014. HHS Public Access Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript sought to assess longitudinal patterns by gender in compensation, and to understand factors associated with these differences in a longitudinal cohort.Method-A 17-year longitudinal follow-up of the National Faculty Survey was conducted with a random sample of faculty from 24 U.S. medical schools. Participants employed full-time at initial and follow-up time periods completed the survey. Annual pre-tax compensation during academic year 2012-13 was compared by gender. Covariates assessed included race/ethnicity; years since first academic appointment; retention in academic career; academic rank; departmental affiliation; percent effort distribution across clinical, teaching, administrative, and research duties; marital and parental status; and any leave or part-time status in the years between surveys.Results-In unadjusted analyses, women earned a mean of $20,520 less than men (P = .03); women made 90 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. This difference was reduced to $16,982 (P = .04) after adjusting for covariates. The mean difference of $15,159 was no longer significant (P = .06) when adjusting covariates and for those who had ever taken a leave or worked part-time.Conclusions-The continued gender gap in compensation cannot be accounted for by metrics used to calculate salary. Institutional actions to address these disparities include both initial appointment and annual salary equity reviews, training of senior faculty and administrators to understand implicit bias, and training of women faculty in negotiating skills.Multiple studies over the past 20 years have demonstrated salary inequities disadvantaging female faculty in academic medical careers compared with their male counterparts. 1-5 These inequities were attributed to factors known to be the major determinants of compensation, including part-time status, specialty choice, and work distribution between administrative, teaching, research, and clinical work. However, studies, including our own, 1,2,5,6 have demonstrated that even controlling for these differences, women continue to be compensated less for the same work compared to men.There are limited data indicating whether awareness of these salary gaps has resulted in changes to compensation processes to reduce and eliminate these inequities. Recent data suggest that for new faculty, even those with similar academic backgrounds and research funding success, gender gaps in compensation early in their careers are already presen...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inequities in Academic Compensation by Gender: A Follow-up to the National Faculty Survey Cohort Study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Henderson et al (2014) suggested that discrimination could cause gender differences, whereas Ceci and Williams (2011) questioned the relevance of discrimination and emphasized the role of women's decisions-whether they are made freely or constrained. Future studies could therefore aim at delving more deeply into the reasons, for example by accompanying scientometric data with a survey.…”

Section: Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The continuous underrepresentation of females in science has long been a worry to many people, including policy makers, who have tried to set up systems to support women to become more interested in science and to help them climb the ranks (e.g., become full professors), especially given the vast evidence of a general gender wage gap in favor of men (e.g., Henderson et al 2014;Mussida and Picchio 2014). For example, the European Union has launched several initiatives to increase equality between women and men, which also address the gender imbalance in science and research (European Commission 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are there gender differences among researchers from industrial/organizational psychology?

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Questions about gender differences in the workplace usually attract much attention-but often generate more heat than light. To examine gender differences in several facets of scientific productivity and impact, a quantitative, scientometric approach is employed. Analyzing a sample of industrial and organizational psychologists (N authors = 4234; N publications = 46,656), this study raises both questions and concerns about gender differences in research, by showing that female and male I-O psychologists differ with regard to publication output (fewer publications authored by female researchers), impact (heterogeneous, indicator-dependent gender differences), their publication career courses (male researchers' periods of active publishing last longer and show longer interruptions), and research interests (only marginal gender differences). In order to get a glimpse of future developments, we repeated all analyses with the student subsample and found nearly no gender differences, suggesting a more gender-balanced future. Thus, this study gives an overview over the status quo of gender differences in an entire psychological sub-discipline. Future research will have to examine whether these gender differences are volitional in nature or the manifestation of external constraints.

show abstract

“…There is also a body of academic literature attesting to the idea that male scientists face fewer difficulties when seeking to access financial support and better facilities (Stack 2004;Larivière et al 2011;LERU 2012), since they occupy a greater proportion of high positions from which it is possible to apply for and receive larger grants (Blake and La Valle 2000;Waisbren et al 2008;Ranga et al 2012). Other aspects that have been clearly highlighted in the literature are the overrepresentation of women in lower faculty ranks (D'Amico et al 2011), due to the difficulties of progressing up the academic ladder (LERU 2012), a persistent gender pay gap (Ward 2001;Ginther 2003;Henderson et al 2014), and gender bias in researcher recruitment (Andersen 2001), especially in certain male-dominated areas (Isaac et al 2009). Recent research suggests that many mechanisms prevalent in recruitment and appointment practices of professors result in disadvantages for women and privileges for men (Van den Brink 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research on women in science and higher education: a bibliometric analysis

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main objective of this paper is to study the development and growth of scientific literature on women in science and higher education. A total of 1415 articles and reviews published between 1991 and 2012 were extracted from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database. Standard bibliometric indicators and laws (e.g. Price's, Lotka's, and Bradford's laws) were applied to these data. In addition, the Gender Inequality Index (GII) was obtained for each country in order to rank them. The results suggest an upward trend not only in the number of papers but also in the number of authors per paper. However, this increase in the number of authors was not accompanied by greater international collaboration. The interest in gender differences in science extends too many authors (n = 3064), countries (n = 67), and research areas (n = 86). Data showed a high dispersion of the literature and a small set of core journals focused on the topic. Regarding the research areas, the area with the highest frequency of papers was Education and Educational Research. Finally, our results showed that countries with higher levels of inequality (higher GII values) tend to present higher relative values of scientific productivity in the field.

show abstract

Gender differences in compensation in academic medicine: the results from four neurological specialties within the University of California Healthcare System

Cited by 13 publications

References 21 publications

Inequities in Academic Compensation by Gender: A Follow-up to the National Faculty Survey Cohort Study

Inequities in Academic Compensation by Gender: A Follow-up to the National Faculty Survey Cohort Study

Are there gender differences among researchers from industrial/organizational psychology?

Research on women in science and higher education: a bibliometric analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About