Variability in Women Faculty’s Preferences Regarding Mentor Similarity: A Multi-Institution Study in Academic Medicine

Abstract

Purpose To investigate which mentor similarity characteristics women faculty in academic medicine rate most important and to determine whether the importance of similarity differs among women faculty based on current and prior mentoring, demographic and personal factors, and career factors. Method Cross-sectional survey data from 3,100 women faculty at 13 purposively sampled U.S. medical schools were collected in 2012. The preferences of participants regarding the importance of mentor similarity in terms of race/ethnicity, gender, personal and career interests, and department and institution were studied. Analysis entailed chi square tests and multivariable ordered logistic models. Results Overall, respondents ranked having a mentor in the same department and institution as most important. Same department and institution were less important for those without a current mentor and for senior faculty, and were more important for Asian faculty. Same career and personal interests were less important for older faculty and more important for those with a doctorate only. Same gender was more important for Black faculty, faculty at the rank of instructor, and those without current mentoring. Overall, same race/ethnicity was rated least important; however, it was more important for racial/ethnic minorities, foreign-born faculty, and those who had never had a mentor. Conclusions Mentor preferences, as indicated by level of importance assigned to types of mentor similarity, varied among women faculty. To advance effective mentoring, characterized by high degree of mentor-mentee fit, the authors provide recommendations on matching strategies to be used in academic medicine when considering the diverse mentor preferences of women faculty.

Gender and international clinician educators

“…Mentorship programmes are also essential for career advancement. Yet, women face greater barriers in accessing mentors, with one recent study citing that 34% of female faculty lack a current mentor and over 10% have never had a mentor 34. Institutions can improve gender equity by developing mentorship programmes for women, with a focus on scholarship and leadership 35.…”

Striving for Gender Equity in Academic Medicine Careers: A Call to Action

“…Women represent approximately half of students entering medical schools and more than half of those entering PhD programs, yet a collection of articles in this issue 1–8 suggest that women continue to confront career barriers unbeknownst to many of their men counterparts in academic medicine. Women continue to be paid lower salaries, receive less funding, have less opportunity to publish, and be promoted at slower and lower rates.…”

Advancement of Women in the Biomedical Workforce: Insights for Success

“…Indeed, insufficient mentoring is a significant barrier to advancement of women within the academic pipeline 15,16 . There are many advantages derived from a productive mentoring relationship: faculty members with mentors publish at a greater frequency, receive more promotions, and have heightened fulfilment over the course of their career 17 .…”

“…Therefore, Carapinha et al determined which characteristics were most important to women in academic medicine when choosing a mentor. 17 Also, they examined whether or not interests varied by race, academic rank, or demographic areas 17 . A survey of women faculty members at 13 medical schools nationwide indicated that women reported that the strongest preference for having a mentor within the same department or institution; however, this was less true for more senior faculty.…”

“…Race/ethnicity was generally considered the least import factor for most women—unless they were members of racial/ethnic minority groups or had never had a mentor. Interestingly, black faculty and individuals without a current mentor placed significant weight on identifying someone of the same gender 17 . The authors suggest that mentee preferences should be considered when matching a mentor-mentee pair.…”