Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34542616›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Women's Experiences of Promotion and Tenure in Academic Medicine and Potential Implications for Gender Disparities in Career Advancement: A Qualitative Analysis.

Marie Murphy, Jacquelyn K Callander, Daniel Dohan, Jennifer R Grandis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Revisiting Career Sabotaging in Academic Medicine.Clinical medicine & research · 2026
    Article
  3. Impact of Workplace Microaggressions on Surgeon Career Status and Trajectory: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Academic Promotion in Psychiatry.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Marie MurphyDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco.
Jacquelyn K CallanderDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco.
Daniel DohanPhilip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco.
Jennifer R GrandisDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Gender disparities in career advancement in academic medicine have persisted despite gender parity in medical school matriculation. Although numerous explanations for this gap exist, little is known about women's experiences of promotion and tenure in academic medicine. Objective: To examine women's experiences of promotion and tenure in academic medicine to uncover mechanisms associated with the gender disparity in career advancement. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this qualitative study, 52 in-depth, semistructured interviews with women academic medicine faculty members were conducted in 2019. The 52 participants were drawn from 16 medical schools across the US. Institutions were selected using a purposive sampling strategy to seek diversity of geography and ownership (private or public). Within institutions, purposive and snowball sampling were used to seek diversity with respect to respondents' degree type (MD, PhD, and MD and PhD), age, and career stage. Interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis. Data analysis was performed from March to December 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Themes and subthemes in participants' experiences of promotion and tenure. Results: The 52 women in this study ranged in age from 34 to 82 years (mean [SD] age, 54.0 [10.7] years). Eighteen respondents (34.6%) held an MD, 4 (7.7%) held both an MD and PhD, and 30 (57.7%) held a PhD. Fourteen respondents (26.9%) were assistant professors at the time of the study, 8 (15.4%) were associate professors, and 30 (57.7%) were full professors. Four main themes within participants' experiences of promotion and tenure that pertain to gender inequities were identified: ambiguous or inconsistent criteria for promotion or tenure; lack of standard processes for reviewing applications and making decisions; vulnerability to malicious behavior of senior faculty, department chairs, and division chiefs; and women seeing men have different experiences of advancement. Conclusions and Relevance: The respondents' experiences of promotion and tenure suggest that promotion and tenure processes may be characterized by inconsistency and a lack of oversight, which have the potential to contribute to well-documented patterns of gender disparities in career advancement in academic medicine.

Indexed as

Career MobilityFaculty, MedicalSexismAcademic SuccessAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchSchools, MedicalUnited States

Identifiers

PMID34542616
PMCPMC8453318

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.