Gender differences in research collaborations and academic advancement among veterinary medical college faculty

Samantha L. Morello Department of Clinical Sciences, Center for Veterinary Business and Entrepreneurship, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca NY

Search for other papers by Samantha L. Morello in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, DACVS
,
Laura Nelson Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC

Search for other papers by Laura Nelson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MS, DACVS
, and
Susan L. Fubini Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY

Search for other papers by Susan L. Fubini in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, DACVS

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To examine patterns of collaborative research behavior by gender among veterinary academic faculty to determine whether differences exist in how men and women access resources as a contributing factor to the advancement gap.

SAMPLE

710 faculty from 23 veterinary medical colleges.

PROCEDURES

An online questionnaire was sent through listservs at participating institutions and data were collected anonymously. Responses related to professional demographics, resources, collaboration, and elements of environmental culture were analyzed to identify associations among variables. Proportional odds logistic regression was utilized to examine the effect of gender on academic rank.

RESULTS

Male and female faculty reported participating in collaborations at equal rates. Men were more likely to engage in research collaborations with other men. These collaborations were more common than collaborations between women or between women and men. Men had 47% higher odds of more advanced academic rank compared with women and controlling for relevant factors. While there was no difference in the value of startup packages listed by men and women, women were more likely to report gender as a disadvantage in accessing resources and opportunities.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Research productivity is a main factor driving academic promotion. To improve gender equity in career advancement and to support scholarship among all faculty, the creation of institutional development programs focused on facilitating collaborations and resource sharing may be a strategic area for veterinary academic leaders to consider.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To examine patterns of collaborative research behavior by gender among veterinary academic faculty to determine whether differences exist in how men and women access resources as a contributing factor to the advancement gap.

SAMPLE

710 faculty from 23 veterinary medical colleges.

PROCEDURES

An online questionnaire was sent through listservs at participating institutions and data were collected anonymously. Responses related to professional demographics, resources, collaboration, and elements of environmental culture were analyzed to identify associations among variables. Proportional odds logistic regression was utilized to examine the effect of gender on academic rank.

RESULTS

Male and female faculty reported participating in collaborations at equal rates. Men were more likely to engage in research collaborations with other men. These collaborations were more common than collaborations between women or between women and men. Men had 47% higher odds of more advanced academic rank compared with women and controlling for relevant factors. While there was no difference in the value of startup packages listed by men and women, women were more likely to report gender as a disadvantage in accessing resources and opportunities.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Research productivity is a main factor driving academic promotion. To improve gender equity in career advancement and to support scholarship among all faculty, the creation of institutional development programs focused on facilitating collaborations and resource sharing may be a strategic area for veterinary academic leaders to consider.

Supplementary Materials

    • Supplementary Appendix (PDF 305 KB)

Contributor Notes

Corresponding author: Dr. Morello (slm42@cornell.edu)
  • 1.

    Morello SL, Colopy SA, Bruckner K, Buhr KA. Demographics, measures of professional achievement, and gender differences for diplomates of the American College of Veterinary Surgeons in 2015. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2019;255(11):1270-1282. doi:10.2460/javma.255.11.1270

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Morello SL, Colopy SA, Chun R, Buhr KA. Work, life, and the gender effect: perspectives of ACVIM diplomates in 2017. Part 1-specialty demographics and measures of professional achievement. J Vet Intern Med. 2020;34(5):1825-1836. doi:10.1111/jvim.15872

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Giuffrida MA, Steffey MA, Balsa IM, Morello SL, Kapatkin AS. Gender differences in academic rank among faculty surgeons at US veterinary schools in 2019. Vet Surg. 2020;49(5):852-859. doi:10.1111/vsu.13440

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Blumenthal DM, Bergmark RW, Raol N, Bohnen JD, Eloy JA, Gray ST. Sex differences in faculty rank among academic surgeons in the United States in 2014. Ann Surg. 2018;268(2):193-200. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000002662

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Jena AB, Khullar D, Ho O, Olenski AR, Blumenthal DM. Sex differences in academic rank in US medical schools in 2014. JAMA. 2015;314(11):1149-1158. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.10680

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Carnes M, Morrissey C, Geller SE. Women’s health and women’s leadership in academic medicine: hitting the same glass ceiling? J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2008;17(9):1453-1462. doi:10.1089/jwh.2007.0688

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Rossiter MW. The Matthew Matilda Effect in science. Soc Stud Sci. 1993;23(2):325-341. doi:10.1177/030631293023002004

  • 8.

    Carnes M, Bland C. Viewpoint: a challenge to academic health centers and the National Institutes of Health to prevent unintended gender bias in the selection of clinical and translational science award leaders. Acad Med. 2007;82(2):202-206. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31802d939f

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Jagsi R, Guancial EA, Worobey CC, et al. The “gender gap” in authorship of academic medical literature-a 35-year perspective. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(3):281-287. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa053910

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Duch J, Zeng XH, Sales-Pardo M, et al. The possible role of resource requirements and academic career-choice risk on gender differences in publication rate and impact. PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51332. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051332

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Giuffrida MA, Burton JH, Dechant JE, Winter A. Gender imbalance in authorship of veterinary literature: 1995 versus 2015. J Vet Med Educ. 2019;46(4):429-437. doi:10.3138/jvme.1017-141r

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Wang A, Dunlop R, Allavena R, Palmieri C. Gender representation on journal editorial boards in the field of veterinary sciences. Res Vet Sci. 2022;148:21-26. doi:10.1016/j.rvsc.2022.05.001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Liu X, Dunlop R, Allavena R, Palmieri C. Women representation and gender equality in different academic levels in veterinary science. Vet Sci. 2021;8(8):159. doi:10.3390/vetsci8080159

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Wolff HG, Moser K. Effects of networking on career success: a longitudinal study. J Appl Psychol. 2009;94(1):196-206. doi:10.1037/a0013350

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Greguletz E, Diehl M-R, Kreutzer K. Why women build less effective networks than men: the role of structural exclusion and personal hesitation. Hum Relat. 2019;72(7):1234-1261. doi:10.1177/0018726718804303

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Forret ML, Dougherty TW. Networking behaviors and career outcomes: differences for men and women? J Organ Behav. 2004;25(3):419-437. doi:10.1002/job.253

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Rothstein MG, Burke RJ, Bristor JM. Structural characteristics and support benefits in the interpersonal networks of women and men in management. Int J Organ Anal. 2001;9(1):4-25. doi:10.1108/eb028926

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2022. Accessed February 19, 2023. https://www.R-project.org/

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Posit Software, PBC; 2022. Accessed February 19, 2023. www.posit.co/

  • 20.

    Annual Data Report 2017-2018: A Report of the Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges. Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges; 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Women Faculty by Percentage of Positions Held at US Colleges of Veterinary Medicine: Annual Data Report 2021-2022. American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges; 2022. Accessed November 16, 2022. https://www.aavmc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/2022-AAVMC-Annual-Data-Report-8.8Update.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Zhang C, Bu Y, Ding Y, Xu J. Understanding scientific collaboration: homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2018;69(1):72-86. doi:10.1002/asi.23916

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Royal KD, Akers KS, Lybarger MA, Zakrajsek TD. Using social network analysis to evaluate research productivity and collaborations. J Fac Dev. 2014;28(1):49-58.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Understanding social networks. In: Organizational Behavior. University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing; 2010. doi:10.24926/8668.1501

  • 25.

    Broda MD, Granger K, Chow J, Ross E. Using social network analysis in applied psychological research: a tutorial. Psychol Methods. Published online December 16, 2021. doi:10.1037/met0000451

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Aboelela SW, Merrill J, Carley KM, Larson EL. Social network analysis to evaluate an interdisciplinary research center. J Res Adm. 2007;38:61-75.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Ductor L, Fafchamps M, Goyal S, van der Leij MJ. Social networks and research output. Rev Econ Stat. 2014;96(5):936-948. doi:10.1162/REST_a_00430

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Ibarra H. Personal networks of women and minorities in management: a conceptual framework. Acad Manage Rev. 1993;18(1):56-87. doi:10.2307/258823

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    Rothstein MG, Davey LM. Gender differences in network relationships in academia. Women Manag Rev. 1995;10(6):20-25. doi:10.1108/09649429510095999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    Kwiek M, Roszka W. Gender disparities in international research collaboration: a study of 25,000 university professors. J Econ Surv. 2021;35(5):1344-1380. doi:10.1111/joes.12395

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    Bozeman B, Gaughan M. How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaboration motives and strategies of academic researchers. Res Policy. 2011;40(10):1393-1402. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.07.002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    Ductor L, Goyal S, Prummer A. Gender and collaboration. Rev Econ Stat. 2021;1-40. doi:10.1162/rest_a_01113

  • 33.

    Lee S, Bozeman B. The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Soc Stud Sci. 2005;35(5):673-702. doi:10.1177/0306312705052359

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34.

    Nonnemaker L. Women physicians in academic medicine: new insights from cohort studies. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(6):399-405. doi:10.1056/NEJM200002103420606

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35.

    Murphy M, Callander JK, Dohan D, Grandis JR. Women’s experiences of promotion and tenure in academic medicine and potential implications for gender disparities in career advancement: a qualitative analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(9):e2125843. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.25843

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36.

    Hewlett SA, Luce CB. Off-ramps and on-ramps: keeping talented women on the road to success. Harv Bus Rev. 2005;83(3):43-46, 48, 50-54 passim.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37.

    Chesler NC, Chesler NA. Gender-informed mentoring strategies for women engineering scholars: on establishing a caring community. Res J Eng Educ. 2002;91(1):49-55. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2002.tb00672.x

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38.

    Wright AL, Schwindt LA, Bassford TL, et al. Gender differences in academic advancement: patterns, causes, and potential solutions in one US College of Medicine. Acad Med. 2003;78(5):500-508. doi:10.1097/00001888-200305000-00015

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39.

    Zhuge Y, Kaufman J, Simeone DM, Chen H, Velazquez OC. Is there still a glass ceiling for women in academic surgery? Ann Surg. 2011;253(4):637-643. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182111120

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40.

    Huang J, Gates AJ, Sinatra R, Barabási AL. Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020;117(9):4609-4616. doi:10.1073/pnas.1914221117

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41.

    Bostwick VK, Weinberg BA. Nevertheless she persisted? Gender peer effects in doctoral STEM programs. J Labor Econ. 2022;40(2):397-436. doi:10.1086/714921

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42.

    Mairesse J, Pezzoni M. Does gender affect scientific productivity? Rev Econ. 2015;66(1):65-113.

  • 43.

    Ross MB, Glennon BM, Murciano-Goroff R, Berkes EG, Weinberg BA, Lane JI. Women are credited less in science than men. Nature. 2022;608(7921):135-145. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04966-w

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44.

    Chatterjee P, Werner RM. Gender disparity in citations in high-impact journal articles. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(7):e2114509. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14509

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45.

    Teich EG, Kim JZ, Lynn CW, et al. Citation inequity and gendered citation practices in contemporary physics. Nat Phys. 2022;18(10):1161-1170. doi:10.1038/s41567-022-01770-1

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46.

    Schwartz LP, Liénard JF, David SV. Impact of gender on the formation and outcome of formal mentoring relationships in the life sciences. PLoS Biol. 2022;20(9):e3001771. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001771

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 47.

    Yamamoto J, Frachtenberg E. Gender differences in collaboration patterns in computer science. Publications. 2022;10(1):10. doi:10.3390/publications10010010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement