Improving the retention of underrepresented minority faculty in academic medicine

BACKGROUND: Although several studies have outlined the need for and benefits of diversity in academia, the number of underrepresented minority (URM) faculty in academic health centers remains low, and minority faculty are primarily concentrated at the rank of assistant professor. In order to increase the diversity of the faculty of the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) School of Medicine, the UCSD National Center for Leadership in Academic Medicine, in collaboration with the UCSD Hispanic Center of Excellence, implemented a junior faculty development program designed in part to overcome the differential disadvantage of minority faculty and to increase the academic success rate of all faculty. METHODS: Junior faculty received counseling in career and research objectives; assistance with academic file preparation, introduction to the institutional culture; workshops on pedagogy and grant writing; and instrumental, proactive mentoring by senior faculty. RESULTS: After implementation of the program, the retention rate of URM junior faculty in the school of medicine increased from 58% to 80% and retention in academic medicine increased from 75% to 90%. CONCLUSION: A junior faculty development program that integrates professional skill development and focused academic career advising with instrumental mentoring is associated with an increase in the retention of URM faculty in a school of medicine.     

Mentoring program for minority faculty at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

Research indicates that having a faculty mentor and being part of an active network of peers are critical ingredients of successful academic medicine careers. Minority physicians, however, often do not have mentors, and the problem is greatest for minority groups underrepresented in medicine. The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in 1994-1996 undertook to learn the extent of mentoring programs in its departments and divisions and to compare the experiences of underrepresented-minority faculty and others. The results were used to establish a system for mentoring and networking support for minority faculty members. Examining the reports of division and department heads on their formal mentoring programs, it was clear that these leaders considered a mentor essential for career development, but many reported having no systematic plan for mentors for junior faculty. In looking at the reported experiences of minority and non-minority assistant professors (matched for promotion track, department, appointment date, and, where possible, gender), it was found that approximately half of either group did not have mentors. As a result of this information, the school established a faculty development program to meet the faculty members' demonstrated needs: annual career development meetings with new minority faculty; assistance in identifying and assigning mentors; assistance in developing research skills; and monitoring of the retention of minority faculty. As experience with the program produces additional insights into the needs of minority faculty--and particularly of junior faculty--the program will be adjusted and expanded to meet these identified needs.     

Academic ranks and medical schools of underrepresented minority faculty in family medicine departments.

PURPOSE: To examine academic rankings and educational backgrounds of underrepresented minority (URM) family medicine faculty and compare their academic ranks with national trends. The authors also determined the extent to which international and historically black educational institutions contributed URM faculty to family medicine. METHOD: In 1999 questionnaires were sent to 129 family medicine departments asking for academic ranks and educational institutions attended by their URM faculty. Comparisons were made between URM faculty's academic ranks and all family medicine faculty, medical school minority faculty, and medical school faculty. RESULTS: A total of 80% of URM faculty were assistant professors or instructors, and 4.4% were professors. URM family medicine faculty had significantly lower rankings compared with medical school minority faculty and all family medicine faculty. URM family medicine faculty at historically black medical schools were more likely to have received their degrees from historically black undergraduate institutions and medical schools than were URM family medicine faculty at non-historically-black medical schools. CONCLUSIONS: URM family medicine faculty appear to experience a double disadvantage: being minority and working for family medicine departments. Their academic ranks remain far below those of both minority medical school faculty and family medicine faculty, a discouraging finding considering the current shortage of URM faculty in family medicine departments. Historically black medical schools cannot address the shortage alone, so non-historically-black medical schools need to both recruit URM faculty and follow up with appropriate mentoring of those faculty.     

"Having the right chemistry": a qualitative study of mentoring in academic medicine.

PURPOSE: To develop a deeper understanding of mentoring by exploring lived experiences of academic medicine faculty members. Mentoring relationships are key to developing productive careers in academic medicine, but such alliances hold a certain "mystery." METHOD: Using qualitative techniques, between November 1999 and March 2000, the authors conducted individual telephone interviews of 16 faculty members about their experiences with mentoring. Interviews were taped and transcribed and authors identified major themes through multiple readings. A consensus taxonomy for classifying content evolved from comparisons of coding by four reviewers. Themes expressed by participants were studied for patterns of connection and grouped into broader categories. RESULTS: Almost 98% of participants identified lack of mentoring as the first (42%) or second (56%) most important factor hindering career progress in academic medicine. Finding a suitable mentor requires effort and persistence. Effective mentoring necessitates a certain chemistry for an appropriate interpersonal match. Prized mentors have "clout," knowledge, and interest in the mentees, and provide both professional and personal support. In cross-gender mentoring, maintaining clear boundaries is essential for an effective relationship. Same-gender or same-race matches between mentor and mentee were not felt to be essential. CONCLUSIONS: Having a mentor is critical to having a successful career in academic medicine. Mentees need to be diligent in seeking out these relationships and institutions need to encourage and value the work of mentors. Participants without formalized mentoring relationships should look to peers and colleagues for assistance in navigating the academic system.     

Specialty choices, compensation, and career satisfaction of underrepresented minority faculty in academic medicine.

PURPOSE: Despite efforts to increase the numbers of underrepresented minorities (URMs), only 3.9% of medical school faculty are URMs. The authors compared the specialty choices, compensation, and career satisfaction of minority faculty with those of their majority counterparts to determine whether there were differences that might affect the recruitment and retention of minority faculty. METHOD: In 1995, the authors mailed a self-administered survey to a stratified random sample of 3,013 eligible full-time salaried faculty in 24 randomly selected medical schools. Those schools, which had at least 200 faculty, did not include the Puerto Rican or historically black medical schools. RESULTS: Of the eligible faculty surveyed, 1,807 (60%) responded; 1,463 were majority faculty, 195 were URM faculty, and 149 were other-minority faculty. Similar proportions of the three groups were in the primary care specialties. Only 11% of the URM respondents were in basic science departments. There was no significant difference in adjusted mean compensation between majority, URM, and other-minority faculty. However, URM faculty were significantly less satisfied with their careers (adjusted scores: 60 versus > 65; p = .001) and more often considered leaving academic medicine within five years (58% versus < 45%). CONCLUSION: Given the demographic changes of the U.S. population, these issues should be addressed by deans and department heads in order to enhance recruitment and facilitate retention of URM faculty in academic medicine.     

Empowering junior faculty: Penn State's faculty development and mentoring program.

Empowerment of faculty is essential for academic success. The Junior Faculty Development Program (JFDP), sponsored by the Office of Professional Development of the Penn State College of Medicine, was established in 2003 with the goal of promoting the development and advancement of junior faculty so they can achieve success in their academic careers. The program consists of two components: a curriculum in research, education, clinical practice, and career development, and an individual project completed under the guidance of a senior faculty mentor. The curriculum provides faculty with knowledge, skills, and resources. Mentoring provides relationships and support. Together, these elements combine to empower junior faculty to better manage their careers.The effectiveness of the program has been demonstrated by several measures: participants evaluated the program highly, demonstrated increases in their perceptions of their own abilities, and completed tasks important to the advancement of their careers. Participants stated they were better prepared to advance their academic careers and that the individual projects would contribute to their career advancement.On the basis of this experience, the authors suggest that faculty development programs should empower faculty so that they can more effectively chart a successful career in academic medicine. This report describes an empowerment model, and the design, implementation, and evaluation of the Junior Faculty Development Program in 2003-04 and 2004-05. The authors offer this program as a model for the benefit of other institutions and for one of their most valuable assets: junior faculty.     

Generation X: implications for faculty recruitment and development in academic health centers.

Differences and tensions between the Baby Boom generation (born 1945-1962) and Generation X (born 1963-1981) have profound implications for the future of academic medicine. By and large, department heads and senior faculty are Boomers; today's residents and junior faculty are Generation X'ers. Looking at these issues in terms of the generations involved offers insights into a number of faculty development challenges, including inadequate and inexpert mentoring, work-life conflicts, and low faculty morale. These insights suggest strategies for strengthening academic medicine's recruitment and retention of Generation X into faculty and leadership roles. These strategies include (1) improving career and academic advising by specific attention to mentoring "across differences"--for instance, broaching the subject of formative differences in background during the initial interaction; adopting a style that incorporates information-sharing with engagement in problem solving; offering frequent, frank feedback; and refraining from comparing today to the glories of yesterday; to support such improvements, medical schools should recognize and evaluate mentoring as a core academic responsibility; (2) retaining both valued women and men in academic careers by having departments add temporal flexibility and create and legitimize less-than-full-time appointments; and (3) providing trainees and junior faculty with ready access to educational sessions designed to turn their "intellectual capital" into "academic career capital."Given the trends discussed in this article, such supports and adaptations are indicated to assure that academic health centers maintain traditions of excellence.     

Repaving the road to academic success: the IMeRGE approach to peer mentoring.

In recent years, academic health centers have made a considerable effort to encourage medical students and physicians-in-training to consider academic medicine as a career choice. For physicians, selecting a career in academic medicine may be the first hurdle, but the challenge of successfully maintaining an academic career is perhaps a more formidable task. Mentoring is a much-needed response to this challenge. But the success of traditional mentoring programs at academic institutions is often limited by, among other things, the availability of senior faculty who can serve as mentors. The authors describe the formation and organization of the Internal Medicine Research Group at Emory (IMeRGE), an innovative peer mentoring group within the Division of General Medicine at Emory University. This group, born partially out of the mentoring needs of our women and minority faculty, shared the primary goal of fostering a collaborative atmosphere among junior faculty, while simultaneously acquiring experience through advanced faculty development. The authors present our methods of garnering division support for designated time and financial resources, defining member responsibilities, developing a curriculum, providing peer support, and seeking advisors with expertise in the areas on which we wished to focus. In addition to the development of IMeRGE, the authors provide an overview of the pros and cons of traditional mentoring versus peer mentoring; discuss the challenges faced by IMeRGE and strategies for addressing these issues; and present the paradigm of IMeRGE as a template for alternative forms of academic mentorship.     

A conceptual model for faculty development in academic medicine: the underrepresented minority faculty experience

In May 2010, the Association of American Medical Colleges reported that nonwhite professors have a lower promotion rate than white professors. A cohort of 30 underrepresented minority (URM) junior faculty who participated in a structured faculty development program at a public, research-intensive, academic medical center were followed in a 10-year longitudinal study. This paper reports on the career status of 12 of the 30 URM faculty who were eligible for promotion during this period. Ninety-two percent (11/12) of URM faculty eligible for promotion were promoted to associate professor. When asked what factors contributed to their success, these URM faculty identified access and support of senior faculty mentors, peer networking, professional skill development, and knowledge of institutional culture. A faculty development program that addresses these components can promote the success of URM faculty in academic medicine.     

A mentoring program for underrepresented-minority students at the University of Rochester School of Medicine.

Mentoring underrepresented-minority (URM) students poses a special challenge because most medical schools have few URM faculty and many non-URM faculty hesitate to be mentors for URM students. Some medical students perform less well in the clinical years than would be expected from their pre-clinical performances. One factor is some students' difficulty in adapting to the culture of medicine, which mentors can help students overcome. The University of Rochester School of Medicine created the Medical Student Mentoring Program to address the needs of URM students and non-URM faculty who could be mentors. The program, offered in 1995-96 and 1996-97, trained mentors, created a bicultural support group for URM students, and provided structured mentoring. Interviews were conducted with faculty and students to identify critical areas that influence the success of URM students in their clinical years; URM faculty, residents, and advanced students shared their experiences with the program students at reflection group meetings. Mentors participated in an initial orientation. Of the 42 students eligible during 1995-1997, 30 participated and were assigned to 15 mentors. At the end of the program's first year, the students and mentors gave their reactions, and although there were some differences in their viewpoints, overall they considered the program useful. Non-URM faculty appreciated the support and guidance that allowed them to mentor URM students more effectively. The program ran formally for two years, and some of the mentoring relationships continued into the third year. Loss of funding and change in administrative leadership contributed to the ending of this program. Mentoring continues to be a priority at the medical center, and a new mentoring program has been developed for URM and non-URM medical students.     

The Junior Faculty Laboratory: an innovative model of peer mentoring

Mentoring in academic medicine has been shown to contribute to the success of junior faculty, resulting in increased productivity, career satisfaction, and opportunities for networking. Although traditional dyadic mentoring, involving one senior faculty member and one junior protégé, is the dominant model for mentoring in the academic environment, there is increasing recognition that the sharing of knowledge, skills, and experiences among peers may also contribute to the career development of junior faculty. The authors describe the structure, activities, and outcomes of the Junior Faculty Laboratory (JFL), a self-organized, flexible, and dynamic peer-mentoring model within the Duke University Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development. As an innovative mentoring model, JFL is entirely peer driven, and its activities are determined by the real-time needs of members. In contrast to some other peer-mentoring models, JFL lacks senior faculty input or a structured curriculum, members are multidisciplinary, meeting times are project driven rather than preset, and participation in collaborative projects is optional based on the interests and needs of group members. Additionally, JFL was not formed as a substitute for, but as a complement to, the dyadic mentoring relationships enjoyed by its members. The model, now in its fifth year, has demonstrated success and sustainability. The authors present the JFL as an innovative, mentoring model that can be reproduced by other junior faculty seeking to foster collegial relationships with peers while simultaneously enhancing their career development.     

Effects of perceptions and mentorship on pursuing a career in academic medicine in obstetrics and gynecology.

PURPOSE: To understand the perceptions of residents and Fellows in obstetrics and gynecology about the impacts of race or ethnicity, gender, and mentorship experiences on pursuing careers in academic medicine. METHOD: Two surveys were administered: one to a sample of 2,000 Fellows of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and one to the 4,814 obstetrics and gynecology residents taking the 1998 in-training examination. The questionnaires asked about demographics, perceptions about careers in academic medicine, and residents' experiences with mentorship. RESULTS: Response rates were 96.8% for residents and 40.6% for FELLOWS: Of the residents, 26.1% indicated they would not consider a career in academic medicine. First-year women residents were more inclined to pursue careers in academic medicine than were first-year men (p =.042), but their interest declined during residency. Women residents (43%)-especially minorities-felt that men were mentored and recruited more for faculty positions, while men (38%) felt that women were mentored and recruited more. Fellows' reports of recruitment did not differ by gender. Most white residents did not perceive racial or ethnic bias in mentoring or recruiting, while most non-white residents did. Almost one third of non-white women residents felt that supervisors were more likely to condescend to women and minority individuals. CONCLUSIONS: It is likely that neither men nor women residents in obstetrics and gynecology receive adequate mentorship for careers in academic medicine. Perceptions of bias are a serious barrier to developing racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in leadership positions.     

Evaluation of an Enhanced Peer Mentoring Program on Scholarly Productivity and Promotion in Academic Emergency Medicine: A Five-Year Review

ObjectiveTo design, implement, and evaluate the effectiveness of an enhanced peer mentoring program (EPMP) for faculty in emergency medicine aimed at overcoming traditional mentoring challenges.MethodsFull time faculty (Clinical Instructor, Assistant, and Associate levels) were placed into peer groups (based upon their primary academic roles) led by senior faculty advisors at the Professor level. Peer groups met at least quarterly from 2012 to 2017. In lieu of a structured curriculum, session topics were informed by individual faculty surveys and peer group consensus. Areas of focus included work-life balance, prioritizing academic commitments, identification of mentors (both within and external to the department and university), networking opportunities, promotions goals, and career satisfaction.ResultsEffectiveness of the EPMP was evaluated by academic productivity and advancement over a 5- year period. A total of 22 faculty members participated in the program. There was an increase in promotions to the next academic level, from 3 promotions in the five years before the program to 7 promotions in the five years of the program. Total grant funding increased 3-fold from $500,000 to $1,706,479 from the first year to the last year of the evaluation period.ConclusionsThis enhanced peer mentoring program was effective in mitigating many of the traditional mentoring challenges faced by faculty in academia and was successful in improving both academic productivity and advancement.     

Women's attitudes toward careers in academic medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.

In order to identify the concerns and possible barriers for women considering careers in academic medicine, in 1990 the authors surveyed both men and women medical students, housestaff, postdoctoral students, and junior faculty at The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). The authors achieved a 58% response rate from students and faculty, a 21% response rate from postdoctoral students, and a 15% response rate from housestaff. Results indicated that women at all levels were less interested in academic careers than were their male colleagues. Concerns about balancing family responsibilities, clinical practice, and teaching in addition to the research required of an academic career were mentioned most frequently. Women, especially those among the housestaff and junior faculty, reported fewer mentor relationships and role models. The authors discuss these findings in relation to other studies and describe what they are doing to foster women's interest and success in academic medicine at UCSF.     

An initiative in mentoring to promote residents' and faculty members' careers.

Internal medicine trainees and faculty recognize the value of effective mentoring to help meet the personal and professional needs of residents. However, the paradigm of the mentor-trainee relationship is seriously threatened by increased clinical, research, and administrative demands on both faculty and housestaff. Moreover, the current criteria for promotion in most teaching hospitals emphasize scholarship, rather than citizenship, so activities such as mentoring devolve to a lower priority. In 2000, the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women's/Faulkner Hospital initiated a program to improve the effectiveness of housestaff mentoring and recognize faculty contributions to resident career development. The authors report the feedback received from a survey of the 2002-03 medical housestaff (74% response rate) and describe their experiences with the initiation of this program. Over 90% of the housestaff respondents thought it important that the Department assigns an individual faculty mentor. In practice, time-consuming professional responsibilities made meetings difficult, but most pairs supplemented their interactions with e-mail. Discussions primarily focused on career advice and support. Housestaff thought mentors were helpful and available when needed. The department has established new metrics for recognizing faculty mentoring and now publicly rewards mentoring excellence. Of note, unassigned mentoring has increased since the initiation of this program. The authors conclude that the formal mentoring program has ensured that all trainees are provided with a mentor, which has facilitated faculty-housestaff interactions and increased recognition of faculty contributions to mentoring.     

Addressing the gate blocking of minority faculty

There have been ongoing efforts to increase the presence of underrepresented minorities in medicine (URMM), including faculty development initiatives, mentoring programs and outreach efforts. However, URMM faculty face unique challenges that are crucial for academic institutions and leaders to recognize in order to improve retention of this group and allow for meaningful advancement in the field. This paper introduces the concept of gate blocking, defined as what happens to minority faculty as a result of the consequences of the minority tax and systems designed to advantage some and disadvantage others. In addition to defining gate blocking, the authors make recommendations to address this concern in academic medicine and promote the advancement and retention of URMM faculty.     

Results of a gender-climate and work-environment survey at a midwestern academic health center.

AND CLIMATE determine how faculty's perceptions of medical school gender climate differ by gender, track, rank, and departmental affiliation. METHOD: In 1997, a 115-item questionnaire was sent to all University of Wisconsin Medical School faculty to assess their perceptions of mentoring, networking, professional environment, obstacles to a successful academic career, and reasons for considering leaving academic medicine. Using Fisher's exact two-tailed test, the authors assessed gender differences both overall and by track, rank, and departmental cluster. RESULTS: Of the 836 faculty on tenure, clinician-educator, and clinical tracks, 507 (61%) responded. Although equal proportions of men and women had mentors, 24% of the women (compared with 6% of men; p < .001) felt that informal networking excluded faculty based on gender. Women's and men's perceptions differed significantly (p < .001) on 12 of 16 professional environment items (p < .05 on two of these items) and on five of six items regarding obstacles to academic success. While similar percentages of women and men indicated having seriously considered leaving academic medicine, their reasons differed: women cited work-family conflicts (51%), while men cited uncompetitive salaries (59%). These gender differences generally persisted across tracks, ranks, and departmental clusters. The greatest gender differences occurred among clinician-educators, associate professors, and primary care faculty. CONCLUSIONS: Women faculty perceived that gender climate created specific, serious obstacles to their professional development. Many of those obstacles (e.g., inconvenient meeting times and lack of child care) are remediable. These data suggest that medical schools can improve the climate and retain and promote women by more inclusive networking, attention to meeting times and child care, and improved professional interactions between men and women faculty.