Table 1
Characteristics of faculty survey respondents
|
Characteristic |
Survey respondents (n = 106)a |
All department faculty (n = 232) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Male |
Female |
Male |
Female | |
|
n (%) |
58 (60) |
39 (40) |
130 (56) |
102 (44) |
|
Rank | ||||
|
Assistant professor, n (%) |
20 (41) |
29 (59) |
50 (41) |
71 (59) |
|
Number of publications, median (range) |
5 (0–67) |
12 (0–49) | ||
|
Associate professor, n (%) |
16 (67) |
8 (33) |
29 (65) |
19 (35) |
|
Number of publications, median (range) |
23 (2–57) |
23 (8–32) | ||
|
Professor, n (%) |
15 (88) |
2 (12)b |
46 (97) |
3 (6) |
|
Number of publications, median (range) |
155 (70–360) | |||
|
Time related factors in years, mean (SD) | ||||
|
Age |
51 (11) |
45 (11) | ||
|
Time at Tufts Medical Center |
16 (11) |
10 (8) | ||
|
Time since completing degree |
19 (11) |
14 (11) | ||
a9 respondents did not provide gender information.bNot reported as only n = 2 female full professors responded to the survey.
Table 2
What could the department of medicine do to help facilitate academic promotion among faculty in general?
|
Total N (%) |
Males N (%) |
Females N (%) |
P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Require division chiefs to hold individual annual meetings with each faculty member |
71 (67) |
37 (70) |
33 (83) |
0.16 |
|
Better define criteria for academic promotion at the time of hire |
67 (63) |
32 (60) |
32 (80) |
0.04 |
|
Consider faculty promotion record as part of that division chiefʼs annual review |
61 (58) |
32 (60) |
27 (68) |
0.48 |
|
Offer presentations on the process of academic promotion |
56 (53) |
32 (60) |
23 (58) |
0.78 |
|
Assign each faculty member a mentor at one academic rank higher |
51 (48) |
27 (51) |
23 (58) |
0.53 |
|
Provide protected time to work on the promotion application |
45 (42) |
21 (40) |
21 (53) |
0.22 |
|
Increase opportunities for participation in collaborative research groups |
34 (32) |
17 (32) |
16 (40) |
0.43 |