Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, Division of Health & Social Care Research, King's College London, London, UK NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London, UK.
Arts & Sciences Faculties, King's College London, London, UK.
BMJ Open. 2016 Sep 8;6(9):e012090. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012090.
Gender inequity has persisted in academic medicine. Yet equity is vital for countries to achieve their full potential in terms of translational research and patient benefit. This study sought to understand how the gender equity programme, Athena SWAN, can be enabled and constrained by interactions between the programme and the context it is implemented into, and whether these interactions might produce unintended consequences.
Multimethod qualitative case studies using a realist evaluation approach.
5 departments from a university medical school hosting a Translational Research Organisation.
25 hours of observations of gender equality committee meetings, 16 in-depth interviews with Heads of Departments, Committee Leads and key personnel involved in the initiative. 4 focus groups with 15 postdoctoral researchers, lecturers and senior lecturers.
The implementation of Athena SWAN principles was reported to have created social space to address gender inequity and to have highlighted problematic practices to staff. However, a number of factors reduced the programme's potential to impact gender inequity. Gender inequity was reproduced in the programme's enactment as female staff was undertaking a disproportionate amount of Athena SWAN work, with potential negative impacts on individual women's career progression. Early career researchers experienced problems accessing Athena SWAN initiatives. Furthermore, the impact of the programme was perceived to be undermined by wider institutional practices, national policies and societal norms, which are beyond the programme's remit.
Gender equity programmes have the potential to address inequity. However, paradoxically, they can also unintentionally reproduce and reinforce gender inequity through their enactment. Potential programme impacts may be undermined by barriers to staff availing of career development and training initiatives, and by wider institutional practices, national policies and societal norms.
学术医学中的性别不平等一直存在。然而,公平对于各国在转化研究和患者受益方面充分发挥潜力至关重要。本研究旨在了解雅典娜 SWAN 性别平等计划如何通过该计划与实施环境之间的相互作用来实现和受到限制,以及这些相互作用是否可能产生意想不到的后果。
采用真实评估方法的多方法定性案例研究。
一所大学医学院的 5 个系,设有转化研究组织。
性别平等委员会会议观察 25 小时,与系主任、委员会负责人和参与该倡议的主要人员进行 16 次深入访谈。4 次有 15 名博士后研究人员、讲师和高级讲师参加的焦点小组。
据报道,雅典娜 SWAN 原则的实施为解决性别不平等问题创造了社会空间,并向员工强调了有问题的做法。然而,一些因素降低了该计划对性别不平等产生影响的潜力。在该计划的实施中,性别不平等现象再次出现,因为女性员工承担了不成比例的雅典娜 SWAN 工作,这对个别女性的职业发展可能产生负面影响。初级研究人员在获得雅典娜 SWAN 计划方面遇到问题。此外,该计划的影响被认为因更广泛的机构实践、国家政策和社会规范而受到削弱,而这些都超出了该计划的职权范围。
性别平等计划有可能解决不平等问题。然而,具有讽刺意味的是,通过其实施,它们也可能无意中复制和加剧性别不平等。员工利用职业发展和培训计划的障碍以及更广泛的机构实践、国家政策和社会规范可能会破坏潜在的计划影响。