Suppr超能文献

良好实践还是积极行动?运用Q方法来识别关于改善医学学术领域性别平等的不同观点。

Good practice or positive action? Using Q methodology to identify competing views on improving gender equality in academic medicine.

作者信息

Bryant Louise D, Burkinshaw Paula, House Allan O, West Robert M, Ward Vicky

机构信息

Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2017 Aug 22;7(8):e015973. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-015973.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The number of women entering medicine has increased significantly, yet women are still under-represented at senior levels in academic medicine. To support the gender equality action plan at one School of Medicine, this study sought to (1) identify the range of viewpoints held by staff on how to address gender inequality and (2) identify attitudinal barriers to change.

DESIGN

Q methodology. 50 potential interventions representing good practice or positive action, and addressing cultural, organisational and individual barriers to gender equality, were ranked by participants according to their perception of priority.

SETTING

The School of Medicine at the University of Leeds, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty-five staff members were purposively sampled to represent gender and academic pay grade.

RESULTS

Principal components analysis identified six competing viewpoints on how to address gender inequality. Four viewpoints favoured positive action interventions: (1) support careers of women with childcare commitments, (2) support progression of women into leadership roles rather than focus on women with children, (3) support careers of all women rather than just those aiming for leadership, and (4) drive change via high-level financial and strategic initiatives. Two viewpoints favoured good practice with no specific focus on women by (5) recognising merit irrespective of gender and (6) improving existing career development practice. No viewpoint was strongly associated with gender, pay grade or role; however, latent class analysis identified that female staff were more likely than male to prioritise the setting of equality targets. Attitudinal barriers to the setting of targets and other positive action initiatives were identified, and it was clear that not all staff supported positive action approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings and the approach have utility for those involved in gender equality work in other medical and academic institutions. However, the impact of such initiatives needs to be evaluated in the longer term.

摘要

目标

进入医学领域的女性数量显著增加,但在学术医学的高层中女性的代表性仍然不足。为了支持一所医学院的性别平等行动计划,本研究旨在:(1)确定工作人员对于如何解决性别不平等问题所持的各种观点;(2)确定变革的态度障碍。

设计

Q 方法。50 项代表良好实践或积极行动、并解决性别平等的文化、组织和个人障碍的潜在干预措施,由参与者根据其认为的优先程度进行排序。

地点

英国利兹大学医学院。

参与者

有目的地抽取了 55 名工作人员,以代表不同性别和学术薪资等级。

结果

主成分分析确定了关于如何解决性别不平等问题的六种相互竞争的观点。四种观点支持积极行动干预措施:(1)支持有育儿责任的女性的职业发展;(2)支持女性晋升到领导岗位,而不是只关注有孩子的女性;(3)支持所有女性的职业发展,而不仅仅是那些追求领导职位的女性;(4)通过高层的财务和战略举措推动变革。两种观点支持良好实践,不特别关注女性:(5)不论性别认可功绩;(6)改进现有的职业发展实践。没有一种观点与性别、薪资等级或职位有强烈关联;然而,潜在类别分析表明,女性工作人员比男性更有可能将设定平等目标列为优先事项。确定了设定目标和其他积极行动举措的态度障碍,而且很明显并非所有工作人员都支持积极行动方法。

结论

这些发现和方法对其他医学和学术机构中参与性别平等工作的人员有用。然而,此类举措的影响需要进行长期评估。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验