Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: Laryngoscope. 2023 Oct 17;134(4):1625–1632. doi: 10.1002/lary.31110

Limitations in Faculty Advancement for Underrepresented Groups in Academic Otolaryngology

Faculty Advancement in Otolaryngology

Sul Gi Kim 1, Sarah M Russel 2, Taylor J Stack 1, Dennis O Frank-Ito 3, Zainab Farzal 4, Charles S Ebert 2, Robert A Buckmire 2, Christie E DeMason 2, Rupali N Shah 2
PMCID: PMC10947976  NIHMSID: NIHMS1935708  PMID: 37847098

Abstract

Objective:

Despite the increasing racial diversity of the United States, representation in academic medicine faculty does not reach concordance with the general population and worsens with higher rank. Few studies have examined this within academic Otolaryngology and surgical subspecialties. This project aims to compare rank equity in academic Otolaryngology on self-reported gender and race/ethnicity between years 2000 and 2020.

Methods:

Publicly available data were obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges under the “Data & Reports” section for years 2000 and 2020. The report comprised of full-time faculty from all U.S. medical schools. To determine parity between faculty ranks across gender and race/ethnicity, rank equity index (REI) was calculated for associate/assistant, professor/associate, and professor/assistant professor comparisons.

Results:

Percentage of women faculty in Otolaryngology has increased from 21% in 2000 to 37% in 2020; however, they did not achieve parity at all rank comparisons for both years. On the contrary, men were above parity at all rank comparisons. Improvements in rank equity occurred for Black/African American (Black) and Hispanic Latino/Spanish Origin (Latine) faculty between year 2000 and 2020; however, when accounting for gender, benefits were concentrated among men.

Conclusion:

Advancement along the academic ladder is limited for women of all racial groups in academic Otolaryngology. While improved rank equity was seen for Black and Latine faculty, these improvements were largely among men. Future directions should aim to identify barriers for recruitment, retention, and promotion for women and underrepresented in medicine (URiM) academic otolaryngologists and create interventions that diversify Otolaryngology faculty at all ranks.

Short Summary

Rank Equity Index (REI), a measure originally adapted from the business sector, was used to examine gender and racial/ethnic equity across faculty ranks in academic Otolaryngology. Results show lack of rank parity for women of all races in academic Otolaryngology.

Level of Evidence:

N/A

Keywords: Rank Equity Index, Diversity, Promotion, Retention, Academic Otolaryngology

Introduction

The United States population is becoming increasingly diverse; by 2045, the U.S. is estimated to become a majority-minority nation.1 In response to the demographic changes, U.S. medical schools have started working towards creating a diverse health care workforce that represents the population it serves.2 Studies show that patient-physician racial concordance leads to improved health outcomes and lower healthcare expenditures especially among racial minority populations.3–5 Additionally, racial concordance promotes trust, higher satisfaction, and greater medical adherence.6 In general, the advantages of concordance between physician and patient are not limited to race alone, but also extends to gender. As evidenced by a study on gender concordance that showed decreased survival following myocardial infarction among female patients treated by male physicians, whereas female and male patients had similar mortality when treated by female physicians.7 Institutionally, diversity has proven to create collaborative culture and promote recruitment and retention of diverse faculty groups.8–10 Projections of diverse U.S. population, benefits of patient and physician concordance, and positive institutional culture demonstrate the importance of promoting diversity in the health care system.

The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) defined underrepresented in medicine (URiM) as “those racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population.”11 As of 2017, the majority of matriculating U.S. medical students are now women.12 However, despite the recent improvement in gender parity among medical students; women and URiM faculty remained grossly underrepresented at higher academic ranks.13 Specifically, women constituted only 11% of departmental chairs across U.S. medical schools.14 Despite efforts from the AAMC and academic medical centers to improve representation of women and URiM faculty and administrators, inequity still exists.13,15,16 Promotion rates for URiM faculty tend to be lower compared to their White counterparts after accounting for publication, tenure status, and degrees.15,16 Similarly, women are less likely to be promoted to associate professor, full professor, and department chair than their men counterparts after adjusting for graduation year, race, ethnic group, and medical specialty.17

To our knowledge, little research has examined upward mobility of women and URiM within academic Otolaryngology. In addition, most literature separates demographics by gender or race/ethnicity but do not investigate the overlap of the two. However, intersectionality – the concept that overlapping identities converge into one unique experience rather than something that can be separated into different analyses – suggests that examining this overlap is imperative to understanding the barriers that URiM women face in academic otolaryngology.18 Analysis of gender and race/ethnicity simultaneously reflects a more comprehensive narrative of how an individual moves through the ranks of academic medicine. The present study aims to analyze demographic data of Otolaryngology faculty to assess rank equity by gender and race/ethnicity and to demonstrate changes between a 20-year period.

Methods

Data Collection

This study was exempt from the University of North Carolina Institutional Review Board. Publicly available data was obtained from the AAMC Faculty Roster. 19 The Faculty Roster enables LCME-accredited medical schools to submit faculty information on an individual basis. Using the annually updated platform, the report ‘U.S. Medical School Faculty’ is generated to inform the national distribution of full-time faculty. The report encompasses demographic insights pertaining to full-time faculty across all LCME-accredited medical schools within the United States. We conducted a focused analysis on data from the years 2000 and 2020, concentrating on the field of Otolaryngology. The year 2020 was selected as it represented the most current information accessible through the AAMC faculty roster at the time of the study. By comparing data over a span of twenty years, we aimed to meaningfully assess shifts in the demographic composition of Otolaryngology faculty across medical schools within the United States. For comparison, data from two additional surgical subspecialties were extracted and analyzed: Obstetrics and Gynecology (OB-Gyn) and Orthopedic surgery (Orthopedics). OB-Gyn and Orthopedics specialties were chosen as they colloquially represented the two end of the diversity spectrum among surgical subspecialities: OB-Gyn is noted for being female-dominated 20,21, whereas Orthopedics is known to be male-dominated.22,23 Self-reported gender, race/ethnicity, academic rank, and department were collected for further analysis. Faculty who identified as “Unknown” and “Other” for race/ethnicity were excluded from this analysis. For the denominators of total faculty, “Other”, American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (NHPI), and “Unknown” race/ethnicity were included to reflect the complete faculty number across U.S. medical schools.

Previous AAMC reports, including the one from year 2000 used here, have used sex rather than gender in their reports. More recent reports, including from year 2020, have shifted to using gender instead. We unified self-reported results to gender since sex refers to biological characteristics, and gender better encapsulates self-identification. Of note, these questions ask about binary gender – men or women – rather than including options for other gender minorities. Thus, this analysis lacks data on transgender and nonbinary faculty, who are not currently assessed in measures from the AAMC.24

Rank Equity Index (REI)

To assess representation of women and URiM faculty in academic Otolaryngology, we utilized Rank Equity Index (REI). REI is calculated by dividing percent representation of two different ranks. This metric was first adapted from business literature to show upward mobility of communities of color in climbing the management ladder.25 REI was first used by Fassiotto et al. to measure inequity of URiM populations in academic medicine and identified quantitative pain points along the academic ladder.26 Previous work by Fassiotto et al. emphasized that women in surgical departments faced gross underrepresentation at higher ranks compared to women in internal medicine, pediatrics, and basic sciences specialties.26 Further work by Hobgood and Fassioetto27 and Lee et al.28 utilized REI to demonstrate that advancement inequalities for women start at assistant professor-to-associate professor stage regardless of portion of women in the field and that Emergency Medicine faculty of color and women are not achieving rank parity, respectively.

In our study, REI was defined as the ratio of percentage representation of a group at a higher faculty rank relative to percent representation of that group at a lower faculty rank.26

Rank Equity Index= % representation at higher rank% representation at lower rank

When REI equals 1.00, this indicates that there is parity in proportional representation of that group between ranks. REI above 1.00 (e.g., 1.20) means that there is overrepresentation of higher rank. In this example, the group would have 20% greater proportional representation at that higher rank compared to the lower rank. Conversely, REI less than 1.00 (e.g., 0.70) indicates that there is underrepresentation of a group at the higher rank compared to the lower one. In the given example, the group has 30% less representation at the higher rank compared to the lower. REIs were calculated for associate/assistant, professor/associate, and professor/assistant rank comparisons for all groups at year 2000 and 2020.

Results

Otolaryngology Faculty REIs by Gender

On December 31, 2000, there were 1,147 full-time otolaryngology faculty, of which men comprised 79%, women represented 21%. Additionally in year 2000, women comprised 24% of assistant professors, 16% of associate professors and 7% of full professors [Supplemental Appendix 1]. On December 31, 2020, there were 2,397 full-time otolaryngology faculty. Men faculty otolaryngologists represented 63%, whereas women represented 37%. In year 2020, women comprised 40% of assistant professors, 28% of associate professors, and 18% of full professors [Supplemental Appendix 1]. Women REIs fell below parity in both 2000 and 2020 for all rank comparisons. With higher faculty rank, women dropped further below parity, whereas REIs for men illustrated gains in representation across all rank comparisons (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Rank Equity Indices (REIs) of U.S. medical school Otolaryngology faculty by gender and rank at year 2000 and 2020. REI is calculated by dividing higher rank by a lower rank, and REI of 1.00 indicates parity between higher and lower rank. Women REIs were below 1.00 for all pairwise rank comparison, whereas men REIs were above parity for all pairwise rank comparison. Individual numbers and percentages used to calculate REIs can be found in Supplmental Appendix 1

Otolaryngology faculty REIs by Race/Ethnicity

Before reporting the breakdown by race/ethnicity, it is important to mention that AIAN and NHPI were excluded because they constituted <1% of faculty among the specialties we analyzed; thus, their numbers did not result in meaningful REIs. Additionally, in 2000, REIs for multiple Race/Ethnicity Hispanic (Multi-Hispanic) <1% and multiple race/ethnicity non-Hispanic (Multi-non-Hispanic) <1% were not calculated as it did not result in meaningful results [Supplemental Appendix 2].

In year 2000, the largest racial groups in academic Otolaryngology were White 81% and Asian 10%. Black or African American (Black) faculty constituted 2%, Hispanic Latino or of Spanish Origin (Latine) 2%, and Other and Unknown comprised 4% [Supplemental Appendix 2]. Of note, in 2000 there were no Black full professors; therefore, REIs were zero for professor/associate and professor/assistant calculations. White faculty had the highest REIs (Associate/Assistant, Professor/Associate, Professor/Assistant: 1.10, 0.82, 1.00 respectively), except for Latine associate/assistant (1.35). All other races and rank comparisons fell below parity, demonstrating losses in representation with increasing ranks (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Rank Equity Indices (REIs) of U.S. medical school Otolaryngology faculty by race/ethnicity and rank. Data are for 1,147 full time faculty in year 2000 and 2,397 full time faculty in year 2020 collected by Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). REI of 1.00 indicate parity between ranks. Individual numbers and percentages used to calculate REIs can be found in Supplemental Appendix 3 and 4.

In 2020, the largest racial/ethnic groups in Otolaryngology were White 68% and Asian 19%. Black faculty comprised 2%, Latine 2%, and Other and Unknown comprised 5% [Supplemental Appendix 2]. More faculty identified with multiple races: Multi-Hispanic 3% and Multi-non-Hispanic 2%. AIAN and NHPI combined still constituted <1% of Otolaryngology faculty. REIs for associate/assistant comparison were above parity for Asian (REI= 1.06) and Black faculty (REI= 1.23) and near parity for White faculty (REI= 0.98). REIs for professor/associate comparison were above parity for Latine (REI= 1.67) and at parity for White faculty (REI= 1.0). Professor/assistant REIs were above parity for Black (REI= 1.19), Latine (REI= 1.38), and White (REI= 1.06) faculty. REIs for all rank comparisons were below parity for Multi-Hispanic and Multi-non-Hispanic (Figure 2).

Otolaryngology Faculty REIs by Race/Ethnicity and Gender

Of note, in 2000 there were no full professor Asian women, Black men or women, or Latine women; therefore, REIs for comparisons between professor/associate professor and professor/assistant professor were zero for these groups (Figure 3). REIs for all rank comparisons were below parity for women in all races/ethnicities except for Latine women comparing associate/assistant professors (REI= 1.55). REIs at all rank comparison were below parity for Asian men and Black men. Latine men were only above parity for associate/assistant professors (REI= 1.16). White men REIs were above parity at all rank comparisons (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Rank Equity Indices (REIs) of U.S. medical school Otolaryngology faculty by race/ethnicity and gender. Data are for 1,147 full time Otolaryngology faculty in year 2000, collected by Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). REI of 1.00 indicates parity between ranks. Individual numbers and percentages used to calculate REIs can be found in Supplemental Appendix 3.

In 2020, Asian women, Black men, and women, and Latine women were all represented among full professors. The REI for Asian men between associate/assistant professors demonstrated gains in representation (REI= 1.32), but Asian men still were below parity for other rank comparisons. Black men’s representation improved compared to year 2000 with REIs at all rank comparisons above parity (Figure 4). Latine men at the professor/assistant professor (REI= 2.33) and professor/associate professor (REI=2.08) levels had the highest REI among all pairwise comparisons, which demonstrates greater representation for Latine men among professors. White men were above parity for all rank comparisons (REIs: 1.23, 1.33, 1.63). Multiple Race/Ethnicity faculty were better represented in 2020 compared to 2000 (Multi-Hispanic 3%, Multi-non-Hispanic 2%); however, there were no full professor women of multiple races. Therefore, REIs were zero for professor/associate and professor/assistant comparisons. REIs at all rank comparisons were below parity for women regardless of race/ethnicity except for Latine women at professor/associate comparison (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

Rank Equity Indices (REIs) of U.S. medical school Otolaryngology faculty by race/ethnicity, gender, and rank. Data are for 2,397 full-time Otolaryngology faculty in year 2020 collected by Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). REI of 1.00 indicates parity between ranks. Individual numbers and percentages used to calculate REIs can be found in Supplemental Appendix 4.

OB-Gyn and Orthopedics REIs by Race/Ethnicity and Gender for Year 2020.

For OB-Gyn, REIs were below parity at all rank comparisons for women of each race/ethnicity (Asian, Black, White, and multiple race) except for Latine women at the professor/associate professor comparison (Figure 5). Compared to Orthopedic surgery and Otolaryngology, OB-Gyn did have representation of multiple race/ethnicity women at full professor rank. OB-Gyn men REIs were above parity for all rank comparisons for Asian men, Black men, and White men. (Figure 5).

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Rank Equity Indices (REIs) of U.S. medical school faculty by race/ethnicity, gender, and rank for Orthopedic Surgery, and OB-Gyn. Data are for full-time faculty in U.S. medical school collected by AAMC in 2020. Full time faculty were Orthopedics (4,409) and OB-Gyn (6,925). REIs below 1.00 indicates that there is underrepresentation of higher rank, whereas REIs above 1.00 indicates that there is more representation of a higher rank. Individual numbers and percentages used to calculate REIs are available in supplemental appendices 5,6.

For Orthopedic surgery, REIs were below parity at all rank comparisons for women of each race/ethnicity (Asian, Black, White, and multiple race) except for Latine women associate/assistant professor comparison (Figure 5). There were no women full professors of multiple race/ethnicities in Orthopedic surgery in 2020; therefore, REIs for professor/associate and professor/assistant professor comparisons were 0. REIs were above parity at all rank comparisons for white men only. Professor/associate and professor/assistant REIs were below parity for Asian men, Black men, and Latine men. REIs for men of multiple race/ethnicities were below parity for all rank comparisons.

Discussion

Literature suggests that academic otolaryngology in the United States does not mirror the increasing diversity of the nation’s population and disparities grow wider with higher faculty rank29–32. Inequities in representation are primarly due to systemic barriers. In response, medical schools have focussed efforts to foster diversity and inclusion amongst trainees and faculty.9,33–35. One success story of recruiting and retaining women and URiM faculty to an otolaryngology department has been described by Lin et al.34 where the department introduced multifaceted diversity initiatives. Over the span of ten years, from 2004 to 2014, substantial progress was observed: women clinical faculty increased from 5.8% to 23.7%, number of women at associate faculty rank increased from zero to eight, and the salary gap of 4% to 12% was closed with equal salary by rank and subspeciality training.34 Ultimately, the institutions that had the greatest success with improving representation of women and URiM physicians were those who implemented changes at every step of their recruitment and retention processes.36

However, despite the implementation of various initiatives and institutional success stories, a discernible disparity continues to persist in leveling the playing field for women and URiM individuals. In a nation-wide study evaluating otolaryngology department and societal leadership roles from 2010 to 2020 in the U.S., Uppal et al.29 found that women and certain ethno-racial groups were overwhelmingly under-represented in leadership roles. Additionally, in multi-departmental analysis of faculty promotion rate in U.S. medical schools from 2010 to 2019, Xierali et al37 found that URiM assistant faculty members were promoted at lower rates, a finding that has since been redemonstrated in further research.32

Given the persistent underrepresentation of women and URiM groups, our investigation explores how efforts to enhance representation is reflected in academic rank based on gender, race/ethnicity, and their intersectionality. We aimed to provide a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of faculty advancement within academic otolaryngology18.

Women in Academic Otolaryngology

In academic Otolaryngology, the percentage of women faculty has grown over the past twenty years. In 2000, women comprised only 21% of academic otolaryngologists, yet by 2020, they were 37% of the academic Otolaryngology workforce. Despite more women entering academic Otolaryngology, women REIs for all rank comparisons in Otolaryngology were below parity not only in 2000 but also in 2020 with minimal improvement. REIs for men at all rank comparsions in Otolaryngology have remained above parity.

The decline in representation of women at progressively higher ranks requires further examination. This could be due to a number of factors, including attrition, lack of mentorship/sponsorship, lack of support, or biased measures for promotion. Moreover, the lack of equity in the last twenty years demystifies the notion of cohort effect, a phenomenon which suggests that shifts in faculty demographics and their attainment to higher ranks will naturally occur with more women entering a given specialty.37 Work by Carr et al.35 astutely investigated the “why” behind greater number of women in medicine not resulting more women in higher academic positions. Nearly 40% of the participating institutions reported no programs for recruiting, promoting, or retaining women faculty, and some institutions thought these promotional programs were unnecessary. Furthermore, institutions with existing programs primarily targeted individual development such as mentoring, networking, and child and elder care, and found no efforts at the larger institutional policy level.35 Indeed, a critical scoping review that examined the reasons underlying disparities in recruitment, retention, promotion, and attrition were largely attributed to inequities baked into the structure of academia, which demonstrates the need for interventions at the institutional level if representation gaps are to be closed.36

Programs should then be developed to target these culprits and aim not only to recruit but also to retain and advance women, particularly URiM women, equitably. The lack of women’s advancement in Otolaryngology will likely hinder women medical students from pursuing Otolaryngology in yet an already hostile enviornment.20 Indeed, diversity among faculty correlates with the diversity of residents in surgical specialties.38 Academic medical centers and especially surgical specialities should thus investigate the factors underlying this inequity and create programs for retention and inclusion of women that foster equitable advancement.

URiM Faculty in Academic Otolaryngology

Similarly, racial diversity in Otolaryngology has only mildly improved in the last 20 years. Black and Latine otolaryngologists remian <3% in each group for both year 2000 and 2020 [Supplemental Appendix 2]. Also, AIAN and NHPI combined constituted <1% in 2000 and 2020. Interestingly, in the last 20 years, individuals reporting multiple races is becoming more prominent. Within Otolaryngology, there was four-fold increase from year 2000 to year 2020. United States Census Bureau report for the 2020 year has investigated 276% increase in multiracial population between year 2010 (9 million) to year 2020 (33.8 million). 39 As the U.S. population becomes more diverse, it is critical to record and report multiracial individuals in academic medicine to ensure equitable respresentation is achieved in multiracial groups as well.

Despite limited total representation, some improvements in REIs were seen for Black and Latine faculty. In year 2000, there was zero Black or African American full professors leading to two REIs equaling 0.00, whereas in year 2020 two REIs were above parity. For Latine group, in 2000, REIs for professor/associate and professor/assistant were below parity whereas in year 2020 they were above parity. For Asian faculty, REIs in the past 20 years have not shifted towards parity and remain below parity at higher rank comparisons despite being overrepresented in academic medicine.4,25 Overall, there was increased representation at higher ranks for Black and Latine faculty as their REIs trended towards parity while promotion to higher rank for Asian and multiple race faculty remain limited. Few of the challenges of retention and promotion of underrepresented faculty could be lack of senior leadership support, lack of resources devoted to this cause, and lack of critical mass of minority faculty.40 Therefore, academic medical centers should leverage resources and recruit institutional leaders that are committed to retention and promotion of minority faculty members.

Intersectional Approach to Representation in Academic Otolaryngology

Published works investigating diversity in academic medicine groups demographics either by gender or race/ethnicity.9,37,41 Our analysis aims to dig even deeper and investigate both gender and race/ethnicity simultaneously. If one aggregates race/ethnic demographic without considering gender, it may falsely seem as if equity has been reached in a racial group. Take for example Otolaryngology race/ethnic REIs in figure 2. Compared to year 2000, the REIs for Black faculty (2000: REIs= 0.27, 0.00, 0.00; 2020: REIs= 1.23, 0.89,1.19) and Latine faculty (2000: REIs= 1.35,0.16, 0.18; 2020: REIs= 0.78, 1.67, 1.38) has greatly improved in the last 20 years. However, when race and gender are investigated simultaneously for Otolaryngology, the increase in REIs for both Black and Latine faculty were concentrated to men as women REIs for these races were still below parity in 2020: Black women (REIs= 0.99, 0.59, 0.59), Latine women (REIs= 0.66, 1.02, 0.67). Interesting phenomena for White faculty in Otolaryngology were also observed when analyzing both gender and race/ethnic demographics concurrently. White faculty REIs were relatively above parity for both year 2000 and 2020; however, when REIs were subdivided further by gender, White women REIs fell below parity for all rank comparisons in both year 2000 and 2020. Analyses that group demographics into either gender or race/ethnicity are still valuable. However, our results highlight that granular investigation is also critical as aggregation of demographics may lead to false result that equity has been reached for a given racial and gender group.

In order to determine if the phenomena demonstrated were unique to Otolaryngology, gender and raical diversity was compared to OB-Gyn and Orthopedic surgery. As mentioned previously, OB-Gyn and Orthopedic surgical specialities were chosen as they colloquially represented the two ends of the diversity spectrum. When gender and race/ethnicity were investigated simutalenously, the vast majority of women REIs regarldess of race were below parity for OB-Gyn and Orthopedics in year 2020. Looking at the raw numbers [Supplemental Appendices 1-6], percentages of women were highest in the assistant professor and lowest in full professor rank for OB-Gyn, Orthopedic Surgery, and Otolaryngology. These findings indicate that women in multiple surgical fields are recruited to assistant professors but are lost in the retention or promotion to higher academic ranks. Efforts to increase recruitment of women and URiM into assistant rank should complement retention and promotion efforts to ensure individuals are supported towards achieving higher academic positions. Academic medical centers should consider utilizing REIs to monitor disparities in promotion and retention and leverage their findings to encourage a more equitable advancement process for all faculty.

Limitations

We have several limitations. This study relies on self-reported race and gender data from the AAMC, which might not comprehensively capture individuals’ experiences and could introduce bias that leads to misclassification. Additionally, AAMC data is confined to the United States and academic institutions; therefore, the generalizability of findings to settings beyond these realms is likely limited. Moreover, our analysis is limited by the data that the AAMC currently reports. The AAMC only discusses binary gender – men and women – in their faculty rosters although, to their credit, they have started providing more gender diverse options for trainees. American Indians and Native Hawaiians comprised less than 1% for all three surgical subspecialities investigated here; hence, meaningful REI could not be calculated. This, however, provides evidence that American Indians and Native Hawaiians groups are greatly underrepresented within academic medicine, and interventions to increase representation of this racial group are needed. Additionally, “unknown” race was excluded from analysis; however, this group constituted nearly 4% of Otolaryngology faculty in year 2000 and 2020. Absolute number of Black and Latine faculty are low. A minor change in the number of individuals can impact the REI calculation, and an REI above 1.0 may not truly signify over-representation due to the small sample size while REI calculation for larger groups (i.e., White faculty) may be more significant. Lastly, REI provides only a snapshot of population diversity at a given time and does not evaluate rank advancements longitudinally.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that advancement along the academic ladder is limited for women of all racial groups in academic Otolaryngology. While improved rank equity was seen for Black and Latine faculty in the last twenty years, these improvements were largely among men. Future directions should aim to identify barriers for recruitment, retention, and promotion for women and URiMs in academic Otolaryngology and make recommendations for interventions aimed at creating a more diverse Otolaryngology faculty that constitute all ranks of academic medicine.

Supplementary Material

Supinfo

Supplemental Appendix 1. Otolaryngology Faculty Rank by Gender for Years 2000 and 2020.

Supplemental Appendix 2. Otolaryngology Faculty Composition by Race/Ethnicity for Years 2000 and 2020

Supplemental Appendix 3. Otolaryngology Faculty Gender and Race/ethnicity Composition for year 2000.

Supplemental Appendix 4. Otolaryngology Faculty Gender and Race/ethnicity Composition for year 2020.

Supplemental Appendix 5. Obstetrics and Gynecology (OB-Gyn) Faculty Gender and Race/ethnicity Composition for Year 2020.

Supplemental Appendix 6. Orthopedic Surgery (Orthopedics) Faculty Gender and Race/ethnicity Composition for Year 2020.

Funding:

This work is partially funded by the NIH NIDCD grant supporting SMR (T32 DC005360).

The authors have no additional funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose.

Reference

  • 1.Bureau UC (n.d.). 2017 National Population Projections Tables: Main Series. Census.Gov. Retrieved November 8, 2022, from https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/popproj/2017-summary-tables.html [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Marrast LM, Zallman L, Woolhandler S, Bor DH, & McCormick D. (2014). Minority Physicians’ Role in the Care of Underserved Patients: Diversifying the Physician Workforce May Be Key in Addressing Health Disparities. JAMA Internal Medicine, 174(2), 289–291. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.12756 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Jetty A, Jabbarpour Y, Pollack J, Huerto R, Woo S, & Petterson S. (2022). Patient-Physician Racial Concordance Associated with Improved Healthcare Use and Lower Healthcare Expenditures in Minority Populations. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 9(1), 68–81. 10.1007/s40615-020-00930-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Alsan M, Garrick O, & Graziani G. (2019). Does Diversity Matter for Health? Experimental Evidence from Oakland. American Economic Review, 109(12), 4071–4111. 10.1257/aer.20181446 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Snyder JE, Upton RD, Hassett TC, Lee H, Nouri Z, & Dill M. (2023). Black Representation in the Primary Care Physician Workforce and Its Association With Population Life Expectancy and Mortality Rates in the US. JAMA Network Open, 6(4), e236687. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.6687 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Street RL, O’Malley KJ, Cooper LA, & Haidet P. (2008). Understanding concordance in patient-physician relationships: Personal and ethnic dimensions of shared identity. Annals of Family Medicine, 6(3), 198–205. 10.1370/afm.821 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Greenwood BN, Carnahan S, & Huang L. (2018). Patient-physician gender concordance and increased mortality among female heart attack patients. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(34), 8569–8574. 10.1073/pnas.1800097115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Daley S, Wingard DL, & Reznik V. (2006). Improving the retention of underrepresented minority faculty in academic medicine. Journal of the National Medical Association, 98(9), 1435–1440. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wingard D, Trejo J, Gudea M, Goodman S, & Reznik V. (2019). Faculty Equity, Diversity, Culture and Climate Change in Academic Medicine: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of the National Medical Association, 111(1), 46–53. 10.1016/j.jnma.2018.05.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Levine RB, Lin F, Kern DE, Wright SM, & Carrese J. (2011). Stories from early-career women physicians who have left academic medicine: A qualitative study at a single institution. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 86(6), 752–758. 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318217e83b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Underrepresented in Medicine Definition. (n.d.). Retrieved December 5, 2022, from https://www.aamc.org/what-we-do/equity-diversity-inclusion/underrepresented-in-medicine
  • 12.The Majority of U.S. Medical Students Are Women, New Data Show. (n.d.). AAMC. Retrieved November 8, 2022, from https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/press-releases/majority-us-medical-students-are-women-new-data-show [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Merchant JL, & Omary MB (2010). Underrepresentation of underrepresented minorities in academic medicine: The need to enhance the pipeline and the pipe. Gastroenterology, 138(1), 19–26.e1–3. 10.1053/j.gastro.2009.11.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Yu PT, Parsa PV, Hassanein O, Rogers SO, & Chang DC (2013). Minorities struggle to advance in academic medicine: A 12-y review of diversity at the highest levels of America’s teaching institutions. The Journal of Surgical Research, 182(2), 212–218. 10.1016/j.jss.2012.06.049 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Fang D, Moy E, Colburn L, & Hurley J. (2000). Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Faculty Promotion in Academic Medicine. JAMA, 284(9), 1085–1092. 10.1001/jama.284.9.1085 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Nunez-Smith M, Ciarleglio MM, Sandoval-Schaefer T, Elumn J, Castillo-Page L, Peduzzi P, & Bradley EH (2012). Institutional variation in the promotion of racial/ethnic minority faculty at US medical schools. American Journal of Public Health, 102(5), 852–858. 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300552 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Richter KP, Clark L, Wick JA, Cruvinel E, Durham D, Shaw P, Shih GH, Befort CA, & Simari RD (2020). Women Physicians and Promotion in Academic Medicine. New England Journal of Medicine, 383(22), 2148–2157. 10.1056/NEJMsa1916935 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Crenshaw K. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241. 10.2307/1229039 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.U.S. Medical School Faculty Roster. (n.d.). AAMC. Retrieved December 6, 2022, from https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/faculty-institutions/interactive-data/2020-us-medical-school-faculty [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Where are all the women in surgery? (n.d.). AAMC. Retrieved March 27, 2023, from https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/where-are-all-women-surgery [Google Scholar]
  • 21.These medical specialties have the biggest gender imbalances. (2019, October 1). American Medical Association. https://www.ama-assn.org/medical-students/specialty-profiles/these-medical-specialties-have-biggest-gender-imbalances [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Racial Diversity in Orthopedic Surgery—ClinicalKey. (n.d.). Retrieved April 11, 2023, from https://www-clinicalkey-com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/#!/content/playContent/1-s2.0-S0030589819300471?returnurl=https:%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0030589819300471%3Fshowall%3Dtrue&referrer=https:%2F%2Fsso.unc.edu%2F
  • 23.Minority Representation Among Orthopaedic Surgery Residents. (n.d.). Retrieved April 11, 2023, from https://www.aaos.org/aaosnow/2017/jul/clinical/clinical06/
  • 24.Russel SM (2022). Let me be perfectly queer: Improving sexual orientation and gender identity data collection. Medical Education, 56(8), 866. 10.1111/medu.14844 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Gee B, & Peck D. (n.d.). THE ILLUSION OF ASIAN SUCCESS: 42. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Fassiotto M, Flores B, Victor R, Altamirano J, Garcia LC, Kotadia S, & Maldonado Y. (2020). Rank Equity Index: Measuring Parity in the Advancement of Underrepresented Populations in Academic Medicine. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 95(12), 1844–1852. 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003720 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hobgood C, & Fassiotto M. (2021). Using the Rank Equity Index to measure emergency medicine faculty rank progression. Academic Emergency Medicine: Official Journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 28(9), 966–973. 10.1111/acem.14268 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lee MO, Flores B, Fassiotto M, & Hobgood C. (2023). Career Advancement Among Women Physicians in Nine Academic Medicine Specialties. Journal of Women’s Health (2002). 10.1089/jwh.2022.0464 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Uppal PA, Kollu T, Thomas M, Mammen L, & Mortensen M. (2022). Otolaryngology Department and Society Leadership: Evaluation of Diversity in a Nationwide Study. The Laryngoscope, 132(9), 1729–1737. 10.1002/lary.29957 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Epperson M, Gouveia CJ, Tabangin ME, Takiar V, Howell R, Altaye M, Ishman SL, & Tang AL (2020). Female Representation in Otolaryngology Leadership Roles. The Laryngoscope, 130(7), 1664–1669. 10.1002/lary.28308 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ferguson BJ, & Grandis JR (2006). Women in otolaryngology: Closing the gender gap. Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery, 14(3), 159–163. 10.1097/01.moo.0000193203.62967.82 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Russel SM, Farzal Z, Ebert C, Buckmire R, DeMason C, Shah R, & Frank-Ito DO (n.d.). Finding the Potholes in Academic Career Pathways for Underrepresented Groups in Otolaryngology. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, n/a(n/a). 10.1002/ohn.513 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Nellis JC, Eisele DW, Francis HW, Hillel AT, & Lin SY (2016). Impact of a mentored student clerkship on underrepresented minority diversity in otolaryngology–head and neck surgery. The Laryngoscope, 126(12), 2684–2688. 10.1002/lary.25992 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lin SY, Francis HW, Minor LB, & Eisele DW (2016). Faculty diversity and inclusion program outcomes at an academic otolaryngology department. The Laryngoscope, 126(2), 352–356. 10.1002/lary.25455 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Carr PL, Gunn C, Raj A, Kaplan S, & Freund KM (2017). Recruitment, Promotion, and Retention of Women in Academic Medicine: How Institutions Are Addressing Gender Disparities. Women’s Health Issues: Official Publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health, 27(3), 374–381. 10.1016/j.whi.2016.11.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Russel SM, Carter TM, Wright ST, & Hirshfield LE (n.d.). How Do Academic Medicine Pathways Differ for Underrepresented Trainees and Physicians? A Critical Scoping Review. Academic Medicine, 10.1097/ACM.0000000000005364. 10.1097/ACM.0000000000005364 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Xierali IM, Nivet MA, Syed ZA, Shakil A, & Schneider FD (2021). Recent Trends in Faculty Promotion in U.S. Medical Schools: Implications for Recruitment, Retention, and Diversity and Inclusion. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 96(10), 1441–1448. 10.1097/ACM.0000000000004188 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Santosa KB, Priest CR, Oliver JD, Bellomo TR, Bonner S, Matusko N, Sandhu G, & Waljee JF (2022). Influence of faculty diversity on resident diversity across surgical subspecialties. American Journal of Surgery, 224(1 Pt B), 273–281. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2022.02.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Bureau UC (n.d.). 2020 Census Illuminates Racial and Ethnic Composition of the Country. Census.Gov. Retrieved March 27, 2023, from https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/improved-race-ethnicity-measures-reveal-united-states-population-much-more-multiracial.html [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kaplan SE, Gunn CM, Kulukulualani AK, Raj A, Freund KM, & Carr PL (2018). Challenges in Recruiting, Retaining and Promoting Racially and Ethnically Diverse Faculty. Journal of the National Medical Association, 110(1), 58–64. 10.1016/j.jnma.2017.02.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Carr PL, & Friedman RH (1999). Gender diversity—Struggle in the glass house. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 74(2), 201–203. 10.4065/74.2.201 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supinfo

Supplemental Appendix 1. Otolaryngology Faculty Rank by Gender for Years 2000 and 2020.

Supplemental Appendix 2. Otolaryngology Faculty Composition by Race/Ethnicity for Years 2000 and 2020

Supplemental Appendix 3. Otolaryngology Faculty Gender and Race/ethnicity Composition for year 2000.

Supplemental Appendix 4. Otolaryngology Faculty Gender and Race/ethnicity Composition for year 2020.

Supplemental Appendix 5. Obstetrics and Gynecology (OB-Gyn) Faculty Gender and Race/ethnicity Composition for Year 2020.

Supplemental Appendix 6. Orthopedic Surgery (Orthopedics) Faculty Gender and Race/ethnicity Composition for Year 2020.

NIHMS1935708-supplement-Supinfo.docx (25.2KB, docx)

RESOURCES