A Seat at the Table: Strategic Engagement in Service Activities for Early-Career Faculty From Underrepresented Groups in the Academy

Minority Tax on Medical Students: A Review of the Literature and Mitigation Recommendations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Accreditation standards for MD- and DO-granting institutions require medical schools to recruit a diverse student body and educate students about diverse groups of patients. The minority tax is a summary of responsibilities assigned to racial and ethnic underrepresented faculty to achieve diversity, equity, and inclusion in medical institutions in addition to their typical academic workload. This article provides a narrative review of medical students' experiences of the minority tax and recommendations on how medical educators can support an equitable learning environment by eliminating the minority tax.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases, Google Scholar, and medical society websites, blogs, and fora for terms, including minority tax, medical students, and undergraduate medical education. We included publications if they discussed the underrepresented in medicine medical students' experiences of the minority tax.

RESULTS

Our search yielded six peer-reviewed original research articles and six publications of commentaries, opinion pieces, or news pieces. Students who were underrepresented in medicine reported spending more hours on diversity efforts compared with students who were not underrepresented; moreover, students reported that they had to sacrifice academic excellence in order to fulfill these additional diversity duties.

CONCLUSIONS

The minority tax among medical students constitutes an unequitable and unjust barrier to career advancement, and it likely represents an early cause of attrition in the pipeline of underrepresented in medicine academic faculty. Medical educators can enact specific recommendations to eliminate or mitigate the minority tax experience for medical students.

Designing Effective Mentorship for Underrepresented Faculty in Academic Medicine

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

A dearth of training and resources exists for mentors to address the unique needs of faculty from racial/ethnic groups that are underrepresented in medicine (URiM). Mentoring Underrepresented Faculty for Academic Excellence (MUFAE) was a multi-institutional mentoring program designed to provide mentors where there were none.

METHODS

In 2020, 25 early career URiM faculty mentees each were paired with advanced faculty, and pairs met individually for monthly calls for 1 year. Mentees completed pre- and postassessment surveys regarding their experience in the program. Mentees and mentors also participated in virtual group check-ins where they gave feedback on their experience to program leaders while also networking with fellow participants.

RESULTS

Twenty-two of the 25 mentor-mentee pairs (88%) completed the program, and 17 of the 22 (77%) mentees completed the pre- and postsurveys. Survey responses showed significant increases in mentees reports of feeling they received mentorship focused on their needs as URiM faculty members, feeling equipped to advance in their careers, and feeling supported in their efforts to complete antiracism/health-equity programs. Feedback at the check-ins indicated that URiM mentors appreciated the opportunities to talk about their own frustrations and that White mentors appreciated having an increased understanding of challenges that their URIM colleagues faced.

CONCLUSIONS

MUFAE is a model for academic societies to address the lack of mentors for URiM faculty. Mentees and mentors found the experience a meaningful one that fills a need in academic mentoring.

Editors' perspectives on the selection of reviewers and the quality of reviews

This article describes the outcomes of a survey of 93 editors in chief and associate editors of behavior-analytic journals. We sought information about variables that influence their judgment of the selection of reviewers, selection of review panels, and quality of reviews. When selecting reviewers, participants rated highly expertise on the topic, history of conducting good reviews, and history of writing constructive and respectful reviews. When selecting review panels, participants rated highly stratifying reviewers based on their expertise, avoiding conflicts of interest, and the matching based on the area of expertise between reviewers and authors. When evaluating the quality of a review, participants rated highly considerations related to research design, the science underlying the main idea, and accurate interpretations of the data. Participants did not rate copyediting as important. Overall, the extent to which reviewer selection was influenced by membership in underrepresented groups varied. These findings can inform the development of training programs for teaching peer-review repertoires.

Are committee experiences of minoritized family medicine faculty part of the minority tax? a qualitative study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Because much of the work in academic medicine is done by committee, early career URiM faculty, are often asked to serve on multiple committees, including diversity work that may not be recognized as important. They may also be asked to serve on committees to satisfy a diversity "check box," and may be asked more often than their non-URiM peers to serve in this capacity. We sought to describe the committee experiences of early career URiM faculty, hypothesizing that they may see committee service as a minority tax.

METHODS

Participants in the Leadership through Scholarship Fellowship (LTSF) were asked to share their experiences with committee service in their careers after participating in a faculty development discussion. Their responses were analyzed and reported using qualitative, open, axial, and abductive reasoning methods.

RESULTS

Four themes, with eight sub-themes (in parenthesis), emerged from the content analysis of the LTSF fellows responses to the prompt: Time commitment (Timing of committee work and lack of protected time for research and scholarship), URiM Committee service (Expectation that URiM person will serve on committees and consequences for not serving), Mentoring issues (no mentoring regarding committee service, faculty involvement is lacking and the conflicting nature of committee work) and Voice (Lack of voice or acknowledgement).

CONCLUSIONS

Early career URiM faculty reported an expectation of serving on committees and consequences for not serving related to their identity, but other areas of committee service they shared were not connected to their URiM identity. Because most of the experiences were not connected to the LTSF fellows' URiM identity, this group has identified areas of committee service that may affect all early career faculty. More research is necessary to determine how committee service affects URiM and non-URiM faculty in academic family medicine.

Quantifying Faculty Perception of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Within Academic Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Departments

OBJECTIVE

Investigating faculty perceptions of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) among academic otolaryngology programs.

STUDY DESIGN

Quantitative survey.

SETTING

Academic otolaryngology departments.

METHODS

The DEI Inventory was developed by a multi-institutional health equity consortium and disseminated within 16 academic otolaryngology programs. The inventory consisted of 25 items graded on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree), 2 yes/no questions, and 5 items reflecting overall DEI, stress, and burnout among academic otolaryngologists. Validated imposter phenomenon and personality trait measures were also included.

RESULTS

The inventory received 158 (31.0%) partial and 111 (21.8%) full responses. No significant differences were identified in DEI scores by race. Compared to males, females reported lower scores on the overall DEI Inventory (3.6 vs 4.3, p < .001). Female respondents also reported greater levels of imposter phenomenon than their male counterparts (53.2 vs 47.5, p = .049).

CONCLUSION

Preliminary responses to our DEI Inventory suggest that faculty perception of DEI is not impacted by race. Female faculty report considerably lower perceptions of DEI than their male counterparts and experience greater levels of imposter phenomenon. The results of the DEI Inventory can help departments design meaningful interventions to improve levels of DEI among faculty.

Allyship to Advance Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Otolaryngology: What We Can All Do

Purpose of review

To summarize the current literature on allyship, providing a historical perspective, concept analysis, and practical steps to advance equity, diversity, and inclusion. This review also provides evidence-based tools to foster allyship and identifies potential pitfalls.

Recent findings

Allies in healthcare advocate for inclusive and equitable practices that benefit patients, coworkers, and learners. Allyship requires working in solidarity with individuals from underrepresented or historically marginalized groups to promote a sense of belonging and opportunity. New technologies present possibilities and perils in paving the pathway to diversity.

Summary

Unlocking the power of allyship requires that allies confront unconscious biases, engage in self-reflection, and act as effective partners. Using an allyship toolbox, allies can foster psychological safety in personal and professional spaces while avoiding missteps. Allyship incorporates goals, metrics, and transparent data reporting to promote accountability and to sustain improvements. Implementing these allyship strategies in solidarity holds promise for increasing diversity and inclusion in the specialty.

Impact of COVID-19 on the Research Career Advancement of Health Equity Scholars from Diverse Backgrounds

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly taxed scientific research and seems to have exacerbated existing inequities within the research field, particularly for early-stage investigators (ESIs). This study examines the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on traditionally underrepresented ESIs enrolled in an NIH-supported study evaluating the effectiveness of developmental networks, grant writing coaching, and mentoring on research career advancement. The survey consisted of 24 closed-ended (quantitative) and 4 open-ended questions (qualitative) linked to a participant's ability to meet grant submission deadlines, research and professional development disruptions, stress level, career transition level, self-efficacy and management of scholarly tasks, and familial responsibilities. Results from 32 respondents (53%) suggest that COVID-19 adversely impacted the continuity of research (81%) and grant submissions (63%). On average, grant submissions were delayed by 6.69 months (i.e., greater than one grant cycle). We also conducted additional analyses characterizing nonresponse and found that there were no significant predictors of nonresponse, indicating a limited threat to the validity of our findings. The disruption caused by COVID-19 to the careers of ESIs from underrepresented groups in the biomedical workforce has been profound in the short term. The long-term consequences to the future success of these groups are unknown but is a worthwhile area of research and potential innovation.

Retaining Faculty from Underrepresented Groups in Academic Medicine: Results from a Needs Assessment

OBJECTIVES

Academic medical centers can improve the quality of care and address health inequities by recruiting and retaining faculty from underrepresented in medicine (URiM) groups; however, the retention of URiM faculty is a barrier to reaching equity-related goals because URiM faculty are less likely to remain in academia and be promoted compared with their peers. As such, the objective of this study was to determine factors that influence the retention of URiM faculty at large academic centers.

METHODS

One-time, semistructured stay interviews were conducted to assess the experiences of URiM faculty at a large academic hospital in Boston, Massachusetts between October 2016 and April 2017. A qualitative researcher coded the transcripts and identified central themes.

RESULTS

The participants (N = 17) were 65% Black/African American and 35% Hispanic/Latinx. The median number of years on faculty was 3 years (range 1-33). The themes identified through the stay interviews were grouped into three domains: areas of strength, challenges to advancement, and suggestions for improvement of support. Participants voiced leadership support in their development, the community of patients, URiM networking opportunities, and mentorship as strengths. The barriers to retention included the lack of transparency and trust in their work, a sense of tokenism, organizational management issues, and implicit biases. The suggested ways to improve support included the expanding of initiatives to include all members of groups URiM, continuing URiM faculty development programs, and increasing funding to support advancement.

CONCLUSIONS

This study underscored the importance of supportive leadership, URiM-specific faculty development programs, networking opportunities, and the recognition of achievements as factors that influence the retention of faculty at a large academic medical center. In addition, participants highlighted the need for strong mentor networks and emphasizing sponsorship.

Striving for equity in academia: embracing the power of no in decision-making

In academia, saying "yes" to opportunities and "no" to distractions is crucial for effective decision-making. Here, we emphasize the importance of carefully considering commitments and courageously declining those that may lead to overextension. We highlight that discernment is vital, particularly for junior faculty/scientists and those with marginalized identities, as overcommitment can hinder career advancement. The "Fame, Fortune, and Fun test" offers a practical heuristic for evaluating opportunities, enabling academics to make informed choices. Saying "no" effectively involves preserving personal and professional integrity by declining tasks that do not align with one's abilities or interests. However, challenges in saying "no" are multifaceted, including fear of missing career advancements, pressures to please superiors or peers, and perceived negative consequences. This decision can be even more complex for individuals with minoritized identities, as additional expectations and responsibilities may arise due to implicit biases. The article provides a scheme for academics when deciding whether to accept or decline opportunities. The "Fame, Fortune, and Fun test" is a simplified scheme based on the Japanese concept of Ikigai, which comes from two words that mean life's purpose. The concept allows an individual to determine their reason for being and aim to align their time spent with as many components that satisfy the following four categories: what one loves, what one is good at, what one can be paid for, and what the world needs. The more overlap, the more alignment with Ikigai, and the more compelling reason to say yes. Once one has determined that they can say no, effectively saying "no" involves clear and direct communication, offering alternatives, expressing gratitude, and considering a "not now" approach if unable to commit immediately. To promote inclusivity, we suggest recommending individuals from diverse backgrounds for opportunities. By amplifying underrepresented voices, we can foster a healthier academic environment. Saying "no" empowers academics to prioritize meaningful contributions and maintain work-life balance. Embracing the power of "no" is essential for maintaining integrity and well-being in academia. Junior faculty/scientists and individuals with marginalized identities may face additional challenges in their decision-making. By carefully evaluating commitments and effectively declining non-aligning opportunities, academics can focus on what truly matters, fostering a supportive and thriving academic environment.

The Report of the 2021-2022 AACP Research and Graduate Affairs Committee

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. The work of the 2021-2022 AACP Research and Graduate Affairs Committee (RGAC) focused on barriers to graduate education and research-related careers in pharmacy education. AACP President Stuart Haines charged the RGAC with identifying the critical barriers that hinder current PharmD students/recent graduates as well as under-represented groups (e.g., Black and Latino) from pursuing advanced degrees and research-related career paths in the pharmaceutical, social & behavioral, and clinical sciences and recommending changes that might address these barriers - this may include recommendations to change the fundamental structure of graduate education.The committee began its work with a literature review to survey current perspectives on these barriers and assess the supporting evidence for effective solutions and programs, including their relevance to pharmacy education. Based on the review, the committee was able to identify numerous obstacles to entry into and progression through research training, for both underrepresented learners and student pharmacists. Obstacles are individual, e.g., lack of exposure to and self-efficacy in research, financial constraints, structural, e.g., lengthy training time, programmatic rigidity, and institutional, e.g., implicit and explicit bias. The committee found evidence of effective approaches and programs to address these barriers that could be applied in pharmacy schools. These approaches include improvements to existing practices in recruitment, admissions and hiring practices as well as creation of new programs and structural changes to existing programs to increase accessibility to learners. The committee also recognized a need for more research and development of additional approaches to address these barriers.The committee makes a series of recommendations that AACP develop resource guides and programs to address key issues in the recruitment and retention of underrepresented students and student pharmacists into graduate education and research careers, including as faculty. The committee also proposes new AACP policies to support innovative graduate programs and early, longitudinal engagement of learners from elementary school onward to increase access to graduate education and to support environments and cultures of commitment to accessibility, diversity, equity, inclusiveness, antiracism in pharmacy education.

The glass ceiling thickens: the impact of COVID-19 on academic medicine faculty in the United States

The inequities faced by women in academic Medicine before the COVID-19 pandemic are well established. However, there is little formal data regarding exactly how the pandemic has affected faculty. This cross-sectional study investigated the impact of the pandemic on responsibilities at home, work, and mental health according to gender identification, faculty rank, and faculty appointment. In February 2021, an online questionnaire was broadly distributed to academic medicine faculty. Respondents were asked to provide demographic data, answer questions about their responsibilities at home and work, mental health, and how the pandemic has influenced these. Respondents were also asked to document what their institution(s) can do to help faculty through the pandemic. Responses were analyzed via Pearson's chi-square tests and thematic analysis. Women faculty were more likely to be responsible for the care of others (70%, p = 0.014), and the impact was negative, especially for early career faculty (p = 0.019). Productivity in research, teaching, and clinical practice were negatively impacted, with women feeling this in clinical practice (p = 0.005), increased teaching load (p = 0.042), and inadequate work environment (p = 0.013). In the areas of self-care and mental health, women (p < 0.001), early career-faculty (p < 0.001), and clinical faculty (p = 0.029) were more negatively impacted. Early-career women were more likely to fear retribution. Five themes emerged, including Flexible Expectations, Support, Mental Health, Compensation, and Communication. Pre-pandemic stress and burnout were rampant, and this study demonstrates that academic medicine faculty are still suffering. It is the authors' hope that administrations can utilize these data to make informed decisions regarding policies enacted to assist populations who are most vulnerable to the effects of the pandemic.

Gender Distribution of Authors of Evaluation Letters for Promotion at One Medical School

PURPOSE

Women remain underrepresented in key leadership positions and advanced ranks in academic medicine. This study examines the numbers of men and women letter writers for promotion candidates during a 5-year period across departments, tracks, ranks, and candidate gender.

METHOD

A descriptive study characterized the gender of evaluation letter writers for candidates for promotion to associate or full professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School between 2015 and 2020. Letter writer and candidate gender were characterized by self-identified pronouns in the faculty biography or dossier. Letter writer gender was described by candidate department, promotion track, rank, terminal degree, and gender.

RESULTS

Among 299 candidates for promotion, 172 (58%) were men and 127 (42%) were women; dossiers included 3,995 evaluation letters. Across all years, men wrote more letters than women (external letters, range, 69% in 2019-2020 to 75% in 2015-2016; internal letters, range, 67% in 2018-2019 to 77% in 2015-2016). Candidates in the family medicine and pediatrics departments had the highest percentages of letters written by women (44% and 40%, respectively). No differences were found in the number of women letter writers by candidate promotion track; however, differences were found by candidate rank (associate professor, 30%; full professor, 23%) and terminal degree (MD/DO, 25%; PhD, 33%; MD-PhD, 20%). Regardless of candidate gender, most evaluation letters were written by men. Women candidates had 15% to 20% more letters authored by women than men candidates (34%-40% vs 18%-23%).

CONCLUSIONS

The gender pattern of letter writers may reflect implicit biases regarding gender and perceived leadership status, expertise, and success. Adopting policies that promote or require gender diversity among letter writers for promotion candidates may provide an opportunity to encourage faculty to seek diverse networks and recognize the achievements of women faculty.

A GeoHealth Call to Action: Moving Beyond Identifying Environmental Injustices to Co-Creating Solutions

As marginalized communities continue to bear disproportionate impacts from environmental hazards, we urgently call for researchers and institutions to elevate the principles of Environmental Justice. The American Geophysical Union (AGU) GeoHealth section supports members' engagement in health-related community-engaged and community-led transdisciplinary research. We highlight intersectional research that provides examples and actions for both individuals and organizations on community science and trust building, removing barriers created by scientific agency priorities and career expectations, and opportunities in education and policy. Justice does not start or end at one meeting; this is ongoing work that is active, evolving, and an ethical responsibility of AGU's membership.

Leadership Diversity and Development in the Nation's Cancer Centers

The capacity and diversity of the oncology leadership workforce has not kept pace with the emerging needs of our increasingly complex cancer centers and the spectrum of challenges our institutions face in reducing the cancer burden in diverse catchment areas. Recognizing the importance of a diverse workforce to reduce cancer inequities, the Association of American Cancer Institutes conducted a survey of its 103 cancer centers to examine diversity in leadership roles from research program leaders to cancer center directors. A total of 82 (80%) centers responded, including 64 National Cancer Institute-designated and 18 emerging centers. Among these 82 respondents, non-Hispanic White individuals comprised 79% of center directors, 82% of deputy directors, 72% of associate directors, and 72% of program leaders. Women are underrepresented in all leadership roles (ranging from 16% for center directors to 45% for associate directors). Although the limited gender, ethnic, and racial diversity of center directors and perhaps deputy directors is less surprising, the demographics of current research program leaders and associate directors exposes a substantial lack of diversity in the traditional cancer center senior leadership pipeline. Sole reliance on the cohort of current center leaders and leadership pipeline is unlikely to produce the diversity in cancer center leadership needed to facilitate the ability of those centers to address the needs of the diverse populations they serve. Informed by these data, this commentary describes some best practices to build a pipeline of emerging leaders who are representative of the diverse populations served by these institutions and who are well positioned to succeed.

Doing the Work—or Not: The Promise and Limitations of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in US Medical Schools and Academic Medical Centers

While the number of positions, committees, and projects described as “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)” work has grown rapidly in recent years, there has been little attention to the theory, praxis, or lived experience of this work. In this perspective, we briefly summarize the research and concepts put forth by DEI leaders in higher education more broadly, followed by an analysis of the literature's application to academic medicine. We then discuss the ways in which language obscures the nature of DEI and the necessity of scholarship to evaluate the extensive range of practices, policies, statements, and programs the label is given to.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Efforts at a Departmental Level: Building a Committee as a Vehicle for Advancing Progress

Academic Health Centers (AHCs) across the nation are experiencing a reawakening to the importance of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). Such work impacts both employees and patients served by healthcare institutions. Yet, for departments without previously existing formal channels for this work, it is not always apparent where to begin. The current manuscript details a process for creating a committee as a vehicle for championing DEI efforts at the department level within an AHC. The authors present a six-step model for forming a DEI Committee and progress monitoring measures to remain accountable to identified objectives. In each step, the authors provide examples of their work with the goal for readers to tailor and apply each step to their own departments’ DEI efforts. The current paper also identifies lessons learned with regard to barriers and facilitators of department-level DEI work. Reflections and next steps for DEI work beyond the proposed model are also discussed.

Preparing for tenure and promotion at PUI institutions

In this paper, we discuss the importance for faculty to become familiar with the general guidelines for collecting, assembling and preparing a tenure and promotion (T&P) application or dossier at a Primarily Undergraduate Institution (PUI) and the critical role that mentoring plays throughout the T&P process. While key elements of the application process such as submission timelines and documentation guidelines are usually outlined in the faculty handbook of the specific institution, many aspects of assembling the dossier are not necessarily detailed in writing anywhere. Instead, there are important elements of the T&P process that typically rely on institutional knowledge and guidance that is often communicated informally. Junior faculty who have limited access to "informal communications" are at a significant disadvantage when they go through the T&P process even when they show accomplishments in teaching effectiveness, research, and service. The problem is especially important for women and underrepresented minority faculty in STEM disciplines that are less well represented among senior faculty in STEM. Senior faculty often serve as informal or formal mentors to their less seasoned colleagues. The goal of this article is to help demystify the T&P process by offering practical suggestions and describing some of the specific materials and steps that are an important part of documenting the development of a faculty member at a PUI.

Equity for excellence in academic institutions: a manifesto for change

Higher academic institutions in the UK need to drive improvements in equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) through sustainable practical interventions. A broad view of inclusivity is based on an intersectional approach that considers race, geographical location, caring responsibilities, disability, neurodiversity, religion, and LGBTQIA+ identities. We describe the establishment of a diverse stakeholder group to develop practical grass-roots recommendations through which improvements can be advanced. We have developed a manifesto for change, comprising six domains through which academic institutions can drive progress through setting short, medium, and long-term priorities. Interventions will yield rewards in recruitment and retention of a diverse talent pool, leading to enhanced impact and output.

Mentoring as a Buffer for the Syndemic Impact of Racism and COVID-19 among Diverse Faculty within Academic Medicine

Within this article, we explore the dual impact of two pandemics, racism and COVID-19, on the career and psychological well-being of diverse faculty within academic medicine. First, we present a discussion of the history of racism in academic medicine and the intensification of racial disparities due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of the syndemic of racism and COVID-19, the outlook for the recruitment, retention, and advancement of diverse faculty and leaders within academic medicine is at risk. While mentoring is known to have benefits for career and personal development, we focus on the unique and often unacknowledged role that mentoring can play as a buffer for women and people of color, especially when working in institutions that lack diversity and are now struggling with the syndemic of racism and COVID-19. We also discuss the implications of acknowledging mentoring as a buffer for future leadership development, research, and programs within academic medicine and health professions.

A Call to Action: Black/African American Women Surgeon Scientists, Where are They?

OBJECTIVE

To determine the representation of Black/AA women surgeons in academic medicine among U.S. medical school faculty and to assess the number of NIH grants awarded to Black/AA women surgeon-scientists over the past 2 decades.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Despite increasing ethnic/racial and sex diversity in U.S. medical schools and residencies, Black/AA women have historically been underrepresented in academic surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the Association of American Medical Colleges 2017 Faculty Roster was performed and the number of grants awarded to surgeons from the NIH (1998-2017) was obtained. Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges included the total number of medical school surgery faculty, academic rank, tenure status, and department Chair roles. Descriptive statistics were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 15,671 U.S. medical school surgical faculty, 123 (0.79%) were Black/AA women surgeons with only 11 (0.54%) being tenured faculty. When stratified by academic rank, 15 (12%) Black/AA women surgeons were instructors, 73 (59%) were assistant professors, 19 (15%) were associate professors, and 10 (8%) were full professors of surgery. Of the 372 U.S. department Chairs of surgery, none were Black/AA women. Of the 9139 NIH grants awarded to academic surgeons from 1998 and 2017, 31 (0.34%) grants were awarded to fewer than 12 Black/AA women surgeons.

CONCLUSION

A significant disparity in the number of Black/AA women in academic surgery exists with few attaining promotion to the rank of professor with tenure and none ascending to the role of department Chair of surgery. Identifying and removing structural barriers to promotion, NIH grant funding, and academic advancement of Black/AA women as leaders and surgeon-scientists is needed.

Diversity and Inclusion-Why Does It Matter

Otolaryngology has historically lagged behind other specialties with respect to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and remains one of the least diverse specialties as it relates to gender, race and ethnicity. Strategies aimed at increasing DEI include programs designed to provide mentorship, coaching, and sponsorship. Pipeline efforts, inclusivity on committees, bi-directional communication, and equal pay are additional DEI efforts that have been successful in recruiting and retaining those under-represented in medicine (URiM). Closing the equity gap requires commitment; daily action and measuring progress is required. Finally, use feedback to make refinements as opportunities exist to continually improve DEI efforts.

The Science and Value of Diversity: Closing the Gaps in Our Understanding of Inclusion and Diversity

Diversity drives excellence. Diversity enhances innovation in biomedical sciences and, as it relates to novel findings and treatment of diverse populations, in the field of infectious diseases. There are many obstacles to achieving diversity in the biomedical workforce, which create challenges at the levels of recruitment, retention, education, and promotion of individuals. Here we present the challenges, opportunities, and suggestions for the field, institutions, and individuals to adopt in mitigating bias and achieving greater levels of equity, representation, and excellence in clinical practice and research. Our findings provide optimism for a bright future of fair and collaborative approaches that will enhance the power of our biomedical workforce.