Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorBryant, Louise D
dc.contributor.authorBurkinshaw, Paula
dc.contributor.authorHouse, Allan O
dc.contributor.authorWest, Robert M
dc.contributor.authorWard, Vicky
dc.date.accessioned2018-05-22T14:30:05Z
dc.date.available2018-05-22T14:30:05Z
dc.date.issued2017-08-22
dc.identifier.citationBryant , L D , Burkinshaw , P , House , A O , West , R M & Ward , V 2017 , ' Good practice or positive action? Using Q methodology to identify competing views on improving gender equality in academic medicine ' , BMJ Open , vol. 7 , no. 8 , e015973 . https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-015973en
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 253147971
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: a4066c4f-3176-4102-a126-8965523da26d
dc.identifier.otherPubMed: 28830870
dc.identifier.otherPubMedCentral: PMC5629690
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85049088963
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0001-8684-0403/work/64361445
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10023/13463
dc.description© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.en
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: 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.
dc.format.extent9
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofBMJ Openen
dc.rights© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http:// creativecommons. org/licenses/ by- nc/ 4. 0/en
dc.subjectR Medicineen
dc.subjectH Social Sciences (General)en
dc.subjectHD28 Management. Industrial Managementen
dc.subjectNDASen
dc.subject.lccRen
dc.subject.lccH1en
dc.subject.lccHD28en
dc.titleGood practice or positive action? Using Q methodology to identify competing views on improving gender equality in academic medicineen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.description.versionPublisher PDFen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. School of Managementen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-015973
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record