Study Finds Gender Disparities In Pay For Medical Researchers

Profession Study Finds Gender Disparities In Pay For Medical Researchers Author:Edward R. Silverman Date: January 24, 1994, pp.21 OF INTERNAL MEDICINE FACULTY (ADJUSTED VALUE*) MenWomen Full or associate professor47%33% Tenured42%45% Division Chief32%25% Compensation (all faculty)$79,100$72,600 Compensation (with tenure only)$79,300$70,300 Compensation (without tenure)$75,700$71,000 * Adjusted for 10 variables: rank, year of graduation, fellowship training, membership in honor society, hours worked per week, faculty rank, division chief and division type, number of grants funded as principal investigator, number of refereed journal publications as first author Source: P.L. Carr, R.H. Friedman, Annals of Internal Medicine, 119:908-13, 1993. A recent study conducted by researchers at Boston University has found that women in three areas of academic medicine-- cardiology, rheumatology, and general internal medicine-- receive less money and fewer promotions than their male counterparts. The study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine (P.L. Carr, R.H. Friedman, et al., 119:908-13, 1993), found that these differences existed even though the women physicians surveyed performed similar duties and were just as productive. The survey of 1,693 full-time United States physicians found that 47 percent of the men had achieved the rank of full or associate professor, compared with 33 percent of the women. In addition, it found that the women researchers received an average of $72,000 in annual compensation, while the average figure for men was $79,600. The $7,600 average difference "represents about a 10 percent differential even after adjustment for factors relating to seniority and region of the country," the article reported. Debunking A Myth The results should dispel any myths that women earn less because they work less, said the study's authors, who defined academic productivity by counting an individual's research grants awarded, papers published in refereed journals, and abstracts accepted. They controlled for such variables to account for factors that may contribute to disparities in pay. "Not only are the hours worked per week similar but the allocation of those hours to the various professional activities of academic medicine are also similar," the article stated. The researchers, who surveyed faculty at 107 major U.S. teaching hospitals, also took into consideration the younger average age of women in medicine, a significant issue in measuring productivity because women have entered medicine only recently."This [survey] is a tool that women physicians can take to their department heads [to] show the differences in the way rewards are handed out," says Phyllis Carr, a coauthor of the study. "And this study does that by not putting any person on the spot," says Carr, a clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School and visiting physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, who led the study at Boston University, where all data were collected and analyzed. "No one is pointed at as the problem, because everyone is the problem." "Because the results of our study and others support the conclusion that sex bias exists," the article stated, "it behooves academic departments to scrutinize their policies and attitudes toward women faculty, including the opportunities they provide for promotion and advancement and the compensation they offer." Although the study is culled from data first collected in 1986 as part of another project, the authors say the problems are still relevant and need redressing. "Have things changed substantially in the last seven years? That's a judgment call," says Robert Friedman, an associate professor of medicine and public health at Boston University's School of Medicine and a coauthor of the report. "I think most observers would say that things haven't changed," he says. "And in terms of job profiles, we've shown that women have reached parity. So I think that's a pretty open-and-shut case. Gender bias is implicated by ruling out other things." A possible explanation for the finding of inequitable rewards doled out to men and women is that some aspects of performance may not have been measured in the study, such as the quality of teaching or administrative work. Friedman also adds that some women may not be as good as their male counterparts in negotiating for higher salaries, raises, or promotions. Barbara Turner, an associate professor of general internal medicine at Jefferson Medical College, part of Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, agrees with this assessment. "I think it's a self-esteem thing," she says. "It's possible some women are so bloody grateful just to get a job. "It's a woman's problem. We don't learn how to negotiate hard. I came out [of medical school] with a fellowship and didn't think of my salary as part of the picture. It doesn't mean you're a mercenary, but it's part of the job." Beyond recognizing the problem, however, lies a quandary: what to do about it. While the study's authors urge academic departments to scrutinize their policies and attitudes toward women faculty, Turner points out, many medical researchers would still remain in the dark about their true status because most salary information is kept confidential, preventing staff from learning whether inequalities exist. "The problem is that ... there's no access to comparative information," Turner says, recalling her anger a few years ago after learning that a man doing the same work and holding the same rank--but with fewer qualifications--made more money at another institution. "The only way I can find out is by hook or by crook." Edward R. Silverman is a freelance writer based in Millburn, N.J.

Study Finds Gender Disparities In Pay For Medical Researchers

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of