966
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Faculty knowledge, actions, and perceptions of sponsorship: an institutional survey study

, , , &
Article: 2218665 | Received 14 Nov 2022, Accepted 23 May 2023, Published online: 19 Jun 2023
 

ABSTRACT

Background

Women and underrepresented in medicine and the health sciences (URiM) faculty face inequities in advancement. Career sponsorship may be a remedy. Few studies have described sponsorship in academic medicine and none across an institution.

Objective

To examine faculty awareness, experiences, and perceptions of sponsorship at a large academic health center.

Design

Anonymous online survey.

Participants

Faculty with a ≥50% appointment.

Main Measures

The survey contained 31 Likert, multiple-choice, yes/no, and open-ended questions about familiarity with the concept of sponsorship; experience of having or being a sponsor; receipt of specific sponsorship activities; sponsorship impact and satisfaction; mentorship and sponsorship co-occurrence; and perception of inequities. Open-ended questions were analyzed using content analysis.

Key Results

Thirty-one percent of the surveyed faculty (903/2900) responded of whom 53% (477/903) were women and 10% (95/903) were URiM. Familiarity with sponsorship was higher among assistant (91%, 269/894) and associate (182/894; 64%) professors versus full professors (38%, 329/894); women (67%, 319/488) versus men (62%, 169/488); and URiM (77%, 66/517) versus non-URiM faculty (55%, 451/517). A majority had a personal sponsor (528/691; 76%) during their career and were satisfied with their sponsorship (64%, 532/828). However, when responses from faculty of different professorial ranks were stratified by gender and URiM identity, we observed possible cohort effects. Furthermore, 55% (398/718) of respondents perceived that women received less sponsorship than men and 46% (312/672) that URiM faculty received less than their peers. We identified seven qualitative themes: sponsorship importance, growing awareness and change, institutional biases and deficiencies, groups getting less sponsorship, people with sponsorship power, conflation with mentorship, and potential for negative impact.

Conclusions

A majority of respondents at a large academic health center reported sponsorship familiarity, receipt, and satisfaction. Yet many perceived persistent institutional biases and the need for systematic change to improve sponsorship transparency, equity, and impact.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2023.2218665.

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the University of California, San Francisco.