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

Figures & data

Table 1. Academic and demographic characteristics of faculty.

Characteristic	% (n)*
All Faculty Respondents	100 (903)
School
Medicine	76.5 (691)
Nursing	4.8 (43)
Dentistry	3.4 (31)
Pharmacy	2.7 (24)
Not Reported	12.6 (114)
Rank of Professor
Assistant	29.8 (269)
Associate	20.2 (182)
Full	36.4 (329)
Not Reported	13.6 (114)
Primary Academic Role^†
Researcher	40.3 (319)
Clinician	35.0 (277)
Educator	36.0 (4.5)
Administrator	6.4 (51)
Two roles of 50% each	3.8 (30)
Multiple roles each <50%	79.0 (10)
Gender
Men	30.3 (274)
Women	52.8 (477)
Not Reported	16.2 (152)
Race
White	52.3 (472)
Asian	20.3 (183)
African American or Black^±	2.3 (21)
American Indian or Alaska Native^±	0.9 (8)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander^±	0.7 (6)
Unknown	0.7 (6)
Other	4.0 (36)
Not Reported	16.8 (152)
Ethnicity
LatinX^±	6.6 (60)
Non-LatinX	74.9 (676)
Unknown	0.3 (3)
Not Reported	13.6 (123)
URiM^±	10.5 (96)
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual or straight	71.9 (649)
Gay or lesbian	4.5 (41)
Bisexual	2.1 (19)
Prefer to self-describe	0.6 (5)
Not Reported	20.9 (189)
Presence of a Disabling ConditionΩ
Yes	2.9 (26)
No	79.2 (715)
Not Reported	17.9 (162)

*Not all respondents answered every survey question; therefore, denominators vary by question.

^†Primary Academic Role defined as self-report of spending >50% of time in that role.

^±URiM defined as LatinX, American Indian/Native American, Alaska Native, African American/Black, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.

^ΩDisabling condition defined as conditions that limit a major life activity, including physical and mental disabilities, as well as medical conditions.

Table 2. Faculty familiarity with sponsorship concept and personal experience of sponsorship×.

Characteristic	Familiar with Sponsorship % (n) *^†	Received Sponsorship		Acted as Sponsor % (n)*
		Ever Had a Sponsor % (n)*	Ever Received Act of Sponsorship % (n)*^±
All Faculty	57.2 (517)	76.5% (691)	87% (717)	51.9 (408)
Rank of Professor
Assistant	91.1 (245)	83.7 (225)	88.4 (222)	13.9 (35)
Associate	64.3 (117)	76.9 (150)	89.5 (153)	52.4 (92)
Full	38.3 (126)	64.4 (212)	83.4 (246)	83.7 (267)
Gender
Women	66.9 (319)	75.2 (359)	86.7 (384)	48.2 (218)
Men	61.7 (169)	73 (200)	86.3 (215)	54.6 (143)
Under-represented in Medicine Identity
URiM	76.7 (66)	83.7 (72)	88.1 (74)	30.9 (25)
Non-URiM	55.2 (451)	73.3 (599)	86.9 (643)	54.3 (383)
Primary Academic Role
Researcher	67.1 (226)	73.7 (235)	86.5 (256)	51.0 (156)
Clinician	67.9 (188)	77.3 (214)	88.9 (225)	42.0 (110)
Educator	61.1 (22)	79.8 (28)	93.9 (31)	58.3 (21)
Administrator	52.9 (27)	64.7 (33)	72.7 (32)	76.5 (39)
Two roles of 50% each	63.3 (19)	76.7 (23)	92.9 (26)	44.8 (13)
Multiple roles <50% each	39.2 (31)	70.9 (56)	82.7 (62)	79.2 (57)

*Not all respondents answered every survey question; therefore, denominators vary by question.

^†Responses to the four-point Likert scale were dichotomized into: 1) familiar and 2) not familiar.

^±Acts of sponsorship ever received or experienced from a UCSF faculty member(s) including involving them in activities to increase their visibility, actively connecting them with senior leaders, advocating for them to obtain a new position, or protecting them when leadership felt they were not performing optimally.

Table 3. Sponsorship familiarity and receipt for different ranks of faculty further stratified by gender or Underrepresented In Medicine (URiM) identity.*

	Familiar with Sponsorship^†		Received Sponsorship				Acted as Sponsor
			Ever Had a Sponsor		Ever Received Act of Sponsorship^±
	Women	Men	Women	Men	Women	Men	Women	Men
Assistant	53.0 (181)	42.7 (67)	38.8 (143)	30.5 (61)	43.1 (147)	33.7 (63)	17.3 (44)	8.9 (14)
Associate	20.4 (62)	29.9 (47)	21.4 (79)	30.0 (60)	20.8 (71)	29.9 (56)	21.6 (55)	30.4 (48)
Professor	26.6 (81)	27.4 (43)	39.8 (147)	39.5 (79)	36.1 (123)	36.4 (68)	61.2 (156)	60.8 (96)
	URiM	Non-URiM	URiM	Non-URiM	URiM	Non-URiM	URiM	Non-URiM
Assistant	64.5 (40)	48.1 (205)	50.7 (35)	33.9 (187)	53.7 (36)	37.1 (189)	10.7 (3)	13.5 (58)
Associate	16.1 (10)	25.1 (107)	15.9 (11)	25.7 (142)	17.9 (12)	25,1 (128)	14.3 (4)	25.4 (109)
Professor	19.4 (12)	26.8 (114)	33.3 (23)	40.4 (223)	28.4 (19)	37.8 (193)	75.0 (21)	61.1 (262)

*Not all respondents answered every survey question; therefore, denominators vary by question. In order to be included for analysis, respondents needed to have answered the demographic characteristics of both rank and gender or URiM. As such, the populations reflected in Table 3 are smaller than in Table 2.

^†Responses to the four-point Likert scale were dichotomized into: 1) familiar and 2) not familiar.

^±Acts of sponsorship ever received or experienced from a UCSF faculty member(s) including involving them in activities to increase their visibility, actively connecting them with senior leaders, advocating for them to obtain a new position, or protecting them when leadership felt they were not performing optimally.

Table 4. Relationship between sponsorship and mentorship among faculty who reported having a sponsor or being a sponsor.

		Respondent Reported Being a Sponsor
	Respondent Reported Having a Sponsor and Considered Sponsor to Be a Mentor % (n)*	Considered Sponsee to Be a Mentee % (n)*	Made Sponsee Aware of Sponsorship % (n)*
All Faculty	55.3 (348)	69.6 (291)	61.0 (258)
Rank of Professor
Assistant	13.0 (35)	51.4 (19)	7.1 (18)
Associate	52.3 (92)	66.0 (62)	24.5 (62)
Full	60.3 (120)	73.2 (202)	68.4 (173)
Gender
Women	54.5 (186)	70.1 (157)	54.6 (124)
Men	59.5 (110)	69.6 (103)	69.6 (103)
Under-represented in Medicine Status*
URiM	45.7 (32)	84.6 (22)	53.8 (14)
Non-URiM	56.5 (316)	68.6 (269)	63.2 (244)

*Not all respondents answered every survey question; therefore, denominators vary by question.

Table 5. Themes and representative quotations on sponsorship from faculty responses to open-ended questions.

Theme	Representative quotation
1. Sponsorship importance for career success	I think that sponsorship is essential for faculty development and I see the positive outcome it has had. (Unspecified rank, gender, and race/ethnicity)
2. Growing awareness and change	This is an area where the landscape is changing across the campus. Becoming aware of the disparities in sponsorship has facilitated change. (Professor - Man, White)
3. Institutional biases and deficiencies	Our biases around what a particular person should look like for particular roles keeps us from sponsoring certain people who have not served in those roles previously. (Professor - Woman, African American, Latinx)
4. Groups that get less sponsorship	Women and URM faculty receive less sponsorship overall. The lack of women and URM at the mid and senior level means that there are fewer senior faculty that might serve as strong sponsors. (Assistant – Woman, White)
5. People with power to sponsor	In my division, I am under the impression that if a few of the top people like you, then you will really be sponsored and your career can go far. They are the “deciders”. (Assistant - Woman, White)
6. Conflation with mentorship	It is very difficult to discern the line between mentor and sponsor if it is the same individual. (Professor - Unspecified gender and race/ethnicity)
7. Potential for negative impact	Sponsorship can backfire. If colleagues perceive success was manufactured by sponsorship, there is less enthusiasm. (Professor - Man, White)