Research ArticleResearch

Multi-Institutional Study of Women and Underrepresented Minority Faculty Members in Academic Pharmacy

Marie A. Chisholm-Burns, Christina A. Spivey, Dean Billheimer, Lauren S. Schlesselman, Schwanda K. Flowers, Dana Hammer, Janet P. Engle, Jean M. Nappi, Mary T. Pasko, Leigh Ann Ross, Bernard Sorofman, Helena A. Rodrigues and Allison M. Vaillancourt
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education February 2012, 76 (1) 7; DOI: https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7617

Abstract

Objectives. To examine trends in the numbers of women and underrepresented minority (URM) pharmacy faculty members over the last 20 years, and determine factors influencing women faculty members’ pursuit and retention of an academic pharmacy career.

Methods. Twenty-year trends in women and URM pharmacy faculty representation were examined. Women faculty members from 9 public colleges and schools of pharmacy were surveyed regarding demographics, job satisfaction, and their academic pharmacy career, and relationships between demographics and satisfaction were analyzed.

Results. The number of women faculty members more than doubled between 1989 and 2009 (from 20.7% to 45.5%), while the number of URM pharmacy faculty members increased only slightly over the same time period. One hundred fifteen women faculty members completed the survey instrument and indicated they were generally satisfied with their jobs. The academic rank of professor, being a nonpharmacy practice faculty member, being tenured/tenure track, and having children were associated with significantly lower satisfaction with fringe benefits. Women faculty members who were tempted to leave academia for other pharmacy sectors had significantly lower salary satisfaction and overall job satisfaction, and were more likely to indicate their expectations of academia did not match their experiences (p<0.05).

Conclusions. The significant increase in the number of women pharmacy faculty members over the last 20 years may be due to the increased number of female pharmacy graduates and to women faculty members’ satisfaction with their careers. Lessons learned through this multi-institutional study and review may be applicable to initiatives to improve recruitment and retention of URM pharmacy faculty members.

Keywords

INTRODUCTION

Pharmacy education in the United States is significantly different today than it was 20 years ago. Now, team course teaching is far more common, the doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) is the first professional degree, curricula have been revised significantly, and several new colleges and schools of pharmacy have emerged. Additionally, the number of women in colleges and schools of pharmacy has more than doubled, although numbers of underrepresented minority (URM) faculty members (defined by the Health Resources and Services Administration and the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy [AACP] as African American, Hispanic, and Native American groups) remain low.1-6 The importance for increasing diversity in pharmacy and other healthcare professions cannot be overstated, as the Institute of Medicine (IOM) noted multiple benefits of diversity in the health professions including greater patient access to care, improved patient satisfaction, greater provider-patient communication, and better education experiences for health professions students.7 Thus, it is important to understand the influences that led to this increase in women faculty members, as well as the disparities that remain in the representation of URM faculty members in academic pharmacy. By developing a greater comprehension of factors driving both growth and ongoing disparities, it may be possible to improve efforts to recruit and retain URM pharmacy faculty members and reduce disparities among academic pharmacy faculty members.

The substantial increase in the number of women pharmacy faculty members compared to URM pharmacy faculty presents a unique opportunity to gather knowledge from a historically underrepresented faculty population (ie, women) that seems to have reached the critical mass necessary to produce sustainable change. This opportunity is important given the limited number of URM faculty members in academic pharmacy, particularly the low number of URM pharmacy faculty members in public non-historically black colleges or universities (HBCUs), and the virtually non-existent literature pertaining to barriers faced by and mechanisms to increase racial and ethnic diversity among pharmacy faculty members in non-HBCUs. Thus, assessment of growth in the number of women pharmacy faculty members may provide knowledge translatable to efforts to bolster recruitment and retention of URM faculty groups. The use of such knowledge translation is suggested by the work of Johnsrud who notes the “experience of minority faculty parallels in many respects the experiences of women” and proposes using some similar strategies of outreach to URM faculty members as were used for women.8(p7)

There has been much speculation regarding reasons for the increase in women faculty members in colleges and schools of pharmacy. Some have hypothesized that the increase in women pharmacy faculty members is primarily the result of access to an expanded pipeline, as the percentage of women vs. men earning pharmacy degrees (bachelor of science in pharmacy and PharmD) increased dramatically between 1971 and 1981 (from 18% in 1971 to 43% in 1981) and today hovers around 65%.9,10 Other possible contributing factors include: (1) increased number of female faculty members serving as role models and catalysts for women to enter academic pharmacy; (2) flexible work schedule; (3) availability of nontenured faculty positions (eg, clinical track in pharmacy practice department); (4) increased number of faculty positions because of numerous new colleges and schools of pharmacy and added faculty numbers at existing colleges; and (5) greater job satisfaction, which can serve as a key factor associated with both recruiting employees and minimizing attrition.9,11-13

Strategies to promote recruitment and retention of women pharmacy faculty members have been discussed in the literature, eg, using formal and informal mentoring, having positive postdoctoral research experiences, adjusting workloads/time commitments, and providing more equitable pay and protected research time.2,9 However, few studies have explored the views that women pharmacy faculty members hold regarding the challenges and rewards of a career in academic pharmacy. A deeper understanding of these views may facilitate sustainment of levels of women pharmacy faculty members and aid in recruitment and retention of URM faculty groups. Thus, to develop a roadmap to help improve diversity in pharmacy faculty, the objectives of this study were to examine trends in numbers of US women and URM pharmacy faculty groups over the last 20 years and survey women pharmacy faculty members, as a historically underrepresented group, to better discern factors influencing pursuit and retention of an academic pharmacy career at public institutions. Recommendations to increase the number of URM faculty members in academic pharmacy at public non-HBCUs were developed.

METHODS

Trends in women and URM faculty members in US colleges and schools of pharmacy by rank over time were assessed. To conduct this assessment, the following data were obtained from AACP for each year from 1989 through 2009: total number of pharmacy faculty members by gender, race, and rank, including administrative positions.3,4,14-32 To examine the pharmacy faculty pipeline, data on the number of professional pharmacy degrees awarded by gender and race for 1989-2009 were also acquired and used as a proxy.33

As women pharmacy faculty members experienced the greatest increase in number over the last 20 years compared to URM groups, the investigators used women as the model group for the study. A within-stage mixed-model design, defined as the use of both quantitative and qualitative research approaches within one stage of a study, was used.34,35 A survey of women pharmacy faculty members was designed, including a questionnaire that incorporated both closed-ended (quantitative) and open-ended (qualitative) questions to assess factors influencing women faculty members’ pursuit of an academic pharmacy career. The questionnaire centered on the following 3 domains based on preliminary findings from the literature search: (1) choosing to pursue and retain a career in academic pharmacy; (2) influence of role models; and (3) advice to women on pursuing a career in academic pharmacy.

The survey instrument consisted of 3 sections: (1) demographics, more specifically, present academic rank, years in rank, academic discipline, tenure status, appointment status, age, salary, race/ethnicity, marital status, and number of children; (2) job satisfaction; and (3) questions pertaining to the faculty members’ academic pharmacy career. The 7-item pharmacy faculty job satisfaction measure was adapted from a job satisfaction instrument developed and validated by Barnett and Kimberlin.36,37 Three items of the scale were facet specific, meaning that each of these items measured distinct, tangible characteristics of the faculty position; they were treated as individual measures of salary, fringe benefits, and opportunities to use skills and abilities.37 The remaining 4 items were facet free, or not anchored to distinct, tangible characteristics of the faculty position, and a global job satisfaction score was determined based on the mean score of the responses to these 4 items. Likert scale responses to items ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with a neutral midpoint.

A public non-HBCU college or school of pharmacy in each of the 9 US Census-based divisions of the United States was included in the study: University of Arizona (Mountain); University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (West South Central); University of Buffalo (Middle Atlantic); University of Connecticut (New England); University of Illinois at Chicago (East North Central); University of Iowa (West North Central); University of Mississippi (East South Central); University of Washington (Pacific); and South Carolina College of Pharmacy (Charleston campus; South Atlantic).38 The 9 participating colleges and schools of pharmacy were selected (purposive sampling) because faculty members at each institution are part of an informal network of research-oriented, public colleges and schools of pharmacy in the United States. Women faculty members were asked to participate if they were full-time, salaried employees of their respective colleges or schools of pharmacy. Faculty members were excluded from the participant pool if they were less than full-time, unsalaried (eg, adjunct), and/or were on leave from the institution (eg, sabbatical, parental leave) during the times of survey administration.

One hundred forty-nine female faculty members were invited to participate in the study. To enhance response rate, a mixed-mode survey design was used wherein the survey instruments were administered via a Web-based survey site (eg, SurveyMonkey) or via face-to-face group sessions (generally 2 or 3), organized by a facilitator at the college or school of pharmacy site. Mixed-mode survey design was used because it can improve response rates with minimal mode effects, defined as differences in outcome data based on mode of data collection.39-41 Facilitators at each site were permitted to determine the best mode of delivery for their site. The survey and mode of distribution were approved by the institutional review board at each site prior to administration. To reduce the possibility of coercion, facilitators were selected who were not senior in rank to participants or in supervisory roles over participants. Survey instruments were completed independently by each faculty participant. During the face-to-face sessions, the role of the facilitator was limited to briefly explaining the purpose of the study and distributing and collecting survey instruments. This study was approved by the institutional review boards of all 9 participating universities.

To examine faculty trends over the last 20 years, data were entered into Microsoft Excel 2007 and SPSS, version 18 (SPSS, Chicago, IL). Proportions (number of women or URM faculty members in academic rank or administrative position divided by total faculty members in academic rank or administrative position, respectively) were plotted by gender, faculty rank, faculty administrative position, race, and year. Proportions (number of women or URM pharmacy graduates divided by total pharmacy graduates) were also plotted for pharmacy graduate trends by gender and race. Time series graphs based on proportions were constructed. Because faculty and graduate data provided by AACP represented the total population of interest, there was no probabilistic uncertainty associated with population sampling. Although there was some nonprobabilistic uncertainty from potential nonresponse, this was limited as response rates to AACP annual data collection efforts generally range from 98% to 100%.4 Thus, the use of hypothesis tests and confidence intervals of inferential statistics were not appropriate for this study.

Inductive content analysis and abstraction, as described by Joffe, Yardley, Elo, and Kyngäs, were used to assess qualitative data collected through open-ended questions on the academic pharmacy career survey of women faculty members.42,43 In the abstraction process, the main categories, or themes, were predetermined by the open-ended questions. Responses to open-ended questions were then independently reviewed by 3 investigators to develop a preliminary coding scheme. The 3 investigators further refined codes collaboratively and identified emergent generic categories or subthemes under each main category. Subcategories of generic categories, defined as clusters of similar events or incidents, were also identified. To allow for quantitative descriptive analysis (ie, frequency count) of subcategories, the presence or absence of each subcategory in a faculty member's survey instrument was recorded. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the job satisfaction and demographics sections of the survey instrument, as well as the closed-ended items of the academic pharmacy career questionnaire. Chi-square analyses were conducted to examine independency between responses to the closed-ended questions on the academic pharmacy career questionnaire. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Pearson correlation were used to assess the relationships between categorical and continuous demographic factors, respectively, and the following variables: (1) global job satisfaction and (2) facet-specific satisfaction variables (salary, fringe benefits, skills/abilities). ANOVA was also used to test the satisfaction scores for mode effects based on method of survey tool distribution. Independent samples t tests were used to assess the relationships between the closed-ended question, “Are you tempted to leave academia for other pharmacy sectors such as retail, hospital, industry or elsewhere?” and the 4 job satisfaction variables. A significance level of 0.05 was used for testing, with Bonferroni correction for post hoc tests.

RESULTS

In 2009, there were 2,404 full-time women faculty members in US colleges and schools of pharmacy, and this group represented 45.5% of all US colleges and schools of pharmacy faculty members. As indicated in Figure 1, the proportion of women pharmacy faculty members in each rank steadily increased over the past 2 decades. In 2009, women pharmacy faculty members were the majority at the assistant professor level, a shift in representation which began in the late 1990s. The percentage of women pharmacy faculty members at the associate professor level more than doubled between 1989 and 2009, from approximately 16% to greater than 40% of total associate professors. Although women faculty members at the professor rank and in administrative positions (department chair, dean) also doubled during this time period, their numbers were below 30% (data for department chairs were not available prior to 1997). In terms of the pharmacy practice faculty pipeline, females represented the majority of pharmacy graduates with degrees over the 20-year time period examined (Figure 1).

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Female pharmacy graduates and academic positions held by women pharmacy faculty members, 1989-2009.

The number of URM pharmacy faculty members at each rank and administrative (ie, dean) position experienced little to modest growth since 1989 (Figure 2). At the assistant professor level, the number of minority faculty members increased from approximately 7% in 1989 to approximately 11% in 2009. The number of URM faculty members at the assistant professor rank experienced similar growth to that of URM pharmacy graduates, which increased from approximately 9% in 1989 to 11% in 2009. At the dean position, representation increased from approximately 6% in 1989 to 11% in 2009. However, URM pharmacy faculty representation in the associate professor and professor ranks remained below 10%.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Minority pharmacy graduates and academic positions held by pharmacy faculty members, 1989-2009.

One hundred fifteen of 149 women faculty members participated in the academic pharmacy career survey (77% response rate). The majority of participants were white (82.6%), at the assistant professor level (62.6%), and in pharmacy practice (74.8%). Mean years in present rank for the sample was 6.0 ± 5.1. Characteristics of the women faculty sample are presented in Table 1.

View this table:
Table 1.

Characteristics of Women Pharmacy Faculty Members at Nine US Colleges and Schools of Pharmacya

Median and mean overall job satisfaction were 4.0 (mode 4) and 4.0 ± 0.6, respectively, indicating women faculty members were moderately to highly satisfied with their jobs. Women faculty members were also moderately to highly satisfied with their fringe benefits (mean 3.7 ± 1.1; median=4.0, mode=4) and with opportunities to use their skills and abilities (mean 4.5 ± 0.7; median = 5.0, mode = 5). However, they were less satisfied with salary (mean 2.9 ± 1.1; median = 3.0, mode = 2); salary satisfaction had a bimodal distribution, with 44% dissatisfied or very dissatisfied and 38% satisfied or very satisfied. Significant differences in fringe benefits satisfaction were found on the following: academic rank, as professors had significantly lower satisfaction than assistant professors (2.93 ± 1.44 vs. 3.96 ± 0.94, respectively; p = 0.011); academic discipline, as nonpharmacy practice faculty members had lower satisfaction than pharmacy practice faculty members (3.36 ± 1.28 vs 3.86 ± 1.05, respectively; p = 0.04); tenured/tenure-track women faculty members had lower satisfaction than nontenured faculty members (3.31 ± 1.24 vs 3.97 ± 0.99, respectively; p = 0.002); and women faculty members with children had lower job satisfaction than women faculty members who did not have children (3.55 ± 1.21 vs 4.0 ± 0.95, respectively; p = 0.038). There were no significant correlations between years in academic rank and satisfaction with salary, fringe benefits, or skills and abilities, or with overall satisfaction. No other differences in satisfaction were found based on age, salary, appointment status, marital status, race/ethnicity, or number of children. In the test for mode effects, no differences were found in satisfaction scores based on mode of survey distribution (in-person vs. Web-based completion).

Frequency counts for the closed-ended questions of the academic pharmacy career questionnaire are presented in Table 2. Less than 30% of women faculty members were tempted to leave academic pharmacy for another pharmacy sector, and less than 6% were likely or very likely to leave academia within the next 5 years. Women faculty members whose expectations of academia did not match their experiences were more likely to indicate they were tempted to leave academia for other pharmacy sectors (χ2 = 9.9, p = 0.002). No other associations between the closed-ended questions were indicated in the chi-square analyses. Compared to women faculty members who were not tempted to leave academia, women faculty members who were tempted to leave academia had significantly lower salary satisfaction (3.07 ± 1.01 vs. 2.48 ± 1.12, respectively; p = 0.007) and lower overall job satisfaction (4.15 ± 0.60 vs 3.86 ± 0.57, respectively; p = 0.02). There were no differences between the 2 groups based on fringe benefits satisfaction and skills and abilities satisfaction.

View this table:
Table 2.

Women Faculty Members’ Responses to Questions Regarding Their Academic Pharmacy Career

Table 3 presents the 2 most frequently cited generic categories for each open-ended academic pharmacy career question (also referred to as main category) and the most frequently cited subcategory for each generic category. “Diverse nature of work” and “diverse work opportunities” were the most frequently cited responses to questions regarding factors attracting women faculty to academia, expectations they had of academia, and factors influencing decisions to remain in academic pharmacy. “Ability to impact pharmacy students and/or participate in pharmacy education” was the most frequently cited subcategory (n = 82), and was in response to the main category, “What attracted you to academic pharmacy?” “Increased salary” was the second most frequently cited subcategory (n = 70), and was in response to the main category, “What are the attractions of these other sectors (retail, hospital, industry, etc) compared to academia?”

View this table:
Table 3.

Women Faculty Members’ Responses to Open-Ended Questions Regarding Their Academic Pharmacy Career

DISCUSSION

The general population of the United States is becoming increasingly diverse. In 2010, minority racial and ethnic groups accounted for approximately 36% of the population, and by 2050, those today considered to be minorities are expected to be the majority.44,45 Recognizing the significance of the growing diversity of the United States, the IOM issued a policy report encouraging diversification of the health professions.7 In our trends assessment, we noted considerable growth in the number of women pharmacy faculty members between 1989 and 2009, and female graduates were the majority of total pharmacy graduates for the study period. The consistently large number of female graduates over the last 20 years has created a strong pipeline for women pharmacy faculty members. In contrast, we found there was little increase in the number of URM pharmacy faculty members and graduates between 1989 and 2009, and representation of URM faculty members in 2009 remained well below minority representation in the general US population.

The lack of significant overall growth in URM graduate groups is particularly troubling, as pharmacy colleges and schools are the primary pipeline through which new pharmacy faculty members, especially pharmacy practice faculty members, are produced. Consideration should be given to earlier phases of the education process, such as attracting the interest of URM groups at the pre-college and college levels, as well as to the later phases, including promoting careers in academia to pre-pharmacy and pharmacy students and postdoctoral students. For nonpharmacy practice departments in pharmacy colleges and schools, particular attention should be given to developing URM faculty pipelines within the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. Additionally, we recognize the need to develop URM representation in graduate programs within nonpharmacy departments of colleges and schools. Recommendations to bolster the supply of candidates from pharmacy colleges and schools and foster greater access to academic career opportunities among pharmacy and postgraduate students include: (1) explaining the expectations of and paths to success in academic positions; (2) fostering interest in academic careers through interactions with faculty role models/mentors; (3) providing opportunities to experience academic duties in the areas of teaching, research, and service (as exposure to diverse work opportunities within academia); (4) encouraging passion for teaching, research, and service; and (5) providing/teaching career mapping, defined as planning short- and long-term career development, with consideration given to personal skills and values as they pertain to career objectives.46,47

One thing is certain: as long as the number of new URM pharmacy faculty members provided through the pipeline remains low, limited progress can be expected in increasing the racial and ethnic diversity of pharmacy faculties. Therefore, it is important to develop a comprehensive understanding of factors that influence pursuit of academic pharmacy careers by URM pharmacy graduates and retention of these faculty members by colleges and schools, and to implement programs to address the factors identified. Knowledge acquired from women pharmacy faculty members, a historically underrepresented group that is now approaching “critical mass,” may provide insight into patterns and factors affecting recruitment and retention that may be translated to URM groups. The data collected underscored useful recommendations that could likely improve the success of all faculty members, and these proposed strategies should not be viewed as limited to only one particular subgroup of faculty members. Previous studies such as that by Daley and colleagues also noted commonalities in strategies and resources used to promote recruitment and retention across faculty groups.8,48,49 Thus, we are not promoting separate and/or exclusionary programming for URM faculty members, but rather the need to recognize, expand, and emphasize access programming for URM faculty members given that lack of access may stunt recruitment and retention efforts.8 Diminished access may occur for multiple reasons, ranging from having few available role models to being hesitant to request help because of concern over appearing unprepared or inadequate for the duties and responsibilities of the faculty position.50,51 Therefore, strategic initiatives should be taken to address the unique experiences of URM faculty members and expose prospective and current URM faculty members to methods that enhance academic success and reduce access barriers.48,52

As a foundational element in developing recommendations, the first section of the academic pharmacy career survey instrument assessed job satisfaction. Consistent with previous studies, data revealed that women faculty members were generally satisfied with their academic pharmacy jobs, as well as their fringe benefits and opportunities to use skills and abilities.11,37 However, women faculty members, particularly those tempted to leave academia for other pharmacy sectors, were generally less satisfied with their salaries, suggesting that salary level should be considered when attempting to attract and retain faculty members. Further supporting the importance of salary, in the survey tool's open-ended questions, increased salary was frequently cited as a factor that could improve workplace satisfaction. Other factors named that could enhance job satisfaction included improved fringe benefits, adjusted workload expectations, and increased support systems. Notably, these factors generally correspond to the following challenges to job satisfaction faced by women faculty members, as identified in the literature: (1) family roles and mobility barriers; (2) conflicting work values and activities, such as emphasis on research efforts versus teaching/service efforts in the promotion and tenure process; (3) unconscious bias; and (4) lack of support within the academic department, including salary inequities.9,53-56 Such challenges are likely faced by other faculty members including URM faculty members; therefore, we recommend universities address these issues to improve overall recruitment and retention.

The results of the academic pharmacy career questionnaire section of the survey, in combination with a literature search (Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar, and ERIC databases, years unlimited), were used to develop multi-faceted recommendations to improve the recruitment and retention of URM faculty members. Three factors were noted to impact both recruitment and retention: personal, environment, and climate/culture. An individual must have a personal desire to have a career in an academic environment and possess an adequate skill set. In turn, the environment (ie, the institution and community) must sustain a high level of commitment to the success of URM faculty members, as the literature search indicated that those institutions with the greatest increases in the number of URM faculty members made an explicit link between diversity initiatives and educational mission.57 For example, when recruiting faculty members, a wide net should be cast to gain a more diverse applicant pool and any unconscious bias on the part of hiring committee members should be identified and eliminated from the search process. Thus, development and maintenance of a supportive institutional climate and culture are essential, and strong leadership is needed to foster efforts to promote a climate and culture of equal opportunity, diversity, and institutional change.58-62

This questionnaire also asked women faculty members to reflect on the impact of role models on their academic careers, as previous studies have recognized the importance of mentors and role models in career choices.63,64 Women faculty members noted that role models influenced career decisions primarily through encouraging interest in a career in academia, providing an example of work-life as a faculty member, encouraging preparation and training, and providing practical guidance and support, such as discussing career options and assisting with career mapping and advocacy. Role models and mentors also likely contribute to the professional socialization process, wherein new faculty members “learn the ropes” of academia and develop collegial networks. The valuable impression made by role models is evident among our women faculty participants. When asked what guidance they would offer to women considering a career in academia, the most frequently given advice was to find mentors and role models. Additionally, prior research conducted in academic medicine suggests that increased access to high quality mentoring programs contributes to improved retention and advancement of women faculty members. As a result, Wesson and colleagues theorized that mentoring also plays a critical role in the success of URM faculty members.50,65 We recommend that existing faculty members, who recognize and understand the unique experiences of URM faculty members and are able to assist these individuals in navigating academia, be used as role models in the recruitment process and as mentors in the retention process.

Other recommendations regarding recruitment and retention are derived from advice provided by women faculty participants to women considering careers in academic pharmacy, which focused on the following topics: self-care, getting connected, being prepared, and knowing academia. More specifically, current women faculty members recommended future generations have a plan for work-life balance, explore academic career opportunities, become familiar with the demands/expectations of an academic position and the institution's environment/climate, and be willing to ask for help and guidance. Although framed as advice and guidance to potential future women faculty members, these words of wisdom and experience may well have greater application, particularly to those URM groups struggling for increased representation in academic pharmacy. Noteworthy among these recommendations is ensuring that candidates know the expectations of the academic position. Retention of faculty members may be adversely affected when expectations regarding an academic position diverge greatly from actual experiences. Almost 40% of women faculty members noted dissonance between expectations and experiences, and in turn, were more likely to indicate they were tempted to leave academia. The foremost factors contributing to this dissonance were: (1) dissatisfaction with duties, for example, imbalances among teaching, service, and research commitments; (2) barriers to accomplishing work, such as a need for greater mentoring; and (3) other sources of frustration such as lack of support and collegiality. These factors are consistent with barriers faced by both URM and non-URM faculty members in pharmacy and other academic fields including the health sciences.8,48,66-68 To improve retention, institutions should clearly define the duties, demands, and expectations of the academic position, work with faculty members to achieve a mutually beneficial workload balance, and facilitate a supportive and collegial work environment. Other factors that may be critical to retention, as suggested by the findings of this study, include: professional growth and development; career advancement opportunities; passion for teaching, service, and research; work-life balance; and opportunities to participate in teaching, service, and research. Career mapping should be done early, refined as necessary, and continued throughout an individual's career.46 Ultimately, URM faculty members who successfully sustain and advance within their institutions ideally should become role models for PharmD and PhD students who are future pharmacy faculty members, and thereby buttress the URM faculty pipeline.58,69

Our study has limitations. The academic pharmacy survey was targeted to women faculty members; therefore, efforts to apply knowledge gained through this survey to URM faculty members may not completely capture aspects of academic life unique to these individuals. We acknowledge this limitation and offer our findings as one step toward developing a better understanding of the experiences of URM pharmacy faculty members. Additionally, our survey sample only included women faculty members from public non-HBCUs. Because the missions of public institutions tend to be similar, we did not want to introduce confounding factors by also including private universities as their missions may vary significantly from public institutions; however, this may have reduced the reliability of our findings. Further, as the purpose of our study was to develop recommendations to increase diversity in public non-HBCUs (because these institutions have fewer URM faculty members, and therefore, are in great need of diversification), HBCU colleges and schools of pharmacy were also not included in the study to prevent confounders, as the mission and environment of these schools may substantially differ from non-HBCU colleges and schools of pharmacy. As a result, the generalizability of our survey results is largely limited to public non-HBCUs. When we compared our surveyed study population to the general population of women faculty members in US colleges and schools of pharmacy, we found that white faculty members were overrepresented (82.6% study vs. 70.9% general), and African American and Hispanic faculty members (1.7% study vs. 8.6% general) were underrepresented.4 Excluding private colleges and schools and HBCUs limited participation of many URM faculty members; however, the focus of the survey was to gather data from women faculty members in public non-HBCUs. The survey sample and the general population of women pharmacy faculty members were generally comparable based on academic rank and discipline.4

CONCLUSIONS

This study examines trends in women and URM pharmacy faculty members and graduates over a 20-year period, and academic pharmacy career paths of current women pharmacy faculty members. Academic pharmacy has become a viable and satisfactory career choice for women. To foster academic pharmacy as a sustainable career option for URM groups, institutions must seize opportunities to develop, implement, emphasize, and assess models theorized to improve recruitment and retention of diverse faculty populations. Recommendations for promoting recruitment and retention of URM faculty members in academic pharmacy in public non-HBCUs were developed. With strong institutional commitment to sustained diversification and tools such as the proposed recommendations, greater numbers of URM faculty members will enter and achieve success in academia.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We acknowledge Drs. Metta Lou Henderson and Paul O. Gubbins for their insight, wisdom, and support concerning this project. We also thank the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy for providing the data for this study. Finally, we thank the facilitators at each site for their participation in data collection.

  • Received June 24, 2011.
  • Accepted August 16, 2011.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Vlasses PH
    . Reflections on a decade of progress in pharmacy education: reasons for celebration. Am J Pharm Educ. 2010;74(9):Article 174.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Roche VF,
    2. Haddad AM,
    3. Matuszak AJ
    . Current approaches and perceived barriers to scholarship in women pharmacy faculty. Am J Pharm Educ. 1991;55(3):236-242.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. 1989-1990 Profile of Pharmacy Faculty. American Alexandria, VA: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; 1990. Archived data provided through request to the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy.
  4. 4.↵
    American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. 2009-10 Profile of Pharmacy Faculty. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; 2009. http://www.aacp.org/career/salarydata/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed December 3, 2011.
  5. 5.↵
    Bureau of Health Professions. The Rationale for Diversity in the Health Professions: a Review of the Evidence. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration. October 2006. http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/healthworkforce/reports/diversityreviewevidence.pdf. Accessed December 3, 2011.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Edwards D,
    2. Franks A,
    3. Guglielmo J,
    4. et al
    . Report of the 2009-2010 Faculty Affairs Committee. American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. http://www.aacp.org/governance/councilfaculties/Documents/Faculty%20Affairs%20Committee.pdf. Accessed December 3, 2011.
  7. 7.↵
    Institute of Medicine. In the Nation's Compelling Interest: Ensuring Diversity in the Healthcare Workforce. Washington, DC: Academic Medicine; 2004.
  8. 8.↵
    1. Johnsrud L
    . Women and minority faculty experiences: defining and responding to diverse realities. New Directions Teach Learn. 1993;53(spring):3-16.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Svarstad BL,
    2. Draugalis JR,
    3. Meyer SM,
    4. Mount JK
    . The status of women in pharmacy education: persisting gaps and issues. Am J Pharm Educ. 2004;68(3):Article 79.
  10. 10.↵
    American Association of College of Pharmacy. 2009-10 Profile of Pharmacy Students. http://www.aacp.org/RESOURCES/RESEARCH/INSTITUTIONALRESEARCH/Pages/StudentApplications,EnrollmentsandDegreesConferred.aspx. Accessed December 3, 2011.
  11. 11.↵
    1. Spivey CA,
    2. Chisholm-Burns MA,
    3. Murphy JE,
    4. Rice L,
    5. Moreli C
    . Assessment of and recommendations to improve faculty satisfaction and retention. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2009;66(1):54-64.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Gaither CA
    . Job satisfaction and intention to leave the profession: should we care? Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2009;5(2):91-93.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Seston EM,
    2. Hassell K,
    3. Ferguson J,
    4. Hann M
    . Exploring the relationship between pharmacists’ job satisfaction, intention to quit the profession and actual quitting. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2009;5(2):121-132.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. 1990-1991 Profile of Pharmacy Faculty. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; 1991.
  15. 15.↵
    American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. 1991-1992 Profile of Pharmacy Faculty. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; 1992.
  16. 16.↵
    American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. 1992-1993 Profile of Pharmacy Faculty. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; 1993.
  17. 17.↵
    American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. 1993-1994 Profile of Pharmacy Faculty. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; 1994.
  18. 18.↵
    American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. 1994-1995 Profile of Pharmacy Faculty. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; 1995.
  19. 19.↵
    American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. 1995-1996 Profile of Pharmacy Faculty. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; 1996.
  20. 20.↵
    American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. 1996-1997 Profile of Pharmacy Faculty. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; 1997.
  21. 21.↵
    American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. 1997-1998 Profile of Pharmacy Faculty. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; 1998.
  22. 22.↵
    American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. 1998-1999 Profile of Pharmacy Faculty. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; 1999.
  23. 23.↵
    American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. 1999-2000 Profile of Pharmacy Faculty. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; 2000.
  24. 24.↵
    American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. 2000-2001 Profile of Pharmacy Faculty. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; 2001.
  25. 25.↵
    American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. 2001-2002 Profile of Pharmacy Faculty. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; 2002.
  26. 26.↵
    American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. 2002-2003 Profile of Pharmacy Faculty. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; 2003.
  27. 27.↵
    American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. 2003-2004 Profile of Pharmacy Faculty. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; 2004.
  28. 28.↵
    American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. 2004-2005 Profile of Pharmacy Faculty. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; 2005.
  29. 29.↵
    American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. 2005-2006 Profile of Pharmacy Faculty. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; 2006.
  30. 30.↵
    American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. 2006-2007 Profile of Pharmacy Faculty. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; 2007.
  31. 31.↵
    American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. 2007-2008 Profile of Pharmacy Faculty. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; 2008.
  32. 32.↵
    American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. 2008-2009 Profile of Pharmacy Faculty. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; 2009.
  33. 33.↵
    American Association of College of Pharmacy. Fall 2009 Profile of Pharmacy Students. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; 2010.
  34. 34.↵
    1. Johnson RB,
    2. Christensen LB
    . Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2008.
  35. 35.↵
    1. Johnson RB,
    2. Onwuegbuzie AJ
    . Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ Rese. 2004;33(7):14-26.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    1. Barnett CW,
    2. Kimberlin CL
    . Development and validation of an instrument to measure pharmacists’ satisfaction with their jobs and careers. Am J Pharm Educ. 1986;50(1):5-14.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Stajich GV,
    2. Murphy JE,
    3. Barnett CW
    . Job satisfaction of pharmacy faculty: a preliminary examination. Am J Pharm Educ. 1988;52:64-67.
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.↵
    United States Census. Census Regions and Divisions of the United States. http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf. Accessed December 3, 2011.
  39. 39.↵
    1. Greenlaw C,
    2. Brown-Welty S
    . A comparison of web-based and paper-based survey methods: testing assumptions of survey mode and response cost. Eval Rev. 2009;33(5):464-480.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Converse PD,
    2. Wolfe E,
    3. Huang X,
    4. Oswald F
    . Response rates for mixed-mode surveys using mail and e-mail/web. Am J Eval. 2008;29(1):99-107.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    1. Guise V,
    2. Chambers M,
    3. Välimäki M,
    4. Makkonen P
    . A mixed-mode approach to data collection: combining web and paper questionnaires to examine nurses’ attitudes to mental illness. J Adv Nurs. 2010;66(7):1623-1632.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Marks DF,
    2. Yardley L
    1. Joffe H,
    2. Yardley L
    . Content and thematic analysis. In: Marks DF, , Yardley L, eds. Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2003:56-69.
  43. 43.↵
    1. Elo S,
    2. Kyngäs H
    . The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(1):107-115.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Humes KR,
    2. Jones NA,
    3. Ramirez RR
    . Overview and Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010. 2010 Census Briefs (CB11-CN.125). U.S. Census Bureau, March 2011. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf. Accessed December 3, 2011.
  45. 45.↵
    Pew Research Center. U.S. Population Projections: 2005-2050. http://pewsocialtrends.org/2008/02/11/us-population-projections-2005-2050/. Accessed December 3, 2011.
  46. 46.↵
    1. Shermont H,
    2. Krepcio D,
    3. Murphy JM
    . Career mapping. Developing nurse leaders, reinvigorating careers. J Nurs Adm. 2009;39(10):432-437.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Beardsley R,
    2. Matzke GR,
    3. Rospond R,
    4. et al
    . Factors influencing the pharmacy faculty workforce. Am J Pharm Educ. 2008;72(2):Article 34.
  48. 48.↵
    1. Daley S,
    2. Wingard DL,
    3. Reznik V
    . Improving the retention of underrepresented faculty in academic medicine. J Natl Med Assoc. 2006;98(9):1435-1440.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Jackson J
    . The story is not in the numbers: academic socialization and the diversifying of faculty. NWSA J. 2004;16(1):172-185.
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.↵
    1. Wesson DE,
    2. King TE Jr.,
    3. Todd RF,
    4. et al
    . Achieving diversity in academic internal medicine: recommendations for leaders. Am J Med. 2006;119(1):76-81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Turner CSV,
    2. González JC,
    3. Wood JL
    . Faculty of color in academe: what 20 years of literature tells us. J Divers High Educ. 2008;1(3):139-168.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. 52.↵
    1. Bollinger LC
    . The need for diversity in higher education. Acad Med. 2003;78(5):431-436.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    1. Henderson ML,
    2. Broedel-Zaugg K
    . A historical perspective on women pharmacy faculty. Am J Pharm Educ. 1999;63(4):402-405.
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.↵
    1. Henderson ML
    . A descriptive study of women pharmacy faculty members. Am J Pharm Educ. 1979;43(3):191-194.
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.↵
    1. Henderson ML,
    2. Keeney T,
    3. Ferguson JA
    . Comparison of profiles of women faculty members in the United States and Canada. Am J Pharm Educ. 1988;52(1):59-63.
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.↵
    1. Applegate WB,
    2. Williams ME
    . Career development in academic medicine. Am J Med. 1990;88(3):263-267.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Moreno JF,
    2. Smith DG,
    3. Clayton-Pederson A,
    4. et al
    . The revolving door for underrepresented minority faculty in higher education. The James Irvine Foundation Campus Diversity Initiative Evaluation Project; 2006. https://folio.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/10244/50/insight_Revolving_Door.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed December 3, 2011.
  58. 58.↵
    Ranking America's leading universities on their success in integrating African Americans. J Blacks in Higher Educ. 2002. Available at http://www.jbhe.com/features/36_leading_universities.html. Accessed December 20, 2011.
  59. 59.↵
    1. Delgado-Romero EA,
    2. Nichols Manlove A,
    3. Manlove JD,
    4. Hernandez CA
    . Controversial issues in the recruitment and retention of Latino-a faculty. J Hispanic High Educ. 2007;6(1):34-51.
    OpenUrl
  60. 60.↵
    UCLA Office for Faculty Diversity. UCLA Campus Strategic Plan for Diversity. https://diversity.ucla.edu/strategic-plan. December 3, 2011.
  61. 61.↵
    1. Piercy F,
    2. Giddings V,
    3. Allen K,
    4. et al
    . Improving campus climate to support faculty diversity and retention: a pilot program for new faculty. Inn Higher Educ. 2005;30(1):53-66.
    OpenUrl
  62. 62.↵
    Georgetown University. Institutional diversity, equity, and affirmative action. Available at http://ideaa.georgetown.edu/. Accessed December 20, 2011.
  63. 63.↵
    1. Sambunjak D,
    2. Straus SE,
    3. Marusic A
    . Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. JAMA. 2006;296(9):1103-1115.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    1. Straus SE,
    2. Straus C,
    3. Tzanetos K
    . Career choice in academic medicine: systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(12):1222-1229.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    1. Fried LP,
    2. Francomano CA,
    3. MacDonald SM,
    4. et al
    . Career development for women in academic medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(11):898-905.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    1. Cohen JJ
    , Time to shatter the glass ceiling for minority faculty. JAMA. 1998;280(9):821-822.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. 67.↵
    1. Conklin MH,
    2. Desselle SP
    . Job turnover intentions among pharmacy faculty. Am J Pharm Educ. 2007;71(4):Article 62.
  68. 68.↵
    1. Desselle SP,
    2. Conklin MH
    . Predictors of pharmacy faculty work satisfaction. Currents Pharm Teach Learn. 2010;2(1):20-30.
    OpenUrl
  69. 69.↵
    1. Daley SP,
    2. Palermo A,
    3. Nivet M,
    4. et al
    . Diversity in academic medicine No. 6. Successful programs in minority faculty development: ingredients of success. Mt Sinai J Med. 2008;75(6):533-551.
    OpenUrlPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools
Multi-Institutional Study of Women and Underrepresented Minority Faculty Members in Academic Pharmacy
Marie A. Chisholm-Burns, Christina A. Spivey, Dean Billheimer, Lauren S. Schlesselman, Schwanda K. Flowers, Dana Hammer, Janet P. Engle, Jean M. Nappi, Mary T. Pasko, Leigh Ann Ross, Bernard Sorofman, Helena A. Rodrigues, Allison M. Vaillancourt
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education Feb 2012, 76 (1) 7; DOI: 10.5688/ajpe7617
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Keywords