她们会一直遭受西西弗斯的惩罚吗?种族化妇女的三重打击:对加拿大初级保健研究人员的定性调查

IF 7 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Lancet Regional Health-Americas Pub Date : 2024-08-12 DOI:10.1016/j.lana.2024.100848
{"title":"她们会一直遭受西西弗斯的惩罚吗?种族化妇女的三重打击:对加拿大初级保健研究人员的定性调查","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.lana.2024.100848","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Existing literature overlooks the role of gender and race on research productivity, particularly in the context of primary care research. This study examines how gender and race influence the research productivity of primary care researchers in Canada, addressing a gap in existing literature.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Qualitative, descriptive methods were used, involving 60-min interviews with 23 Canadian primary care researchers. 13 participants were female (57%) and 10 participants (43%) were male. Fourteen participants were White (non-racialized; 61%), 8 were racialized (35%) and 1 did not comment on race (4%). Reflexive thematic analysis captured participant perceptions of factors influencing research productivity, including individual, professional, institutional, and systemic aspects.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>Systemic bias and institutional culture, including racism, sexism, and unconscious biases against racialized women, emerge as key barriers to research productivity. The parenting life stage further compounds these biases. Barriers include lack of representation in faculty roles, toxic work environments, research productivity metrics, and exclusion by colleagues. Participants indicated that institutional reforms and systemic interventions are needed to foster a diverse, equitable, and inclusive environment. Strategies include recruiting equity-focused leaders, increasing representation of racialized female faculty, diversity training, mentorship programs, providing meaningful support, flexible work arrangements, and protected research time. Sponsors can offer more targeted grants for female and racialized researchers. Adjusting metrics for gender, race, parenthood, and collaborative metrics is proposed to enhance diversity and inclusion among researchers.</p></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><p>This study underscores the importance of addressing systemic bias at institutional and systemic levels to create a fair and supportive environment for primary care researchers. A multitude of strategies are needed including increasing representation of racialized female faculty, creating supportive and psychologically safe work environments, and public reporting of data on faculty composition for accreditation and funding decisions. Together, these strategies can alleviate the triple whammy and free these researchers from the <em>Sisyphus Punishment</em> – the absurdity of being asked to climb a hill while pushing a boulder with no hope of reaching the top.</p></div><div><h3>Funding</h3><p><span>College of Family Physicians of Canada</span>.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":29783,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Regional Health-Americas","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667193X24001753/pdfft?md5=31b80e813e7e438a8b08c0b4d108c8a7&pid=1-s2.0-S2667193X24001753-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Will they always be living the Sisyphus punishment? The triple whammy for racialized women: a qualitative investigation of primary care researchers in Canada\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.lana.2024.100848\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Existing literature overlooks the role of gender and race on research productivity, particularly in the context of primary care research. This study examines how gender and race influence the research productivity of primary care researchers in Canada, addressing a gap in existing literature.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Qualitative, descriptive methods were used, involving 60-min interviews with 23 Canadian primary care researchers. 13 participants were female (57%) and 10 participants (43%) were male. Fourteen participants were White (non-racialized; 61%), 8 were racialized (35%) and 1 did not comment on race (4%). Reflexive thematic analysis captured participant perceptions of factors influencing research productivity, including individual, professional, institutional, and systemic aspects.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>Systemic bias and institutional culture, including racism, sexism, and unconscious biases against racialized women, emerge as key barriers to research productivity. The parenting life stage further compounds these biases. Barriers include lack of representation in faculty roles, toxic work environments, research productivity metrics, and exclusion by colleagues. Participants indicated that institutional reforms and systemic interventions are needed to foster a diverse, equitable, and inclusive environment. Strategies include recruiting equity-focused leaders, increasing representation of racialized female faculty, diversity training, mentorship programs, providing meaningful support, flexible work arrangements, and protected research time. Sponsors can offer more targeted grants for female and racialized researchers. Adjusting metrics for gender, race, parenthood, and collaborative metrics is proposed to enhance diversity and inclusion among researchers.</p></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><p>This study underscores the importance of addressing systemic bias at institutional and systemic levels to create a fair and supportive environment for primary care researchers. A multitude of strategies are needed including increasing representation of racialized female faculty, creating supportive and psychologically safe work environments, and public reporting of data on faculty composition for accreditation and funding decisions. Together, these strategies can alleviate the triple whammy and free these researchers from the <em>Sisyphus Punishment</em> – the absurdity of being asked to climb a hill while pushing a boulder with no hope of reaching the top.</p></div><div><h3>Funding</h3><p><span>College of Family Physicians of Canada</span>.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":29783,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lancet Regional Health-Americas\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667193X24001753/pdfft?md5=31b80e813e7e438a8b08c0b4d108c8a7&pid=1-s2.0-S2667193X24001753-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lancet Regional Health-Americas\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667193X24001753\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Regional Health-Americas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667193X24001753","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景现有文献忽略了性别和种族对研究效率的影响,尤其是在初级保健研究中。本研究探讨了性别和种族如何影响加拿大初级保健研究人员的研究效率,填补了现有文献的空白。研究方法采用定性描述方法,对 23 名加拿大初级保健研究人员进行了 60 分钟的访谈。其中 13 名参与者为女性(占 57%),10 名参与者为男性(占 43%)。14 位参与者为白人(非种族化;61%),8 位为种族化(35%),1 位未对种族发表评论(4%)。研究结果系统性偏见和机构文化,包括种族主义、性别歧视和对种族化妇女的无意识偏见,成为影响研究生产力的主要障碍。为人父母的人生阶段进一步加剧了这些偏见。这些障碍包括缺乏教职员工代表、有毒的工作环境、研究生产力指标以及同事的排斥。与会者表示,需要进行机构改革和系统干预,以营造一个多元化、公平和包容的环境。这些策略包括招聘注重公平的领导者、增加种族化女性教员的比例、多元化培训、导师计划、提供有意义的支持、灵活的工作安排以及受保护的研究时间。资助方可以为女性和种族化研究人员提供更有针对性的资助。本研究强调了在机构和系统层面解决系统性偏见的重要性,以便为初级保健研究人员创造一个公平和支持性的环境。需要采取多种策略,包括增加种族化女性教职员工的比例、创造支持性和心理安全的工作环境,以及公开报告教职员工组成数据,以利于评审和资助决策。这些策略结合在一起,可以减轻三重打击,使这些研究人员摆脱西西弗斯惩罚--被要求一边推着巨石爬山,一边却无望到达山顶的荒谬处境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Will they always be living the Sisyphus punishment? The triple whammy for racialized women: a qualitative investigation of primary care researchers in Canada

Background

Existing literature overlooks the role of gender and race on research productivity, particularly in the context of primary care research. This study examines how gender and race influence the research productivity of primary care researchers in Canada, addressing a gap in existing literature.

Methods

Qualitative, descriptive methods were used, involving 60-min interviews with 23 Canadian primary care researchers. 13 participants were female (57%) and 10 participants (43%) were male. Fourteen participants were White (non-racialized; 61%), 8 were racialized (35%) and 1 did not comment on race (4%). Reflexive thematic analysis captured participant perceptions of factors influencing research productivity, including individual, professional, institutional, and systemic aspects.

Findings

Systemic bias and institutional culture, including racism, sexism, and unconscious biases against racialized women, emerge as key barriers to research productivity. The parenting life stage further compounds these biases. Barriers include lack of representation in faculty roles, toxic work environments, research productivity metrics, and exclusion by colleagues. Participants indicated that institutional reforms and systemic interventions are needed to foster a diverse, equitable, and inclusive environment. Strategies include recruiting equity-focused leaders, increasing representation of racialized female faculty, diversity training, mentorship programs, providing meaningful support, flexible work arrangements, and protected research time. Sponsors can offer more targeted grants for female and racialized researchers. Adjusting metrics for gender, race, parenthood, and collaborative metrics is proposed to enhance diversity and inclusion among researchers.

Interpretation

This study underscores the importance of addressing systemic bias at institutional and systemic levels to create a fair and supportive environment for primary care researchers. A multitude of strategies are needed including increasing representation of racialized female faculty, creating supportive and psychologically safe work environments, and public reporting of data on faculty composition for accreditation and funding decisions. Together, these strategies can alleviate the triple whammy and free these researchers from the Sisyphus Punishment – the absurdity of being asked to climb a hill while pushing a boulder with no hope of reaching the top.

Funding

College of Family Physicians of Canada.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Lancet Regional Health – Americas, an open-access journal, contributes to The Lancet's global initiative by focusing on health-care quality and access in the Americas. It aims to advance clinical practice and health policy in the region, promoting better health outcomes. The journal publishes high-quality original research advocating change or shedding light on clinical practice and health policy. It welcomes submissions on various regional health topics, including infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases, child and adolescent health, maternal and reproductive health, emergency care, health policy, and health equity.
期刊最新文献
HIVR4P conference 2024 Leticia de Oliveira — a voice against gender-biased research opportunities Brazil's tax exemption on ultra-processed foods: a public health setback Opportunities for tuberculosis elimination in the Canadian Arctic: cost-effectiveness of community-wide screening in a remote Arctic community Active shooters and gun-free zones: emotional versus legal motivations – author's reply
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1