Academics Work Groups - Foundational Literature

Clear Expectations for Career Advancement

Providing clear guidance and expectations for academics' career advancement, and establishing detailed and accessible criteria for professional growth result in academics who feel valued, recognized, and supported. Formal and informal opportunities for academics to assess accomplishments and receive feedback are critical to institutionally shared expectations for career advancement. 

In an attempt to create equity among academics from diverse backgrounds, scholars argue that tenure-track faculty should be provided with clear expectations, unambiguous standards, and consistent counsel during the tenure process (Trower & Chait, 2002). When academics feel there are supportive and open communication networks in their universities, they are more likely to report an intent to stay (Daly & Dee, 2006). O’Meara and others (2019) demonstrated how, in departments where academics report transparent work conditions and practices, they are more likely to report satisfaction with workload distribution and teaching and service activities. Creating transparency in the promotion process, specifically, has implications for academics' satisfaction and collegiality (Cipriano, 2011). Academics not only report the benefits of transparency, but they also appreciate uniformity in tenure practices, so that they can see firsthand that the process is “fair, open, and compassionate” (Waltman & Hollenshead,  2007, p. 6). In an effort to ‘unclog’ the pipeline that slows the upward mobility of mid-career female faculty, Van Miegroet and colleagues (2019) studied the impact of the NSF-ADVANCE program on female faculty advancement at a mid-size public doctoral university. The initiative involved practices to create greater transparency in tenure processes, such as departmental and university-wide workshops on expectations and actual steps in the promotion processes and the creation of post-tenure review committees to guide academics in being promoted to full professors. After the initiative, female academics not only reported improvements in morale, but there was a noticeable increase in the number and proportion of women promoted to full professor. 

Equity-Focused, Proactive Recruitment & Hiring

Equitable, proactive recruitment practices lead to balanced new hiring that reflects the diversity of the university community. An equity lens on recruitment and hiring is essential to the success of the university and can be improved by institutional interventions. Job advertisements, position descriptions, search committee composition, anti-bias training, inclusive interviews, and fair start-up packages and compensation all influence equitable recruitment and hiring. 

In an effort to diversify the academics at their campuses, universities have implemented a series of programs to enhance recruitment and retention of candidates from underrepresented groups (Taylor et al., 2010). The goal of such efforts is to disrupt standard procedures and mindsets that prioritize predominantly white and male academics. These efforts are especially important so as to have the composition of academics reflect student demographics, since women constitute almost 60% of US college students, and the US is projected to have racial and ethnic minorities exceeding 50% of the population by 2050 (Fradella, 2018). Injecting equity-based practices into the hiring process begins with the job advertisements posted by institutions. Female and minority applicants are more likely to apply to academic job advertisements that highlight diversity, equity, and inclusion (Agan et al., 2022). Moreover, when universities broaden searches to obtain the maximum number of applicants, they are more likely to receive applicants from underrepresented groups. The University of Michigan experienced a doubling in the number of applications from academics from underrepresented groups when they expanded their searches, which resulted in a more diverse academic body (Stewart & Valian, 2018). In addition to broadening searches, Glass and Minnotte (2010) argue that active recruitment is especially beneficial for underrepresented groups. They found that placement of an advertisement in a venue targeting women both increased the number of women applying for academic positions, and the number of women hired for these jobs. For the evaluation phase, universities are implementing unconscious and gender bias training and interventions with search committees, which have been shown to equip committees with the race- and gender-conscious terminology  and the knowledge needed to identify and challenge biases (Carnes et al., 2015; Liera, 2020). Following these trainings, departments have also observed subsequent increases in the proportion of academic members who are female (Devine et al., 2017) or from underrepresented minority groups (Cahn, 2017). One particular tactic employed by search committees is the inclusion of equity advocates (EA), individuals trained in race-conscious practices who are intended to serve as ‘guardians of a fair process’ on search committees. Cahn and colleagues (2021) found that the presence of an EA on search committees helped to mitigate biases by having search committee members question their assumptions, and also was effective in introducing standardized tools for evaluating candidates. Similar efforts have also proven to be successful in closing gender gaps in female academic hires (Smith et al., 2015). For example, the University of California, Irvine used the EA strategy, along with workshops, lecture series, gender equity awards, and dependent care travel awards, in an attempt to increase female academic members. Compared to other UC campuses, UC Irvine hired a higher percentage of women academics during the intervention period (Stepan-Norris & Kerrissey 2016). 

Epistemic Inclusion

Epistemic inclusion refers to the acceptance of diverse types of scholarship and creative production, even when they deviate from disciplinary mainstreams, by confronting and overcoming biases about the types of intellectual and innovative pursuits that are deemed valuable. Scholarly devaluation is reported more frequently by academics from underrepresented groups and is associated with poorer job satisfaction and reduced retention. 

Epistemic exclusion refers to the devaluation of certain research topics, types of knowledge production, and methodologies, particularly those that do not fall within “mainstream” academic scholarship. Scholars of epistemic exclusion argue that knowledge, scholarship, and research do not take place in neutral settings, but are shaped by the history and societies in which the work is undertaken (Boni & Velasco, 2020). This phenomenon is most common when the scholarly research is outside the disciplinary bounds of a particular field, especially if it focuses on marginalized people and communities. Hoppe and colleagues (2019) examined National Institutes of Health grant applications submitted by African American and White scientists and found that African American applicants were more likely to propose research on topics with lower award rates, which included research at the community and population levels. Moreover, academics of color may face questions about the importance and relevance of race-related work and its place within “mainstream” academic work (Johnsrud & Sadao, 1998; Joseph & Hirshfield, 2011). This comes up frequently in both institutional norms of assessment and informal communications, which reinforce the notion that certain scholarship is not as legitimate or valued (Settles, Buchanan, & Dotson, 2019). Among scholars who feel their work is devalued, they also report higher intentions to leave the university (Settles et al., 2022). While we have not identified publications of successful interventions that address epistemic exclusion, there is a strong theoretical literature base indicating this is a widespread phenomenon that is deserving of attention.

Mental Health & Well-Being

Occupational well-being is a multi-dimensional construct that includes affective, professional, social, cognitive, and psychosocial well-being. Literature indicates that in complex jobs like academic roles, satisfaction–a key domain of well-being at work–is linked to positive personal and professional outcomes. The well-being of academics and mental health are influenced by relationships with colleagues and students through supportive and inclusive communities and culture.

Job satisfaction can play an important role in the ability of universities to attract and retain qualified academic members. To promote faculty satisfaction and well-being, universities have focused on nurturing inclusive departmental cultures. Westring and others (2014) investigated whether work culture moderated the association between work demands and work-to-family conflict among female assistant professors at the University of Pennsylvania. They found that a “culture conducive to women’s academic success significantly moderate[s] the effect of work hours on time-based work-to-family conflict and significantly [moderates] the effect of work overload” (p. 658). At UC San Diego, Wingard and colleagues (2019) examined the longitudinal effects of several initiatives designed to improve the UC San Diego Health Sciences climate. Interventions included routine measuring and dissemination of demographic data, changes and dissemination of policy and procedures, and new and improved academics development programming. Over the 10-year study period, the authors found that the interventions led to an increase in the proportion of female and underrepresented academics, a decrease in the pay gap between men and women, fewer reports of inappropriate behavior, and improvements in the satisfaction and knowledge of institutional mentoring and resources. Wellbeing initiatives can also take the form of wellness programs that promote physical, nutritional, and lifestyle wellness. Successful wellness programs have implications for happier and more productive employees, reduced absenteeism, and lower health insurance premiums (Eckhart, Ebro, & Claypool, 1988). Tapps, Symonds, and Baghurst (2016) found that this type of programming is desirable among university faculty. Lloyd and others (2017) examined the effects of a Texas State University employee wellness program intended to improve employee health and productivity. The authors argue that universities are a prime site for such interventions due to their preexisting physical infrastructure (specifically recreational facilities). Academics and students engaged with a human resources officer that coordinated and promoted programming and following a 12-week trial run, the authors found that program participants took more hours of wellness leave as compared to the previous year, but these effects were canceled out by the decreased number of sick days taken by participants. The result was a net savings for the university. A similar wellness program implemented at West Virginia University yielded positive physical outcomes and more healthful lifestyles among faculty (Reger et al., 2002).

Mentoring, Sponsorship & Professional Development

Mentoring and sponsorship involve more experienced individuals assisting others with personal and professional development. Mentoring of academics can take the form of a dyad model or a developmental network with multiple mentoring relationships, both formal and informal, sometimes expanding beyond the organization. Professional development includes structured opportunities to nurture the success of academics and their professional growth. Mentorship and sponsorship are associated with enhanced career development, progression, and satisfaction. Outcomes include an improved sense of confidence, and increased research, scholarly, and creative success. 

Mentorship is viewed as a support mechanism that helps academics acquire and develop the competencies they need to thrive and cultivate the work relationships they need to build their careers. Mentors can provide information to junior and mid-career academics about the written and unwritten rules of academia, teaching approaches, personal development, career guidance, and strategies to enhance productivity. Having a mentor is associated with greater satisfaction and self-efficacy (Feldman et al., 2010), intent to remain in academia (Onumah et al., 2021), and retention (Ries et al., 2009). Chen and colleagues (2016) examined the effect of a dyadic mentoring approach for junior academics, which included one-on-one mentor-mentee meetings, didactic workshops, grant review assistance, and facilitated peer-group mentoring. Following the program, junior academics' retention improved; participants reported feeling more prepared to advance their careers and a better understanding of the criteria for advancement; were satisfied with the program; and found mentors accessible. Dyadic mentoring is also linked with short-term gains in meeting the psychological needs of academics, namely competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Lewis et al., 2016). Mentoring for underrepresented minority academics is especially necessary as these individuals encounter challenges regarding overt and covert racism, in addition to carrying a disproportionate share of activities that do not traditionally advance careers (e.g., community outreach endeavors). Beech and others (2013) conducted a review of 13 programs examining outcomes of mentoring programs for underrepresented minority academics and found that participants generally reported satisfaction with mentoring programs, and these programs typically report success with retention and productivity of academics. In addition to mentoring programs that offer one-on-one support, universities are also implementing career development programs (CDP) that offer more institutionalized support to help faculty members advance their careers. Academics who participate in CDPs are less likely to leave academia than their non-CDP counterparts, and these programs are especially beneficial for female faculty (Chang et al., 2016). Daley and colleagues (2011) conducted a 10-year longitudinal study of underrepresented minority academics at UC San Diego to determine the effects of a structured development program for academics, 92% of URM academics in the study eligible for promotion were promoted to associate professor, with participants citing the support of senior academics, peer networking, professional skill development, and knowledge of institutional culture as critical to their success. Finally, academics who attended CDPs reported greater interpersonal, leadership, negotiation, and networking skills (Helitzer et al., 2014). These programs are not only important for junior-level academics, but can help mid-career academics as well (Chaudron et al., 2021). 

Sense of Belonging

Sense of belonging refers to the degree to which academics feel valued by the institution, engaged, comfortable bringing their authentic selves to work, and a part of the university community. Research shows that when people feel included at work they report higher job satisfaction, well-being, and productivity thereby reducing turnover intentions. 

In assessing the factors that shape a sense of belonging among academics, scholars draw upon various literatures to define belonging in university departments and broader campuses. These include collegiality (Cipriano & Buller, 2012), relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000), collaborations (Stupnisky, Weaver-Hightower, and Kartoshkina 2015), and communities of practice (Trowler & Knight, 2000). Feeling a sense of collegiality and support in one’s department is positively correlated with autonomy and competence in teaching among pre-tenured faculty (Stupnisky et al., 2017), as well as satisfaction with promotion and tenure processes (Jackson, Latimer, & Stoiko, 2017). When academics feel a sense of relatedness in their institutions, they feel more motivated to engage in their scholarship (Lechuga, 2012), and also report higher levels of intrinsic teaching motivation (Wilkesmann & Vorberg, 2021). Department chairs, in particular, can help to foster relatedness among non-tenure track academics, which leads to individuals feeling more satisfied in their positions (Crick, Larson, & Seipel, 2020). Moreover, cultivating a sense of belonging among academics fundamentally stems from the networks that faculty value and nurture. Networks are especially important for early-career academics who may require additional emotional and intellectual support (Foote, 2010; Pifer & Baker, 2013). By having supportive networks in one’s home department and in the broader university environment, networks can help individuals to build social capital and establish agency in the career advancement process (Niehaus & O’Meara, 2015). For example, Qudais, Al-Omari, and Al-Smadi (2009) found that relationships with department chairs and colleagues significantly contributed to early-career faculty member socialization into the department and sense of commitment and institutional loyalty. These effects are especially important for minoritized scholars, as Wright-Mair and Marine (2021) point out in their study of racially minoritized LGBTQ+ scholars, who are more successful when they have strong relationships with colleagues. 

Unbiased Reviews & Advancement Practices

Unbiased reviews and advancement practices result in equitable, merit-driven career outcomes across groups. Satisfying and equitable career trajectories require recognition and remediation of unconscious bias in review and advancement practices. Research suggests that implicit bias and discriminatory policies and practices result in academics from underrepresented groups being less likely to achieve tenure, earn full professorships, obtain administrative leadership positions, receive major federal grants, and being cited less frequently and rated lower on teaching evaluations.

Within academic departments, academics from underrepresented groups lag behind their colleagues in achieving parity in promotions. These gaps persist even after controlling for research productivity, training, seniority, and career aspirations (Fang et al., 2000; Pololi et al., 2013; Pololi, Cooper & Carr, 2010; Price et al., 2005). Scholars have posited that implicit bias may be at the root of these obstacles, noting how individual perceptions, committee composition, and group dynamics can influence academic promotion decisions (Mallery et al., 2019). In an effort to create more equitable advancement practices, 13 departments participated in an intervention designed to educate about implicit biases and the strategies for overcoming them. Results from Girod and colleagues (2016) indicate that the intervention significantly changed all academic members’ perception of bias. In departments that received the training, the percentage of female academics in the next academic year increased by 1.5%, compared to 0.7% in the departments not receiving the intervention. Morrissey and Schmidt (2008) documented the effects of a more institutional-wide intervention at the University of Illinois College of Medicine (UICM), which created the Faculty Academic Advancement Committee (FAAC). The FAAC was established with the aim of creating an institution in which faculty, department leaders, and deans reflected the gender and ethnic profile of the student body. Through leadership seminars and internal research, the FAAC’s efforts resulted in several campus-wide changes: deans are now required to report on gender equity and diversity as part of annual reporting requirements; promotion and tenure dossiers ask what the submitter has done to increase gender equity and diversity at the university, and tenure holds are now automatic for both women and men. The FAAC also created specific leadership training programs for women to promote the advancement of women into more high-level administrative roles. Since the establishment of the FAAC, UICM has seen an increase in the number of women academics who are tenured and on the tenure track. The success of these individual efforts have been supported by Carr and others (2017) who researched gender equity practices at 23 institutions and identified several themes of promotion initiatives that help to decrease the gender gap among faculty. These include unconscious bias training for search committee members, including women on promotion committees, and allocating funds aimed directly towards female faculty retention. Discussions around substantive shifts in tenure and promotion evaluations are increasingly becoming commonplace among scholars who research faculty promotion inequalities. De Los Reyes and Uddin (2021) recommend that research, teaching, and service be holistically weighed against other faculty commitments not traditionally considered in tenure promotions. These include commitments to mentoring, community outreach, science communication, and contributions to departmental and institutional diversity, equity, and inclusivity initiatives, which tend to be disproportionately led by minority and female academics (Griffin, Bennett, & Harris, 2011; Rideau, 2021). 

References

Agan, Marie Little Fawn, Reni Joseph, Armando Rivera-Figueroa, Benny C. Chan, Abby R. O’Connor, Mary Jo Ondrechen, Wayne E. Jones, Peter K. Dorhout, and Ann C. Kimble-Hill. 2022. “Best Practices to Diversify Chemistry Faculty.” Journal of Chemical Education 99(1):435–43.

Beech, Bettina M., Jorge Calles-Escandon, Kristen G. Hairston, Sarah E. Langdon, Brenda A. Latham-Sadler, and Ronny A. Bell. 2013. “Mentoring Programs for Underrepresented Minority Faculty in Academic Medical Centers: A Systematic Review of the Literature.” Academic Medicine : Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 88(4):1–17.

Boni, Alejandra, and Diana Velasco. 2020. “Epistemic Capabilities and Epistemic Injustice: What Is the Role of Higher Education in Fostering Epistemic Contributions of Marginalized Knowledge Producers?” Global Justice : Theory Practice Rhetoric 12(1):1–26.

Cahn, Peter S. 2017. “Recognizing and Reckoning With Unconscious Bias: A Workshop for Health Professions Faculty Search Committees.” MedEdPORTAL 13:1–7.

Cahn, Peter S., Clara M. Gona, Keshrie Naidoo, and Kimberly A. Truong. 2021. “Disrupting Bias Without Trainings: The Effect of Equity Advocates on Faculty Search Committees.” Innovative Higher Education 47:253–72.

Carnes, Molly, Patricia G. Devine, Linda Baier Manwell, Angela Byars-Winston, Eve Fine, Cecilia Ford, Patrick Forscher, Carol Isaac, Anna Kaatz, Wairimu Magua, Mari Palta, and Jennifer Sheridan. 2015. “Effect of an Intervention to Break the Gender Bias Habit for Faculty at One Institution: A Cluster Randomized, Controlled Trial.” Academic Medicine : Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 90(2):221–30.

Carr, Phyllis L., Christine Gunn, Anita Raj, Samantha Kaplan, and Karen M. Freund. 2017. “Recruitment, Promotion, and Retention of Women in Academic Medicine: How Institutions Are Addressing Gender Disparities.” Women’s Health Issues 27(3):374–81.

Chang, Shine, Page S. Morahan, Diane Magrane, Deborah Helitzer, Hwa Young Lee, Sharon Newbill, Ho-Lan Peng, Michele Guindani, and Gina Cardinali. 2016. “Retaining Faculty in Academic Medicine: The Impact of Career Development Programs for Women.” Journal of Women’s Health 25(7):687–96.

Chaudron, Linda H., Elizabeth Anson, Jane M. Bryson Tolbert, Sachi Inoue, and Catherine Cerulli. “Meeting the Needs of Mid-Career Women in Academic Medicine: One Model Career Development Program.” Journal of Women’s Health 30(1):45–51.

Chen, Mary M., Christy I. Sandborg, Louanne Hudgins, Rania Sanford, and Laura K. Bachrach. “A Multifaceted Mentoring Program for Junior Faculty in Academic Pediatrics.” Teaching and Learning in Medicine 28(3):320–28.

Cipriano, Robert E. 2011. Facilitating a Collegial Department in Higher Education: Strategies for Success. John Wiley & Sons.

Cipriano, Robert E., and Jeffrey L. Buller. 2012. “Rating Faculty Collegiality.” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 44(2):45–48.

Crick, Kent A., Lisa M. Larson, and Matthew T. Seipel. 2020. “Non-Tenure Track Faculty Satisfaction: A Self-Determination Model.” Journal of Career Assessment 28(3):425–45.

Daley, Sandra P., Shelia L. Broyles, Lourdes M. Rivera, Jesse J. Brennan, Ethel Regis Lu, and Vivian Reznik. 2011. “A Conceptual Model for Faculty Development in Academic Medicine: The Underrepresented Minority Faculty Experience.” Journal of the National Medical Association 103(9):816–21.

Daly, Cheryl J., and Jay R. Dee. 2006. “Greener Pastures: Faculty Turnover Intent in Urban Public Universities.” The Journal of Higher Education 77(5):776–803.

De Los Reyes, Andres, and Lucina Q. Uddin. 2021. “Revising Evaluation Metrics for Graduate Admissions and Faculty Advancement to Dismantle Privilege.” Nature Neuroscience 24(6):755–58.

Devine, Patricia G., Patrick S. Forscher, William T. L. Cox, Anna Kaatz, Jennifer Sheridan, and Molly Carnes. 2017. “A Gender Bias Habit-Breaking Intervention Led to Increased Hiring of Female Faculty in STEMM Departments.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 73:211–15.

Eckhart, Gale A., L. L. Ebro, and P. L. Claypool. 1988. “Needs, Interests, and Attitudes of University Faculty for a Wellness Program.” Journal of the American Dietetic Association 88(8):916–20.

Fang, Di, Ernest Moy, Lois Colburn, and Jeanne Hurley. 2000. “Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Faculty Promotion in Academic Medicine.” JAMA 284(9):1085–92.

Feldman, Mitchell D., Patricia A. Arean, Sally J. Marshall, Mark Lovett, and Patricia O’Sullivan. “Does Mentoring Matter: Results from a Survey of Faculty Mentees at a Large Health Sciences University.” Medical Education Online 15(1):1–8.

Foote, Kenneth E. 2010. “Creating a Community of Support for Graduate Students and Early Career Academics.” Journal of Geography in Higher Education 34(1):7–19.

Fradella, Henry F. 2018. “Supporting Strategies for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Higher Education Faculty Hiring.” Pp. 119–51 in Diversity and Inclusion in Higher Education and Societal Contexts: International and Interdisciplinary Approaches, edited by S. K. Gertz, B. Huang, and L. Cyr. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Girod, Sabine, Magali Fassiotto, Daisy Grewal, Manwai Candy Ku, Natarajan Sriram, Brian A. Nosek, and Hannah Valantine. 2016. “Reducing Implicit Gender Leadership Bias in Academic Medicine With an Educational Intervention.” Academic Medicine 91(8):1143–50.

Glass, Christy, and Krista Lynn Minnotte. 2010. “Recruiting and Hiring Women in STEM Fields.” Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 3(4):218–29.

Griffin, Kimberly A., Jessica C. Bennett, and Jessica Harris. 2011. “Analyzing Gender Differences in Black Faculty Marginalization through a Sequential Mixed-Methods Design.” New Directions for Institutional Research 2011(151):45–61.

Helitzer, Deborah L., Sharon L. Newbill, Page S. Morahan, Diane Magrane, Gina Cardinali, Chih-Chieh Wu, and Shine Chang. 2014. “Perceptions of Skill Development of Participants in Three National Career Development Programs For Women Faculty in Academic Medicine.” Academic Medicine : Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 89(6):896–903.

Hoppe, Travis A., Aviva Litovitz, Kristine A. Willis, Rebecca A. Meseroll, Matthew J. Perkins, B. Ian Hutchins, Alison F. Davis, Michael S. Lauer, Hannah A. Valantine, James M. Anderson, and George M. Santangelo. 2019. “Topic Choice Contributes to the Lower Rate of NIH Awards to African-American/Black Scientists.” Science Advances 5(10):1–12.

Jackson, J. Kasi, Melissa Latimer, and Rachel Stoiko. 2017. “The Dynamic between Knowledge Production and Faculty Evaluation: Perceptions of the Promotion and Tenure Process across Disciplines.” Innovative Higher Education 42(3):193–205.

Johnsrud, Linda K., and Kathleen C. Sadao. 1998. “The Common Experience of ‘Otherness’: Ethnic and Racial Minority Faculty.” The Review of Higher Education 21(4):315–42.

Joseph, Tiffany D., and Laura E. Hirshfield. 2011. “‘Why Don’t You Get Somebody New to Do It?’ Race and Cultural Taxation in the Academy.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 34(1):121–41.

Lechuga, Vicente M. 2012. “Latino Faculty in STEM Disciplines: Motivation to Engage in Research Activities.” Journal of Latinos and Education 11(2):107–23.

Lewis, Vivian, Camille A. Martina, Michael P. McDermott, Paula Trief, Steven R. Goodman, Gene Morse, Jennifer G. LaGuardia, Daryl Sharp, and Richard M. Ryan. 2016. “A Randomized Controlled Trial of Mentoring Interventions for Underrepresented Minorities.” Academic Medicine : Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 91(7):994–1001.

Liera, Román. 2020. “Moving Beyond a Culture of Niceness in Faculty Hiring to Advance Racial Equity.” American Educational Research Journal 57(5):1954–94.

Lloyd, Lisa K., Sylvia H. Crixell, Janet R. Bezner, Katherine Forester, and Carolyn Swearingen. “Genesis of an Employee Wellness Program at a Large University.” Health Promotion Practice 18(6):879–94.

Mallery, Taniecea A., Ilana S. Mittman, Laura Castillo-Page, Jennifer Eliason, and J. Renee Chapman Navarro. 2019. “A Stochastic Model of Consensus Reaching in Committee Decisions for Faculty Advancement, Promotion and Tenure: Does Diversity Matter?” Journal of the National Medical Association 111(4):418–26.

Morrissey, Claudia S., and Mary Lou Schmidt. 2008. “Fixing the System, Not the Women: An Innovative Approach to Faculty Advancement.” Journal of Women’s Health 17(8):1399–1408.

Niehaus, Elizabeth, and KerryAnn O’Meara. 2015. “Invisible but Essential: The Role of Professional Networks in Promoting Faculty Agency in Career Advancement.” Innovative Higher Education 40(2):159–71.

O’Meara, KerryAnn, Courtney Jo Lennartz, Alexandra Kuvaeva, Audrey Jaeger, and Joya Misra. “Department Conditions and Practices Associated with Faculty Workload Satisfaction and Perceptions of Equity.” The Journal of Higher Education 90(5):744–72.

Onumah, Chavon, Sara Wikstrom, Victoria Valencia, and Anne Cioletti. 2021. “What Women Need: A Study of Institutional Factors and Women Faculty’s Intent to Remain in Academic Medicine.” Journal of General Internal Medicine 36(7):2039–47.

Pifer, Meghan J., and Vicki L. Baker. 2013. “Managing the Process: The Intradepartmental Networks of Early-Career Academics.” Innovative Higher Education 38(4):323–37.

Pololi, Linda, Lisa A. Cooper, and Phyllis Carr. 2010. “Race, Disadvantage and Faculty Experiences in Academic Medicine.” Journal of General Internal Medicine 25(12):1363–69.

Pololi, Linda H., Arthur T. Evans, Brian K. Gibbs, Edward Krupat, Robert T. Brennan, and Janet T. Civian. 2013. “The Experience of Minority Faculty Who Are Underrepresented in Medicine, at 26 Representative U.S. Medical Schools.” Academic Medicine 88(9):1308–14.

Price, Eboni G., Aysegul Gozu, David E. Kern, Neil R. Powe, Gary S. Wand, Sherita Golden, and Lisa A. Cooper. 2005. “The Role of Cultural Diversity Climate in Recruitment, Promotion, and Retention of Faculty in Academic Medicine.” Journal of General Internal Medicine 20(7):565–71.

Qudais, Mahmoud Abu, Aieman Al-Omari, and Rana Al-Smadi. 2009. “Early Career Faculty Concerns in Jordanian Universities.” International Journal of Applied Educational Studies 6(1):71–83.

Reger, Bill, Kimberly Williams, Maria Kolar, Holli Smith, and J. William Douglas. 2002. “Implementing University-Based Wellness: A Participatory Planning Approach.” Health Promotion Practice 3(4):507–14.

Rideau, Ryan. 2021. “‘We’re Just Not Acknowledged’: An Examination of the Identity Taxation of Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Women of Color Faculty Members.” Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 14(2):161–73.

Ries, Andrew, Deborah Wingard, Cindy Morgan, Elizabeth Farrell, Sharon Letter, and Vivian Reznik. 2009. “Retention of Junior Faculty in Academic Medicine at the University of California, San Diego.” Academic Medicine 84(1):37–41.

Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. 2000. “Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being.” American Psychologist 55(1):68–78.

Settles, Isis H., NiCole T. Buchanan, and Kristie Dotson. 2019. “Scrutinized but Not Recognized: (In)Visibility and Hypervisibility Experiences of Faculty of Color.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 113:62–74.

Settles, Isis H., Martinque K. Jones, NiCole T. Buchanan, and Sheila T. Brassel. 2022. “Epistemic Exclusion of Women Faculty and Faculty of Color: Understanding Scholar(Ly) Devaluation as a Predictor of Turnover Intentions.” The Journal of Higher Education 93(1):31–55.

Smith, Jessi L., Ian M. Handley, Alexander V. Zale, Sara Rushing, and Martha A. Potvin. 2015. “Now Hiring! Empirically Testing a Three-Step Intervention to Increase Faculty Gender Diversity in STEM.” BioScience 65(11):1084–87.

Stepan-Norris, Judith, and Jasmine Kerrissey. 2016. “Enhancing Gender Equity in Academia: Lessons from the ADVANCE Program.” Sociological Perspectives 59(2):225–45.

Stewart, Abigail J., and Virginia Valian. 2018. An Inclusive Academy: Achieving Diversity and Excellence. MIT Press.

Stupnisky, R. H., M. B. Weaver-Hightower, and Y. Kartoshkina. 2015. “Exploring and Testing the Predictors of New Faculty Success: A Mixed Methods Study.” Studies in Higher Education 40(2):368–90.

Stupnisky, Robert H., Nathan C. Hall, Lia M. Daniels, and Emmanuel Mensah. 2017. “Testing a Model of Pretenure Faculty Members’ Teaching and Research Success: Motivation as a Mediator of Balance, Expectations, and Collegiality.” The Journal of Higher Education 88(3):376–400.

Tapps, Tyler, Matthew Symonds, and Timothy Baghurst. 2016. “Assessing Employee Wellness Needs at Colleges and Universities: A Case Study” edited by V. Girginov. Cogent Social Sciences 2(1):1–8.

Taylor, O. rlando, Cheryl Burgan Apprey, George Hill, Loretta McGrann, and Jianping Wang. “Diversifying the Faculty.” Peer Review 12(3):15–18.

Trower, Cathy A., and Richard P. Chait. 2002. “Faculty Diversity: Too Little For Too Long.” Harvard Magazine.

Trowler, Paul, and Peter T. Knight. 2000. “Coming to Know in Higher Education: Theorising Faculty Entry to New Work Contexts.” Higher Education Research & Development 19(1):27–42. d

Van Miegroet, Helga, Christy Glass, Ronda Roberts Callister, and Kimberly Sullivan. 2019. “Unclogging the Pipeline: Advancement to Full Professor in Academic STEM.” Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 38(2):246–64.

Waltman, Jean, and Carol Hollenshead. 2007. Creating a Positive Departmental Climate: Principles for Best Practices. Center for the Education of Women: University of Michigan.

Westring, Alyssa Friede, Rebecca M. Speck, Mary Dupuis Sammel, Patricia Scott, Emily F. Conant, Lucy Wolf Tuton, Stephanie B. Abbuhl, and Jeane Ann Grisso. 2014. “Culture Matters: The Pivotal Role of Culture for Women’s Careers in Academic Medicine.” Academic Medicine 89(4):658–63.

Wilkesmann, Uwe, and Ronja Vorberg. 2021. “The Influence of Relatedness and Organizational Resources on Teaching Motivation in Continuing Higher Education.” Zeitschrift Für Weiterbildungsforschung 44(3):263–84.

Wingard, Deborah, JoAnn Trejo, Monica Gudea, Seneca Goodman, and Vivian Reznik. 2019. “Faculty Equity, Diversity, Culture and Climate Change in Academic Medicine: A Longitudinal Study.” Journal of the National Medical Association 111(1):46–53.

Wright-Mair, Raquel, and Susan B. Marine. 2021. “The Impact of Relationships on the Experiences of Racially Minoritized LGBTQ+ Faculty in Higher Education.” Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 1–11.