Premium
Race, gender, and scholarly impact: Disparities for women and faculty of color in clinical psychology
Author(s) -
White Susan W.,
Xia Mengya,
Edwards Gabrielle
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of clinical psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.124
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1097-4679
pISSN - 0021-9762
DOI - 10.1002/jclp.23029
Subject(s) - prestige , psychology , race (biology) , productivity , white (mutation) , accreditation , social psychology , gerontology , medical education , sociology , gender studies , medicine , gene , economics , macroeconomics , philosophy , linguistics , biochemistry , chemistry
Objective We sought to determine if gender and race are associated with scientific impact, scholarly productivity, career advancement, and prestige. Methods Publicly available data on publications, h‐index, advancement, and prestige were assessed across core faculty in all American Psychological Association‐accredited clinical psychology programs at R1 institutions in the United States (87 programs, 918 scientists). Results There were significant effects of both gender and race on productivity and impact, which were most apparent among the most senior faculty. Men and white faculty in associate and full professor ranks had higher scholarly productivity and impact. Among associate professors, men were more likely to get tenure earlier, even when controlling for scientific impact (h‐index). Neither gender nor race was associated with prestige among full professors. Conclusion These findings, along with under‐representation of non‐White faculty across levels (11.2%) and women at the full professor level (42.8%), suggest disparities in academic clinical psychology that must be addressed.