Women leadership barriers in healthcare, academia and business

IF 2 Q3 MANAGEMENT
S. Kalaitzi, K. Czabanowska, S. Fowler-Davis, H. Brand
{"title":"Women leadership barriers in healthcare, academia and business","authors":"S. Kalaitzi, K. Czabanowska, S. Fowler-Davis, H. Brand","doi":"10.1108/EDI-03-2017-0058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose \n \n \n \n \nThe purpose of this paper is to map the barriers to women leadership across healthcare, academia and business, and identify barriers prevalence across sectors. A barriers thematic map, with quantitative logic, and a prevalence chart have been developed, with the aim to uncover inequalities and provide orientation to develop inclusion and equal opportunity strategies within different work environments. \n \n \n \n \nDesign/methodology/approach \n \n \n \n \nA systematic literature review method was adopted across five electronic databases. Rigorous inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied to select relevant publications, followed by critical appraisal of the eligible articles. The geographical target was Europe, with a publication time range spanning the period from 2000 to 2015. Certain specialized international studies were also examined. The key themes were identified using summative content analysis and the findings were analyzed using qualitative meta-summary method to formulate hypotheses for subsequent research. \n \n \n \n \nFindings \n \n \n \n \nIn total, 26 barriers were identified across the aforementioned sectors. A high degree of barriers commonalities was identified, with some striking differences between the prevalence of barriers across sectors. \n \n \n \n \nResearch limitations/implications \n \n \n \n \nThe results of this study may need further validation using statistical methodology given the knowledge base gaps regarding the range of barriers and the differences in their prevalence. Bias and interpretation in reporting anchored in different theoretical frameworks ought to be further examined. Additional variables such as ambiguously stated barriers, sector overlap, women’s own choices, cultural and educational background and analysis in the context of the economic crisis, ensuing austerity and migratory pressure, are also worth exploring. \n \n \n \n \nPractical implications \n \n \n \n \nWomen’s notable and persisting underrepresentation in top leading positions across sectors reflects a critical drawback in terms of organizational and societal progress particularly regarding inclusion and balanced decision making. Practice-related blind spots may need to be further examined and addressed through specific policies. \n \n \n \n \nOriginality/value \n \n \n \n \nThe comparative nature of barriers to women leadership across three sectors allows the reader to contrast the differences in gender inequalities and to comprehend inclusion challenges in healthcare, academia and business. The authors draw attention to varying degrees of barriers prevalence that have been understudied and deserve to be further explored. This gap in knowledge extends to policy, thus, highlighting the need to address the gender equality and inclusion challenges in a context-specific manner across work environments.","PeriodicalId":46962,"journal":{"name":"Equality Diversity and Inclusion","volume":"36 1","pages":"457-474"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/EDI-03-2017-0058","citationCount":"44","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Equality Diversity and Inclusion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-03-2017-0058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 44

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to map the barriers to women leadership across healthcare, academia and business, and identify barriers prevalence across sectors. A barriers thematic map, with quantitative logic, and a prevalence chart have been developed, with the aim to uncover inequalities and provide orientation to develop inclusion and equal opportunity strategies within different work environments. Design/methodology/approach A systematic literature review method was adopted across five electronic databases. Rigorous inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied to select relevant publications, followed by critical appraisal of the eligible articles. The geographical target was Europe, with a publication time range spanning the period from 2000 to 2015. Certain specialized international studies were also examined. The key themes were identified using summative content analysis and the findings were analyzed using qualitative meta-summary method to formulate hypotheses for subsequent research. Findings In total, 26 barriers were identified across the aforementioned sectors. A high degree of barriers commonalities was identified, with some striking differences between the prevalence of barriers across sectors. Research limitations/implications The results of this study may need further validation using statistical methodology given the knowledge base gaps regarding the range of barriers and the differences in their prevalence. Bias and interpretation in reporting anchored in different theoretical frameworks ought to be further examined. Additional variables such as ambiguously stated barriers, sector overlap, women’s own choices, cultural and educational background and analysis in the context of the economic crisis, ensuing austerity and migratory pressure, are also worth exploring. Practical implications Women’s notable and persisting underrepresentation in top leading positions across sectors reflects a critical drawback in terms of organizational and societal progress particularly regarding inclusion and balanced decision making. Practice-related blind spots may need to be further examined and addressed through specific policies. Originality/value The comparative nature of barriers to women leadership across three sectors allows the reader to contrast the differences in gender inequalities and to comprehend inclusion challenges in healthcare, academia and business. The authors draw attention to varying degrees of barriers prevalence that have been understudied and deserve to be further explored. This gap in knowledge extends to policy, thus, highlighting the need to address the gender equality and inclusion challenges in a context-specific manner across work environments.
女性在医疗、学术和商业领域的领导障碍
本文的目的是绘制妇女在医疗保健、学术界和商界领导的障碍,并确定跨部门的障碍普遍存在。制定了带有定量逻辑的障碍专题地图和流行图表,目的是揭示不平等现象,并为在不同工作环境中制定包容和平等机会战略提供方向。设计/方法/方法在五个电子数据库中采用系统文献综述法。采用严格的纳入/排除标准来选择相关出版物,然后对符合条件的文章进行严格评估。地理目标是欧洲,出版时间范围从2000年到2015年。还审查了某些专门的国际研究。使用总结性内容分析确定关键主题,并使用定性元总结方法分析研究结果,为后续研究制定假设。在上述部门中,总共确定了26个障碍。确定了高度的障碍共性,各部门之间障碍的普遍程度存在一些显著差异。考虑到障碍范围和患病率差异方面的知识基础差距,本研究的结果可能需要使用统计方法进一步验证。应进一步审查基于不同理论框架的报告中的偏见和解释。其他变数,如表述含糊的障碍、部门重叠、妇女自己的选择、文化和教育背景以及在经济危机背景下的分析、随之而来的紧缩和移徙压力,也值得探讨。妇女在各个部门的高层领导职位中明显且持续的代表性不足反映了组织和社会进步方面的一个重大缺陷,特别是在包容和平衡决策方面。与实践相关的盲点可能需要进一步检查,并通过具体政策加以解决。原创性/价值女性在三个领域的领导障碍的比较性质使读者能够对比性别不平等的差异,并理解医疗保健、学术界和商业领域的包容性挑战。作者提请注意不同程度的障碍患病率,这些障碍尚未得到充分研究,值得进一步探索。这种知识差距延伸到政策,因此,突出需要在不同的工作环境中以具体情况的方式解决性别平等和包容的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.30%
发文量
50
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信