{"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}
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.
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.