https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8455-0058
Abstract
Background and objectives
This study protocol employs critical race and intersectionality theories to investigate barriers faced by racialized women at various academic career stages within Canadian primary care (PC) and public health (PH). The objectives are to identify faculty characteristics, examine intersectional barriers, and recommend equity-focused, inclusive strategies and policies.
Research design and methods
The study adopts a sequential mixed-methods approach. A quantitative survey and/or existing datasets will be used to collect demographic data on PC and PH academic position holders in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada. Data will also examine experiences of workplace discrimination; equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) resource use; and departmental satisfaction. Subsequently, we will conduct interviews with researchers and leaders who are responsible for hiring and involved in or addressing matters related to EDI. Inductive and deductive approaches will be used to analyze the data in accordance with theoretical frameworks to deepen insights into equity and inclusion in academia.
Results
The quantitative phase will profile PC and PH academic position holders, highlighting disparities in positions and leadership roles. The qualitative study will explore intersectional challenges faced by racialized women academic position holders during career progression. Preliminary findings will inform effective equity-promoting strategies.
Discussion and implications
This study aims to contribute to the existing body of knowledge on gender and racial inequities in academia by uncovering systemic identity-based disparities in the careers of PC and PH researchers in Canada. The findings will inform the development of targeted interventions to promote equitable hiring, faculty support, and leadership advancement, enhancing diversity and productivity through an inclusive and equitable academic environment. Findings will be shared via publications, policy briefs, workshops, and online platforms to engage academics, advocacy groups, funders and policymakers in promoting equity and driving institutional change in PC and PH research.
Citation: Aggarwal M, Wong ST, Tricco AC, Turin TC, Lofters A, Agarwal G, et al. (2026) Breaking barriers: A study protocol on unveiling gender, racial and other intersectional dynamics in post-secondary institutions and identifying solutions for advancing primary care and public health research. PLoS One 21(3): e0344467. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344467
Editor: Katrien G. Janin, PLOS: Public Library of Science, UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
Received: February 17, 2026; Accepted: February 19, 2026; Published: March 17, 2026
Copyright: © 2026 Aggarwal et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: This is a protocol. There is no data.
Funding: MA is supported by the Insight Development Grants: 2024 Competition (430-2024-00198). https://webapps.nserc.ca/SSHRC/faces/logon.jsp?lang=en_CA AT is funded by the CIHR Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis. https://webapps.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/decisions/p/main.html?lang=en#sort=namesort%20asc&start=0&rows=20 The funders had no role in the study design, the decision to publish, or the preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Research is vital for advancing primary care (PC) and public health (PH), particularly amid the ongoing PC crisis in Canada [1,2]. Effective research informs policymaking and meets community needs [3]. A diverse academic workforce is essential for fostering innovation [4], critical dialogue [5], research productivity [6], and producing rigorous research that benefits patients and all members of society [7]. However, research shows that individual and organizational systemic bias on the basis of gender and race hinders research productivity (often measured by publication count, citation count, and h-index) [8] across health fields [9] and career stages [10,11], which can lead to burnout [12,13] and workforce attrition [14].
Women and racialized academic position holders have lower publication rates compared to white men [15,16]. A recent systematic review showed that women in academic medicine had lower publication productivity than men across all career stages and all specialties [17]. Even with equal collaboration with men in medicine and health sciences, first-authored articles by women receive fewer citations [18]. Globally, women, specifically racialized women, in health specialties also face challenges with securing funding from granting agencies [19–24], further worsening racial inequities in early-career researchers and negatively impacting career advancement [25]. Discriminatory practices and biases in the academic workplace impede the research productivity of women and racialized academic position holders [26–28], from entry-level to faculty and leadership roles.
Research consistently shows that women, especially racialized women, face challenges with being offered and entering faculty roles in medicine. More male faculty compared to women faculty are hired across medical specialties except obstetrics and gynecology [17]. A recent study showed significant inequalities in United States faculty hiring and retention, with limited progress toward long-term gender parity in hiring practices [29]. Furthermore, racialized women academic position holders are persistently underrepresented in medicine, science and social science fields [30–39]. When they are hired, they are often in non-tenured contractual positions, which further limits their advancement, salary, and leadership power [40]. Women of colour may hesitate to speak out against the injustices they face personally due to concerns about being perceived as disruptive [40] and employer retaliation [41].
As faculty, women have lower research productivity. This has been attributed to inadequate institutional support, especially for racialized women. This includes a need for more support for financial resources, mentorship, social capital and fair performance expectations. Parenthood further diminishes the research productivity of women, with mothers producing significantly fewer papers than fathers after childbirth [42]. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated inequities for women, leading to reduced publications and grants due to greater caregiving responsibilities [43]. A study involving Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics faculty [43] found that 43% of women, compared to 23% of men, exited full-time employment following the birth of their first child [43]. Inadequate parental leave policies and childcare facilities further accentuate these challenges [44]. For example, grantees and post-doctoral fellows are not eligible for parental leave [45], leading to expectations that they continue their work during maternity leave.
Workplace cultures also serve as barriers to research productivity. Studies indicate that workplace culture often excludes women, particularly racialized women, from research networks and networking events [46–48]. This exclusion is due to discriminatory practices rooted in biases and stereotypes, which hinder the research productivity of women. Toxic work environments are prevalent in medical specialties, where harassment, bullying and microaggressions directed towards women and racialized women are common issues [30,49,50]. In Canada, research shows that racialized women researchers have been the targets of harassment from colleagues and leaders in the workplace. Employers foster these cultures by discouraging racialized women from speaking up by instilling fear of retaliation [51–53] or hosting events at times or locations when women are unable to attend [54], allowing microaggressions and harassment to continue in the workplace. The literature also suggests women faculty spend more time on service and teaching compared to their male counterparts [55], with racialized women academic position holders assigned the most undesirable tasks [56]. Biases that racialized women are less credible and lacking in skills and intellect [57] can result in devaluing their scholarship through lack of recognition or attributing credit to colleagues [58].
During career advancement, women are also underrepresented in leadership positions in academic medicine [59,60], including dentistry [61], emergency medicine [62], gastroenterology [63–65], cardiology [66,67], general surgery [68], pediatrics and geriatrics [60]. In 2019, women in the United States comprised 19% of the total number of chairs in medical schools. Black, Indigenous, and People of Color and Underrepresented Minority women constituted only 24% and 15% of female chairs and 5% and 3% of all chairs in medical schools, respectively [69]. Barriers in medicine and biological sciences fields include implicit biases [61,70–72], limited mentorship opportunities [73–77], scarcity of women role models [78,79], and discrimination and harassment due to racism and ethnicity [26,80,81].
While there is existing research on sex, gender and racial disparities in academia (science and medical specialty disciplines), our comprehensive review of the literature indicates there are no studies that examine the role of intersecting social identities in PC and PH research during different career stages – at entry, as faculty and in leadership. In addition, there is a lack of knowledge of how the operational dynamics of PC and PH departments and institutions support or hinder equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) efforts. Departmental dynamics (contexts) refer to the culture, policies, and power structures within specific academic departments, directly affecting faculty members’ day-to-day interactions, access to resources, and support within their immediate work environment [82]. Institutional dynamics, on the other hand, encompass the broader culture, policies, and structural frameworks of the entire university or organization [83], such as hiring processes [84].
Key objectives of this study include
Objective 1: Identifying demographic characteristics of academic and leadership position holders in PC and PH departments.
Objective 2: Exploring intersectional experiences of racialized women academic position holders to highlight the systemic, institutional and departmental barriers faced by researchers at entry, as faculty and in leadership roles. This includes examining experiences of discrimination and microaggressions, as well as how multiple dimensions of marginalization (e.g., sexual identity, disability, age, immigration status, etc.) intersect with race and gender across career stages. This exploration will capture the nuances of how different identities and backgrounds influence faculty members’ experiences within PC and PH.
Objective 3: Recommending actionable strategies and policies that can be implemented at the system, institutional and departmental levels within PC and PH research environments to foster an inclusive culture that amplifies diverse voices and ensures equitable recognition of contributions across the academic landscape.
Theoretical orientation
The proposed study will combine Critical Race Theory (CRT) [84,85] and Intersectionality Theory [86,87]. CRT contends that racism is not merely based on individual acts of prejudice but deeply ingrained in societal structures and institutions, perpetuating systemic inequalities [85]. The theory underscores the importance of understanding how policies and institutions contribute to and maintain racial disparities, emphasizing the importance of understanding the lived experiences of marginalized groups and their historical contexts [85]. While the primary analytic focus remains on racialized women, the study explicitly attends to other intersecting dimensions of marginalization, including sexual identity, disability, age, immigration status, and related identity-based factors. Intersectionality Theory complements CRT by exploring how multiple social identities intersect to create unique experiences of oppression and privilege [88–90]. Intersectionality theory aligns with feminist theory in its shared focus on power structures, social inequality, and the lived experiences of marginalized individuals, particularly women. Both theories aim to deconstruct traditional narratives that oversimplify or ignore the experiences of those who are marginalized and emphasize understanding experiences through a more holistic, inclusive lens [91,92]. Both feminist and intersectionality theories are concerned with understanding how systems of power (patriarchy, racism, capitalism) perpetuate inequality. Intersectionality adds depth by analyzing how these systems overlap and intersect, creating unique experiences of oppression for women with multiple marginalized identities [91].
CRT and Intersectionality Theories have been used across disciplines within academia [93–95]. We will combine these theories as a conceptual framework to understand the experiences of women researchers and leaders with various identities and to identify solutions for structural changes within academic institutions to address systemic racism and address disparities in funding, scholarships, and access to educational resources [87,88]. In this study, we differentiate between “female” and “male” as biological categories, referring to individuals’ physiological attributes, and “women” and “men” as social and cultural identities that encompass the roles, behaviours, and experiences shaped by societal norms [96]. We recognize that while “female” and “male” denote biological sex, “women” and “men” reflect the complex interplay of gender identity, socialization, and cultural expectations.
Methods
Study design: Mixed methods study
The study will employ a solutions-oriented [97], sequential mixed-methods design [98] to explore the intersectional barriers faced by female academic position holders, particularly racialized women, in PC and PH research in Canada. First, a quantitative study will collect and analyze demographic data of PC and PH academic and leadership position holders. The survey will be reported using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines, which provide a framework for transparent and comprehensive reporting of observational studies, including those involving surveys, to enhance the quality and reliability of the findings [99]. Second, a qualitative study will be completed using in-depth interviews. The qualitative interviews and surveys will be conducted in accordance with established reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) [100]. This design allows for a comprehensive understanding of both the breadth and depth of the challenges faced by women and those who identify as women academic position holders, facilitating the identification of effective strategies to promote equity and inclusion.
Setting and intervention
The study will be conducted across academic settings conducting PC and PH research, including universities in Ontario (ON) and British Columbia (BC). This will include departments, schools and institutes of family medicine, nursing, public health, health services research, policy and management. By including a diversity of PC disciplines, we aim to understand the impediments to research productivity, regardless of the specific departmental affiliation within institutions. ON and BC were selected as jurisdictions due to the significant proportion of the population identifying as racialized individuals residing [101,102] and the presence of academic institutions with substantial PC and PH research activities.
Quantitative study (Objective 1)
Population sample.
Participants will include academic position holders who are professors in PC and PH academia. We will use the U15 Group of Canadian Universities [103]. This includes the University of Toronto, McMaster University, Western University, Queen’s University, York University, the University of Ottawa, the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, the University of Victoria, Thompson Rivers University, the British Columbia Institute of Technology, and Kwantlen Polytechnic University.
Then, we will collect comprehensive data on the demographic attributes and career profiles of PC and PH researchers. This will include conducting surveys with faculty. Academic position holders interested in participating in the study will document their written consent as part of an electronic survey.
Survey.
Demographic data collection will include critical factors that are often unexamined but are essential to understanding the full context of academic position holders’ lives and their impact on career progression. This will involve detailed attention to family and home life, including the presence and age of children, their ages, when they were born (while studying, on the tenure track, etc.). Demographic data collection will be informed by our literature review and include: Tenure Status (tenured and non-tenured roles) [104,105]); FTE status; Gender (gender distribution) [18,106]), Ethnicity or Race (racial or ethnic backgrounds) [107]); Academic Rank (academic positions, including assistant, associate, and full professors [108,109]); Educational Background (educational qualifications and degrees held by researchers, e.g., PhD vs MD vs MD-PhD etc. [110]); Years of Experience (range of experience among faculty members [111]); Institutional Context (exploring institutional characteristics (location, funding sources, and institution size) [110]); Parental Status (dependent children or are caregivers [112,113]), including when children were born during their career [114]); Family Structure (family structures, including single-parent households, dual-career families, and other caregiving arrangements, including elderly parents [112,113]); Marital Status/ Spouse/Partner Career (careers or professional engagements of spouses or partners provides context to researchers’ support systems and potential constraints such as relocation [112]); Salary; Leadership Role (position in organization, salary, leadership training opportunities [115,116]).
An electronic survey will be administered to PC and PH academic position holders to also collect data on their awareness and utilization of EDI resources, such as EDI office initiatives, training programs (i.e., leadership, teaching), mentorship opportunities, and overall satisfaction within the department or institution. The survey will also incorporate validated measures of workplace discrimination [117] and microaggressions [118] to capture faculty experiences of discrimination alongside career trajectories and advancement (S1 File). At the departmental and institutional level, data will be collected on strategic plans and resources. Data collection will begin in March and will be completed in April 2026.
Data Analysis.
Descriptive statistical methods will be employed to analyze the quantitative data, focusing on identifying overarching patterns and distributions among PC and PH faculty academic position holders in ON and BC. We will examine characteristics and trends using descriptive statistics to summarize the demographic data of PC and PH faculty [119]. Comparative analyses and subgroup examinations will identify disparities or trends within demographic groups, offering nuanced insights. T-tests, ANOVA, and chi-square tests will be calculated to compare groups based on variables such as age, gender, rank, length of appointment, leadership position, status (tenure versus contract), institution, institutional setting (university, research institutes, hospital) and research focus, where possible. These methods allow for a more granular understanding of how demographic and professional factors influence the characteristics of PC and PH faculty, thereby informing targeted interventions or policies.
Qualitative study (Objectives 2 and 3)
Population sample.
Participants will include women and those who identify as women academic position holders at different career stages (i.e., entry into faculty, as a faculty member and within leadership) and individuals involved in leadership roles and EDI committees and unions representing faculty to understand their experiences with hiring, harassment, complaints, and potential interventions and their effectiveness for an inclusive and diverse workforce. We will employ a maximum variation sampling technique [120] to ensure a diverse representation of participants across different career stages, genders, ethnicities, and academic backgrounds (MD, non-MD, PhD). For leaders, selection will be based on roles (Dean, Chair, Committees, Ombudsmen, Unions) to capture various organizational viewpoints. We will aim for representation from academic institutions in ON and BC to capture institutional diversity.
We will focus on gender rather than biological sex in the recruitment for our study to understanding the nuanced experiences and challenges faced by individuals in academia. By emphasizing gender, we can better examine how societal norms, roles, and expectations influence professional experiences, career progression, and systemic barriers within academia. This focus allows us to explore how gender dynamics impact hiring practices, workplace culture, and perceptions of leadership, particularly for gender minorities.
Using the information gathered in Phase 1, as well as the collaborative partnerships formed with faculty administration, we will invite participants to partake in an interview. Specifically, individuals identified through the Phase 1 data collection process will be sent personalized invitations to participate in the study. The invitation will outline the objectives of the study, emphasize its importance, and highlight the potential benefits of participation as well as its confidentiality, which is important in this situation due to documented fear of retaliation. In addition, we will distribute a flyer to faculty through their administration. Additional reminders will be sent to non-responders to maximize response rates.
We will conduct in-depth semi-structured interviews [121]. Semi-structured interviews allow for capturing participants’ experiences and perceptions of complex topics. Interviews will be adaptable and empathetic to participants’ needs. For example, we will schedule interviews at times and in formats (e.g., in-person, online) that are contextually appropriate and mitigate barriers to participation [122]. Prior to the interview, we will administer a demographic survey to inform purposeful and theoretical sampling [123], and the study findings from the first phase will be shared for comment. Using a maximum variation sampling technique [124], 15 researchers per jurisdiction and 10 leaders with experience in hiring practices or experiences related to EDI will be interviewed one-on-one using a semi-structured interview guide. Drawing from existing literature on gender and racial disparities in academia, the interview guide will focus on factors that impede the research productivity of racialized women academic position holders, including systemic biases and workforce cultures [125–128] (S2 File). Interviews will be conducted by experienced research staff and explore participants’ experiences and perceptions related to: system barriers (i.e., grant competitions, awards, media requests, and recognition); institutional barriers (i.e., supervisor’s role in potential entry into faculty, hiring practices, the role of leadership, harassment and bullying, engagement in collaborations, workplace policies and supports, EDI initiatives); and potential interventions and strategies that can foster an inclusive and diverse workforce for racialized women at all career stages. By aligning the interview guide with insights from the literature, the study ensures that critical topics are covered while also allowing for the exploration of emerging themes and participant-driven narratives. At the same time, to avoid an extractive approach, it’s crucial to view participants not merely as “subjects” but as co-creators of knowledge [129]. As such, we will also ask participants about their own goals and concerns related to the study’s topic.
Data Analysis.
Interview data will be audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim by a professional. The transcriptions will then be subjected to an inductive and deductive thematic analysis [130] by allowing themes to emerge from the data while also applying our theoretical frameworks (CRT and intersectionality) to enhance our understanding of the participants’ narratives. Thematic analysis will involve several steps: familiarization with the data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the final report. An inductive, iterative approach to thematic analysis allows themes to closely align with a participant’s own words and experiences. This method is widely recognized in qualitative research for its flexibility and rigour in uncovering underlying patterns within qualitative data [130]. It facilitates a deep understanding of the participants’ perspectives, which is essential for accurately capturing the complexity of their experiences and viewpoints. Following the initial inductive coding process, we will utilize CRT to explore how systemic racism and power dynamics shape the experiences of participants [85]. Simultaneously, we will apply intersectionality to examine how various identities—such as race, gender, ethnicity socioeconomic status, discipline, clinician versus non-clinician, ethnicity, immigration status, caregiver status—interact to shape participants’ experiences in complex ways [86]. This dual theoretical approach will enable us to identify themes that capture both individual lived experiences and the broader structural factors at play, drawing attention to intersecting inequalities and unique challenges faced by diverse groups within the PC and PH system. Coding and analysis will be an iterative process that will involve the research team frequently returning to the data to ensure no participant voice or narrative is oversimplified [131].
Moreover, our positionality as academic position holders from diverse backgrounds will inform the analysis, promoting reflexivity and minimizing bias in interpreting participants’ narratives. Our team comprises individuals with varying identities, including women, men, and women of color, as well as academic position holders with lived experiences in marginalized communities within academia. Therefore, reflexivity will occur through a structured and ongoing process throughout the research study [132]. We will hold frequent team meetings to discuss our evolving thoughts, experiences, and potential biases as we engage with the data. These discussions will provide a platform for team members to share insights from their positionality and how it might influence the interpretation of participants’ narratives. When analyzing the data, we will actively seek out differing viewpoints within the team. By encouraging open dialogue and critical discussion of the themes and interpretations, we can challenge one another’s perspectives and enrich the analysis with diverse insights. This practice will also encourage individual team members to critically engage with their biases and assumptions, as well as how these may shape their analysis of the data.
Descriptive statistics will also be calculated for variables that describe the characteristics of the interview sample [133]. This includes demographic information such as age, gender, and ethnicity, caregiver status, marital status as well as professional attributes such as rank, institution, and status.
Triangulation of the results.
We will combine quantitative survey results, which highlight patterns and trends in demographics, career profiles, and EDI resource utilization, with qualitative insights that delve into personal experiences of systemic, institutional and departmental barriers. This multi-method approach will contextualize quantitative trends within lived experiences, allowing us to explore if and how demographic variables correlate with qualitative themes. For example, if quantitative data show significant differences in research productivity between PC and PH faculty, qualitative data will be examined to understand the contextual factors behind these differences. Likewise, the survey data on resource awareness will be cross-referenced with qualitative insights on the perceived effectiveness of these resources, enabling us to provide a nuanced perspective on EDI initiatives.
Given our team’s diverse gender, racial, and professional identities, we will collaboratively analyze data with an emphasis on reflexivity [134]. Regular team meetings will encourage discussion of biases and assumptions, ensuring diverse perspectives inform the interpretation of the data and bolstering the credibility of the analysis [135].
As the study progresses, we will provide willing participants with updates on how the research is being used to enhance accountability and trust. Data collection and analyses for objectives 2 and 3 will begin in April and end in December of 2026.
Discussion
The proposed study employs a solutions-oriented, sequential mixed-methods design to explore the intersectional barriers faced by women academic position holders, particularly racialized women, in PC and PH research in Canada. The study is structured in two phases: a quantitative phase to collect and analyze demographic data, followed by a qualitative phase involving in-depth interviews. This design allows for a comprehensive understanding of both the breadth and depth of the challenges faced by women academic position holders, facilitating the identification of effective strategies to promote equity and inclusion. While there is existing research on gender and racial disparities in academia (science and medical specialty disciplines), our comprehensive review of the literature indicates there are few studies that examine the role of race and gender across career stages in PC and PH in higher education, and there are no studies from Canada. As such, this gap underscores the need to investigate the intersectional challenges faced by diverse PC and PH researchers, facilitating the identification of interventions for promoting gender and racial equity in research. The study’s recommendations can include equitable hiring, faculty support, and leadership advancements.
Rigour
The sequential mixed-methods design combines the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative approaches, providing a comprehensive understanding of the research problem. This methodological triangulation enhances the credibility of the findings by corroborating data from different sources [136]. Moreover, employing maximum variation sampling will ensure a diverse representation of participants across different career stages, ethnicities, and academic backgrounds. This approach enhances the transferability of the findings to a broader context [137]. Confirmability will be achieved through reflexivity, where researchers will continuously reflect on their own biases and assumptions and how these may influence the research process and findings [137].
Knowledge Dissemination
The knowledge dissemination plan for this study aims to reach a broad range of stakeholders through various channels to maximize its impact. Findings will be shared with the academic community via peer-reviewed journal articles and conference presentations, targeting academic and leadership position holders to stimulate discussions on equity and systemic change within institutions. Policy briefs and reports summarizing key findings and recommendations will be distributed to university administrators, deans, human resources departments, equity-focused offices, and funders to inform the development of more inclusive hiring practices, faculty support programs, and leadership initiatives. Additionally, workshops and webinars will engage professional associations and advocacy groups to promote widespread acceptance of strategies for change. Outreach to racialized women will ensure that underrepresented groups are represented and that their voices are included in conversations about academic equity. Lastly, key findings and resources will be shared on social media platforms, university websites, and open-access forums to engage students, early career and marginalized academic position holders, fostering broader awareness and ongoing dialogue on equity and inclusion in research.
Study Limitations
Despite the comprehensive design of the proposed study, several limitations need to be acknowledged. Firstly, the scope is geographically limited to ON and BC, Canada, which may restrict the generalizability and transferability of the findings to other Canadian jurisdictions or international contexts [138], as the demographic and institutional characteristics of PC and PH academic position holders in other regions may vary. Secondly, if data on demographics are not available, the reliance on self-reported data for the quantitative phase may introduce response bias. Participants may under-report or over-report their experiences and demographic details, influenced by social desirability or recall bias [139]. Thirdly, institutional policies and practices regarding data sharing and transparency can affect the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the demographic and career-related data collected. Fourth, the qualitative phase relies on maximum variation sampling to ensure diverse perspectives [124], but the small sample size may limit the breadth of experiences captured. Despite best efforts, the focus on women and racialized women may overlook other intersecting identities, such as disability and sexual orientation, which may also cause unique barriers in academia [140–142].
Conclusion
This study protocol outlines a comprehensive approach to examining the intersectional barriers faced by women, particularly racialized women, in Canadian PC and PH research. Utilizing critical race and intersectionality theories, the study aims to identify faculty characteristics, explore intersectional experiences, and recommend strategies to promote EDI in academic settings. The proposed study’s mixed-methods design, encompassing both quantitative demographic analysis and qualitative in-depth interviews, seeks to provide a holistic understanding of the systemic challenges and opportunities for women academic position holders at various career stages. The findings are expected to illuminate disparities in research productivity, institutional support, and workplace culture, contributing to a nuanced understanding of how gender, race, and other identities intersect and impact career trajectories in PC and PH academia. Despite the anticipated contributions, the study acknowledges limitations such as geographic restriction to ON and BC, potential response biases, and the challenges of capturing the full spectrum of intersectional identities and experiences. Ultimately, this study aims to inform the development of targeted interventions and policies that will foster a more equitable and supportive environment for women and racialized academic position holders in PC and PH. By addressing the identified barriers, the study seeks to enhance research productivity, career satisfaction, and retention of diverse talents in PC and PH, thereby contributing to more inclusive and innovative research that benefits a wider range of patients and society.
References
- 1. Aggarwal M, Hutchison B, Abdelhalim R, Baker GR. Building High-Performing Primary Care Systems: After a Decade of Policy Change, Is Canada “Walking the Talk?”. Milbank Q. 2023;101(4):1139–90. pmid:37743824
- 2. Aggarwal M, Hutchison B, Katz A, Wong ST, Marshall EG, Slade S. Assessing the impact of Canadian primary care research and researchers: Citation analysis. Can Fam Physician. 2024;70(5):329–41. pmid:38744505
- 3. Aggarwal M, Hutchison B, Wong ST, Katz A, Slade S, Snelgrove D. What factors are associated with the research productivity of primary care researchers in Canada? A qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024;24(1):263. pmid:38429708
- 4. Swartz TH, Palermo A-GS, Masur SK, Aberg JA. The Science and Value of Diversity: Closing the Gaps in Our Understanding of Inclusion and Diversity. J Infect Dis. 2019;220(220 Suppl 2):S33–41. pmid:31430380
- 5. Georgeac OAM, Rattan A. The business case for diversity backfires: Detrimental effects of organizations’ instrumental diversity rhetoric for underrepresented group members’ sense of belonging. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2023;124(1):69–108. pmid:35679195
- 6. Choi H, Oh D. The importance of research teams with diverse backgrounds: Research collaboration in the Journal of Productivity Analysis. J Prod Anal. 2019;53(1):5–19.
- 7. Culhane-Pera KA, Pergament SL, Kasouaher MY, Pattock AM, Dhore N, Kaigama CN, et al. Diverse community leaders’ perspectives about quality primary healthcare and healthcare measurement: Qualitative community-based participatory research. Int J Equity Health. 2021;20(1):226. pmid:34663330
- 8. Abramo G, D’Angelo CA. How do you define and measure research productivity?. Scientometrics. 2014;101(2):1129–44.
- 9.
Connolly MR, Lee YG, Savoy JN. Faculty hiring and tenure by sex and race: new evidence from a national survey. In: Chicago, IL, 2015.
- 10. Perna LW. Sex and Race Differences in Faculty Tenure and Promotion. Research in Higher Education. 2001;42(5):541–67.
- 11. Wright-Kim J, Perna LW. Gender and Race-Based Differences in Negotiating Behavior among Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty at Four-Year Institutions. rhe. 2023;47(1):61–91.
- 12. Taka F, Nomura K, Horie S, Takemoto K, Takeuchi M, Takenoshita S, et al. Organizational climate with gender equity and burnout among university academics in Japan. Ind Health. 2016;54(6):480–7. pmid:27725562
- 13. Elliott M, Blithe SJ. Gender Inequality, Stress Exposure, and Well-Being among Academic Faculty. International Journal of Higher Education. 2021;10(2):240–52.
- 14. Alfred MV, Ray SM, Johnson MA. Advancing Women of Color in STEM: An Imperative for U.S. Global Competitiveness. Advances in Developing Human Resources. 2018;21(1):114–32.
- 15. Lerchenmueller MJ, Sorenson O. The gender gap in early career transitions in the life sciences. Research Policy. 2018;47(6):1007–17.
- 16. Pico T, Bierman P, Doyle K, Richardson S. First Authorship Gender Gap in the Geosciences. Earth and Space Science. 2020;7(8).
- 17. Ha GL, Lehrer EJ, Wang M, Holliday E, Jagsi R, Zaorsky NG. Sex Differences in Academic Productivity Across Academic Ranks and Specialties in Academic Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(6):e2112404. pmid:34185071
- 18. Beaudry C, Larivière V. Which gender gap? Factors affecting researchers’ scientific impact in science and medicine. Research Policy. 2016;45(9):1790–817.
- 19. Burns KEA, Straus SE, Liu K, Rizvi L, Guyatt G. Gender differences in grant and personnel award funding rates at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research based on research content area: A retrospective analysis. PLoS Med. 2019;16(10):e1002935. pmid:31613898
- 20.
Ranga M, Gupta N, Etzkowitz H. Gender effects in research funding. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. 2012.
- 21. Safdar B, Naveed S, Chaudhary AMD, Saboor S, Zeshan M, Khosa F. Gender Disparity in Grants and Awards at the National Institute of Health. Cureus. 2021;13(4):e14644. pmid:34046277
- 22. Gordon MB, Osganian SK, Emans SJ, Lovejoy Jr FH. Gender differences in research grant applications for pediatric residents. Pediatrics. 2009;124(2):e355–61.
- 23. Alvarez SNE, Jagsi R, Abbuhl SB, Lee CJ, Myers ER. Promoting gender equity in grant making: what can a funder do?. Lancet. 2019;393(10171):e9–11. pmid:30739709
- 24. van der Lee R, Ellemers N. Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(40):12349–53. pmid:26392544
- 25. Park ASJ, Bahia J. Examining the Experiences of Racialized and Indigenous Graduate Students as Emerging Researchers. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity. 2022;8(3):403–17.
- 26. Bourabain D. Everyday sexism and racism in the ivory tower: The experiences of early career researchers on the intersection of gender and ethnicity in the academic workplace. Gender Work & Organization. 2020;28(1):248–67.
- 27. Settles IH, Cortina LM, Malley J, Stewart AJ. The Climate for Women in Academic Science: The Good, the Bad, and the Changeable. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2006;30(1):47–58.
- 28. Willis M, Bridges AJ, Jozkowski KN. Gender and racial/ethnic disparities in rates of publishing and inclusion in scientific-review processes. Translational Issues in Psychological Science. 2021;7(4):451–61.
- 29. Wapman KH, Zhang S, Clauset A, Larremore DB. Quantifying hierarchy and dynamics in US faculty hiring and retention. Nature. 2022;610(7930):120–7. pmid:36131023
- 30. Mohamed T, Beagan BL. ‘Strange faces’ in the academy: experiences of racialized and Indigenous faculty in Canadian universities. Race Ethnicity and Education. 2018;22(3):338–54.
- 31. Henry F, Tator C. Interviews with Racialized Faculty Members in Canadian Universities. ces. 2012;44(1):75–99.
- 32.
Ramos H, Li PS, Henry F, Dua E, James C, Kobayashi A. Differences in representation and employment income of racialized university professors in Canada. The equity myth: Racialization and indigeneity at Canadian universities. 2017. p. 46–64.
- 33. Spafford MM, Nygaard VL, Gregor F, Boyd MA. “Navigating the Different Spaces”: Experiences of Inclusion and Isolation Among Racially Minoritized Faculty in Canada. CJHE. 2006;36(1):01–27.
- 34. Abawi Z. Factors and processes of racialization in the Canadian academe. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education/Revue canadienne des jeunes chercheures et chercheurs en éducation. 2018;9(1).
- 35. Henry F, Dua E, Kobayashi A, James C, Li P, Ramos H, et al. Race, racialization and Indigeneity in Canadian universities. Race Ethnicity and Education. 2016;20(3):300–14.
- 36.
Henry F, Kobayashi A. The everyday world of racialized and indigenous faculty members in Canadian universities. The equity myth: Racialization and Indigeneity at Canadian universities. 2017. p. 115–54.
- 37.
Wijesingha R. Disparities in tenure and promotion outcomes among racialized and female faculty in Canadian universities. 2021.
- 38. Wijesingha R, Robson K. Glass ceiling or murky waters: The gendered and racialized pathway to full professorship in Canada. Can Rev Sociol. 2022;59(1):23–42. pmid:34951519
- 39.
Wright E, Cukier W. Assessing Diversity and Inclusion within Canadian Universities.
- 40. Lin PS, Kennette LN. Creating an inclusive community for BIPOC faculty: women of color in academia. SN Soc Sci. 2022;2(11):246. pmid:36339527
- 41.
Thomas L. They want our rhythm but not our blues: examining how Black women in higher education leadership cope with racial and gendered microaggressions. California State University, Los Angeles. 2023.
- 42. Morgan AC, Way SF, Hoefer MJD, Larremore DB, Galesic M, Clauset A. The unequal impact of parenthood in academia. Sci Adv. 2021;7(9):eabd1996. pmid:33627417
- 43. Cech EA, Blair-Loy M. The changing career trajectories of new parents in STEM. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116(10):4182–7. pmid:30782835
- 44. Dolamore S, Henderson A, Carrizales T. Structural obstacles for women in academia: Availability and costs of campus child care. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy. 2021;28(1):9.
- 45.
Lee J, Williams JC, Li S. Parents in the pipeline: Retaining postdoctoral researchers with families. 2017.
- 46. Lerchenmüller C, Lerchenmueller MJ, Sorenson O. Long-Term Analysis of Sex Differences in Prestigious Authorships in Cardiovascular Research Supported by the National Institutes of Health. Circulation. 2018;137(8):880–2. pmid:29459476
- 47. Lerchenmueller MJ, Sorensen O. Junior female scientists aren’t getting the credit they deserve. Harvard Business Review. 2017;2017.
- 48. Cunningham JA, Escribá-Esteve A, Foncubierta-Rodríguez MJ, Martín-Alcázar F, Perea-Vicente JL. A gender study of principal investigator lead public R&D centres and funding. Economics of Innovation and New Technology. 2021;31(1–2):54–69.
- 49.
Butler PD, Wexner SD, Alimi YR, Dent DL, Fayanju OM, Gantt NL, et al. Society of Black Academic Surgeons (SBAS) diversity, equity, and inclusion series: Microaggressions-Lessons Learned from Black Academic Surgeons. Elsevier. 2023.136–48.
- 50.
Muhammad M, López N. Scholar while Black: Theorizing race-gender micro/macroaggressions as covert racist actions for maintaining white domination in academia in a “post-racial” society. Dismantling constructs of whiteness in higher education. Routledge. 2022. 187–205.
- 51. Calafell BM. “Did It Happen Because of Your Race or Sex?”: University Sexual Harassment Policies and the Move against Intersectionality. fro. 2014;35(3):75–95.
- 52.
Maharaj N. The experiences of racialized female faculty at Queen’s University. Queen’s University. 2009.
- 53. Dengate J, Peter T, Farenhorst A, Franz-Odendaal T. Selective incivility, harassment, and discrimination in Canadian sciences & engineering: A sociological approach. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology. 2019;11(2):332–53.
- 54.
Walton E, Yates J, Blake L, Waage J, Kadiyala S. Virtual academic conferences: A mixed-methods study of equitable participation according to gender and country-income level. 2022.
- 55. O’Meara K, Kuvaeva A, Nyunt G, Waugaman C, Jackson R. Asked More Often: Gender Differences in Faculty Workload in Research Universities and the Work Interactions That Shape Them. American Educational Research Journal. 2017;54(6):1154–86.
- 56.
McGee EO. Black, brown, bruised: How racialized STEM education stifles innovation. Harvard Education Press. 2021.
- 57. Gonzales LD, Terosky AL. From the Faculty Perspective: Defining, Earning, and Maintaining Legitimacy across Academia. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education. 2016;118(7):1–44.
- 58. Settles IH, Jones MK, Buchanan NT, Dotson K. Epistemic exclusion: Scholar(ly) devaluation that marginalizes faculty of color. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. 2021;14(4):493–507.
- 59. Carnes M, Morrissey C, Geller SE. Women’s health and women’s leadership in academic medicine: hitting the same glass ceiling? Journal of women’s health. 2008;17(9):1453–62.
- 60. Rochon PA, Davidoff F, Levinson W. Women in Academic Medicine Leadership: Has Anything Changed in 25 Years?. Acad Med. 2016;91(8):1053–6. pmid:27306972
- 61. Gangwani P, Kolokythas A. Gender Gap in Leadership in Academic Medicine and Dentistry: What Are the Barriers? What Can Be Done To Correct It?. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77(8):1536–40. pmid:31370924
- 62. Hobgood CD, Draucker C. Barriers, Challenges, and Solutions: What Can We Learn About Leadership in Academic Medicine From a Qualitative Study of Emergency Medicine Women Chairs?. Acad Med. 2022;97(11):1656–64. pmid:35703191
- 63. John JJ, John ES, Pioppo L, Gupta A, Chokhavatia S, Tilara A. Gender disparity in academic gastroenterology: beginning of the end of the underrepresentation of women?. Digestive Diseases and Sciences. 2022;:1–8.
- 64. Chua SG, Wasan SK, Long MT. How to Promote Career Advancement and Gender Equity for Women in Gastroenterology: A Multifaceted Approach. Gastroenterology. 2021;161(3):792–7. pmid:34175283
- 65. Jamorabo DS, Chen R, Gurm H, Jahangir M, Briggs WM, Mohanty SR, et al. Women remain underrepresented in leadership positions in academic gastroenterology throughout the United States. Ann Gastroenterol. 2021;34(3):316–22. pmid:33948055
- 66. Khan MS, Usman MS, Siddiqi TJ, Ayub MT, Fatima K, Acob C, et al. Women in Leadership Positions in Academic Cardiology: A Study of Program Directors and Division Chiefs. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2019;28(2):225–32. pmid:30596542
- 67. DeFilippis EM, Lau ES, Wei J, Hayes SN, Wood MJ. Where are the women in academic cardiology?. The Lancet. 2018;392(10160):2152–3.
- 68. Park J, Minor S, Taylor RA, Vikis E, Poenaru D. Why are women deterred from general surgery training?. The American Journal of Surgery. 2005;190(1):141–6.
- 69. Borlik MF, Godoy SM, Wadell PM, Petrovic-Dovat L, Cagande CC, Hajirnis A, et al. Women in Academic Psychiatry: Inequities, Barriers, and Promising Solutions. Acad Psychiatry. 2021;45(1):110–9. pmid:33532916
- 70. Girod S, Fassiotto M, Grewal D, Ku MC, Sriram N, Nosek BA, et al. Reducing Implicit Gender Leadership Bias in Academic Medicine With an Educational Intervention. Acad Med. 2016;91(8):1143–50. pmid:26826068
- 71. Nocco SE, Larson AR. Promotion of Women Physicians in Academic Medicine. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2021;30(6):864–71. pmid:32407186
- 72. Hansen M, Schoonover A, Skarica B, Harrod T, Bahr N, Guise J-M. Implicit gender bias among US resident physicians. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):396. pmid:31660944
- 73. Farkas AH, Bonifacino E, Turner R, Tilstra SA, Corbelli JA. Mentorship of Women in Academic Medicine: a Systematic Review. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(7):1322–9. pmid:31037545
- 74. Shea JA, Stern DT, Klotman PE, Clayton CP, O’Hara JL, Feldman MD, et al. Career development of physician scientists: a survey of leaders in academic medicine. Am J Med. 2011;124(8):779–87. pmid:21640329
- 75. Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusić A. Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. JAMA. 2006;296(9):1103–15. pmid:16954490
- 76. Cross M, Lee S, Bridgman H, Thapa DK, Cleary M, Kornhaber R. Benefits, barriers and enablers of mentoring female health academics: An integrative review. PLoS One. 2019;14(4):e0215319. pmid:30998791
- 77. Levine RB, Lin F, Kern DE, Wright SM, Carrese J. Stories from early-career women physicians who have left academic medicine: a qualitative study at a single institution. Acad Med. 2011;86(6):752–8. pmid:21512363
- 78. Hill L, Wheat C. The Influence of Mentorship and Role Models on University Women Leaders’ Career Paths to University Presidency. TQR. 2017.
- 79. Cullen DL, Luna G. Women Mentoring in Academe: addressing the gender gap in higher education. Gender and Education. 1993;5(2):125–37.
- 80. Shim RS. Dismantling Structural Racism in Academic Medicine: A Skeptical Optimism. Acad Med. 2020;95(12):1793–5. pmid:32909993
- 81. Jagsi R, Griffith K, Krenz C, Jones RD, Cutter C, Feldman EL, et al. Workplace Harassment, Cyber Incivility, and Climate in Academic Medicine. JAMA. 2023;329(21):1848–58. pmid:37278814
- 82. Campbell CM, O’Meara K. Faculty Agency: Departmental Contexts that Matter in Faculty Careers. Res High Educ. 2013;55(1):49–74.
- 83.
Olsen JP. The institutional dynamics of the European university. University dynamics and European integration. Springer. 2007. 25–54.
- 84. McNeely CL, Vlaicu S. Exploring Institutional Hiring Trends of Women in the U.S. STEM Professoriate. Review of Policy Research. 2010;27(6):781–93.
- 85.
Delgado R, Stefancic J. Critical race theory: The cutting edge. Temple University Press. 2000.
- 86.
Crenshaw KW. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. The public nature of private violence. Routledge. 2013. 93–118.
- 87. Cho S, Crenshaw KW, McCall L. Toward a Field of Intersectionality Studies: Theory, Applications, and Praxis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 2013;38(4):785–810.
- 88. Kriger D, Keyser-Verreault A, Joseph J, Peers D. The Operationalizing Intersectionality Framework. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology. 2022;16(4):302–24.
- 89.
Collins PH. Intersectionality as critical inquiry. Companion to feminist studies. 2020. p. 105–28.
- 90. Gillborn D. Intersectionality, critical race theory, and the primacy of racism: Race, class, gender, and disability in education. Qualitative inquiry. 2015;21(3):277–87.
- 91.
Dill BT, Kohlman MH. Intersectionality: A Transformative Paradigm in Feminist Theory and Social Justice. Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis. SAGE Publications, Inc. 2012. p. 154–74. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483384740.n8
- 92. Maj J. The significance of intersectionality for feminist political theory. http://www.e-ir.info/2013/11/01/the-significance-of-intersectionality-for-feminist-political-theory 2013.
- 93. Cordova AJ, Knecht LM. Liminal Knowledge: Positioning Intersectionality in Academia. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies. 2018;19(3):203–13.
- 94. Carroll D. Faculty Women of Color Micro-invalidations at White Research Institutions: A case of Intersectionality of Institutional Betrayal and Critical Race Theory. AIJ. 2017;7(1).
- 95.
DeCuir-Gunby JT, Long-Mitchell LA, Grant C. The Emotionality of Women Professors of Color in Engineering: A Critical Race Theory and Critical Race Feminism Perspective. Advances in Teacher Emotion Research. Springer US. 2009. p. 323–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0564-2_16
- 96.
Torgrimson BN, Minson CT. Sex and gender: what is the difference?: American Physiological Society; 2005.
- 97. Canfield KN, Hubbell B, Rivers L, Rodan B, Hassett-Sipple B, Rea A, et al. Lessons learned and recommendations in conducting solutions-driven environmental and public health research. J Environ Manage. 2024;354:120270. pmid:38377748
- 98. Cronholm S. Experiences from sequential use of mixed methods. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods. 2011;9(2):87–95.
- 99.
Cevallos M, Egger M. Guidelines for reporting health research: a user’s manual. 2014.
- 100. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57. pmid:17872937
- 101.
Wilkinson L. A demographic overview of ethnic diversity in Canada. Immigration, racial and ethnic studies in 150 years of Canada. Brill. 2018. p. 103–28.
- 102. George RC, Maier R, Robson K. Ignoring race: a comparative analysis of education policy in British Columbia and Ontario. Race Ethnicity and Education. 2019;23(2):159–79.
- 103. U15: Canada’s Leading Research Universities. https://u15.ca/
- 104. Ott M, Cisneros J. Understanding the changing faculty workforce in higher education: A comparison of non-tenure track and tenure line experiences. EPAA. 2015;23:90.
- 105. Ashcraft A, Andersen JS, Rogge MM, Song H, Opton L. Academic Tenure: Perceptual Variations Among Tenured, Tenure-seeking and Non-tenure Faculty. J Prof Nurs. 2021;37(3):578–87. pmid:34016317
- 106. Jagsi R, Griffith KA, Stewart A, Sambuco D, DeCastro R, Ubel PA. Gender differences in the salaries of physician researchers. JAMA. 2012;307(22):2410–7. pmid:22692173
- 107. Cavanaugh C, Green K. Training faculty search committees to improve racial and ethnic diversity in hiring. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. 2020;72(4):263.
- 108. Park A. Women, Men, and the Academic Hierarchy: exploring the relationship between rank and sex. Oxford Review of Education. 1992;18(3):227–39.
- 109. Conrad P, Carr P, Knight S, Renfrew MR, Dunn MB, Pololi L. Hierarchy as a barrier to advancement for women in academic medicine. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2010;19(4):799–805. pmid:20141385
- 110. Andriole DA, Grbic D, Yellin J, McKinney R. MD-PhD Program Graduates’ Engagement in Research: Results of a National Study. Acad Med. 2021;96(4):540–8. pmid:32433313
- 111. Long JS. Productivity and Academic Position in the Scientific Career. American Sociological Review. 1978;43(6):889.
- 112. Fox MF. Gender, Family Characteristics, and Publication Productivity among Scientists. Soc Stud Sci. 2005;35(1):131–50.
- 113. Carr PL, Ash AS, Friedman RH, Scaramucci A, Barnett RC, Szalacha L, et al. Relation of family responsibilities and gender to the productivity and career satisfaction of medical faculty. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129(7):532–8. pmid:9758572
- 114. James Y, Bourgeault I, Gaudet S, Bujaki M. Care Work and Academic Motherhood: Challenges for Research and Tenure in the Canadian University. CJHE. 2021;51(4):85–99.
- 115.
Lee MY, Cavender R, Jackson V. Women leadership in academia: Barriers, mentoring, and resiliency among different ethnic groups. In: International Textile and Apparel Association Annual Conference Proceedings, 2024.
- 116. Mensah M, Beeler W, Rotenstein L, Jagsi R, Spetz J, Linos E, et al. Sex Differences in Salaries of Department Chairs at Public Medical Schools. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(5):789–92. pmid:32119059
- 117. Peterson NB, Friedman RH, Ash AS, Franco S, Carr PL. Faculty self-reported experience with racial and ethnic discrimination in academic medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(3):259–65. pmid:15009781
- 118. Howell FM, McCarthy KJ, Boychuk N, Burdick M, Nowlin S, Maru S, et al. Racism in obstetric care: a psychometric study of the Gendered Racial Microaggressions Scale among Global Majority birthing people in obstetric contexts. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024;24(1):448. pmid:38943057
- 119. Mishra P, Pandey CM, Singh U, Gupta A, Sahu C, Keshri A. Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data. Ann Card Anaesth. 2019;22(1):67–72. pmid:30648682
- 120. Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, Wisdom JP, Duan N, Hoagwood K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and policy in mental health and mental health services research. 2015;42:533–44.
- 121. Naz N, Gulab F, Aslam M. Development of qualitative semi-structured interview guide for case study research. Competitive Social Science Research Journal. 2022;3(2):42–52.
- 122. Dempsey L, Dowling M, Larkin P, Murphy K. Sensitive Interviewing in Qualitative Research. Res Nurs Health. 2016;39(6):480–90. pmid:27434172
- 123. Coyne IT. Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries?. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997;26(3):623–30.
- 124. Suri H. Purposeful Sampling in Qualitative Research Synthesis. Qualitative Research Journal. 2011;11(2):63–75.
- 125. Museus SD, Yi V, Saelua N. The Impact of Culturally Engaging Campus Environments on Sense of Belonging. The Review of Higher Education. 2017;40(2):187–215.
- 126. Allen-Ramdial S-AA, Campbell AG. Reimagining the Pipeline: Advancing STEM Diversity, Persistence, and Success. Bioscience. 2014;64(7):612–8. pmid:25561747
- 127. Roberts LW. Women and academic medicine. Academic Medicine. 2020;95(10):1459–64.
- 128. Price EG, Gozu A, Kern DE, Powe NR, Wand GS, Golden S, et al. The role of cultural diversity climate in recruitment, promotion, and retention of faculty in academic medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(7):565–71. pmid:16050848
- 129.
Wilmsen C. Extraction, Empowerment, and Relationships in the Practice of Participatory Research. Towards Quality Improvement of Action Research. BRILL. 2008. 135–46. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087905941_011
- 130. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77–101.
- 131.
Holton JA. The Coding Process and Its Challenges. The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications Ltd. 2007. p. 265–89. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607941.n13
- 132.
Cunliffe AL. Reflexivity, learning and reflexive practice. The SAGE handbook of management learning, education and development. 2009. p. 405–18.
- 133. Fisher MJ, Marshall AP. Understanding descriptive statistics. Aust Crit Care. 2009;22(2):93–7. pmid:19150245
- 134. Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health. 2019;11(4):589–97.
- 135. Tracy SJ. Qualitative Quality: Eight “Big-Tent” Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry. 2010;16(10):837–51.
- 136. Bekhet AK, Zauszniewski JA. Methodological triangulation: an approach to understanding data. Nurse Res. 2012;20(2):40–3. pmid:23316537
- 137.
Maxwell JA, Chmiel M. Generalization in and from qualitative analysis. The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis. 2014. p. 540–53.
- 138. Leung L. Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. J Family Med Prim Care. 2015;4(3):324–7. pmid:26288766
- 139. Van de Mortel TF. Faking it: social desirability response bias in self-report research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, The. 2008;25(4):40–8.
- 140.
Miller RA, Wynn RD, Webb KW. Queering disability in higher education: Views from the intersections. Disability as diversity in higher education. Routledge. 2017. p. 31–44.
- 141.
Gerali J, Neill L. Students with disabilities within academia: Barriers, obstacles, adversity, and empathy–a call for educators to recognize their knowledge and perception of disability identity. Achieving equity in higher education using empathy as a guiding principle. IGI Global. 2022. p. 239–66.
- 142. Saltes N. Disability Barriers in Academia: An Analysis of Disability Accommodation Policies for Faculty at Canadian Universities. CJDS. 2020;9(1):53–90.