Epistemic oppression of Black women in medical education publishing: A bibliometric study using intersectionality methodology

Author:

Seide WitzardORCID,Maggio Lauren A.ORCID,Artino Anthony R.ORCID,Leroux Todd,Konopasky AbigailORCID

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionBlack women in academic medicine experience racial and gender discrimination with bias from colleagues, patients, and institutions, all while being tasked with improving a flawed system. Representation of Black women in medicine remains low, yet they bear the burden of fostering diversity and mentoring trainees, exacerbating their minority tax and emotional labor, and negatively impacting their career progression. This study seeks to examine how epistemic oppression—reduced access to knowledge consumption and creation—manifests for Black women in medical education publishing.MethodsAdapting intersectionality methodology, we employed a bibliometric analysis of US-based journal articles published in 22 medical education journals between 2000 and 2020. Author race was determined using a probability-based algorithm incorporating US Census data, and author gender was ascribed based on Social Security Administration records. We conducted two negative binomial generalized linear models to estimate the average effect of epistemic oppression on Black women, from 2000-2020, by both first author publications and last author publications. Metadata for each article was retrieved from Web of Science and PubMed to include author names, country of institutional affiliation, and medical subject headings.ResultsThe analytic sample consisted of 21,945 unique authors. Overall, Black authors average only 9.0% of the analytic sample, whereas white authors average 69.3% of the analytic sample. Taken together, the analysis reveals that white women and men dominate publications, with Black women (and other racially minoritized groups) publishing far fewer first and last authors papers. In addition, major Medical Subject Headings used by Black women authors reveal little overlap of eminent (highly ranked) topics within medical education.DiscussionThis research underscores the underrepresentation and epistemic oppression of Black women in medical education publishing, stemming from several forms of epistemic injustice. To address these challenges, we advocate for changes within the publishing ecosystem to address these disparities, as we believe that dismantling these oppressive structures is imperative for achieving equity and inclusivity in academic medicine. Additionally, we believe that qualitative research is needed to complement these quantitative findings and provide a more holistic perspective on Black women’s experiences in the publishing process.

Publisher

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

Reference45 articles.

1. When the minority tax is doubled: being Black and female in academic medicine

2. “Walking on eggshells”: experiences of underrepresented women in medical training;Perspect Med Educ,2022

3. Association of American Medical Colleges. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Accessed August 30, 2023. https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/workforce/report/diversity-medicine-facts-and-figures-2019

4. Maintaining your voice as an underrepresented minority during the peer review process: A dialogue between author and mentor;Perspect Med Educ,2022

5. Addressing bias and knowledge gaps regarding race and ethnicity in neonatology manuscript review;J Perinatol,2022

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3