4.2 Article

Gendered Differences in Letters of Recommendation for Transplant Surgery Fellowship Applicants

Journal

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL EDUCATION
Volume 76, Issue 2, Pages 427-432

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.08.021

Keywords

LOR; Transplant fellowship; Gender bias; Gender disparities in surgery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: No published study has explored gender differences in letters of recommendation for applicants entering surgical subspecialty fellowships. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of letters of recommendation to a transplant surgery fellowship written for residents finishing general surgery residency programs. A dictionary of communal and agentic terms was used to explore differences of the letters based on applicant's gender as well as the academic rank and gender of the author. RESULTS: Of the 311 reviewed letters, 228 were letters of recommendation written for male applicants. Male surgeons wrote 92.4% of the letters. Male applicant letters were significantly more likely to contain agentic terms such as superb, intelligent, and exceptional (p = 0.00086). Additionally, male applicant letters were significantly more likely to contain future leader (p = 0.047). Letters written by full professors, division chiefs, and program directors were significantly more likely to describe female applicants using communal terms like compassionate, calm, and delightful (p = 0.0301, p = 0.036, p = 0.036, respectively). In letters written by assistant professors, female letters of recommendation had significantly more references to family (p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Gendered differences exist in letters of recommendation for surgical fellowship applicants. This research may provide insight into the inherent gender bias that is revealed in letters supporting candidates entering the field. (C) 2018 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available