The Economics of Academic Advancement Within Surgery

Differences in Academic Qualifications for Leadership at Hand Surgery Fellowships in the United States

Objective

In the United States, orthopaedic, general, and plastic surgery hand fellowship programs train hand surgeons. Currently, differences in the academic qualifications of hand surgery fellowship directors (HSFDs) are unknown. This study compares the academic qualifications of HSFDs by specialty.

Methods

American Medical Association's Residency and Fellowship Database was queried for hand surgery fellowship training programs. Scholarly activity, academic characteristics, and training pedigrees were collected for each HSFD.

Results

Ninety-two HSFDs (73 orthopaedic surgeons, 17 plastic surgeons, 2 general surgeons) were identified. Most were male (87%) and Caucasian (82%). Mean age was 55 ± 11 years and most were trained in orthopaedic surgery (80%). Ten percent of orthopaedic hand surgery fellowship programs were run by a plastic surgeon HSFD, which was greater than 0% of plastic surgery hand fellowship programs run by an orthopaedic surgeon HSFD (p < 0.05). Mean H-index was 15 ± 9 from an average of 57 ± 47 publications. Orthopaedic and plastic surgeon HSFDs had similar levels of scholarly activity (p > 0.05). Age correlated with higher H-index values (r = 0.38, p < 0.001). More plastic surgeon HSFDs were trained by their top five fellowship programs than orthopaedic surgeon HSFDs (65 vs. 27%, p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Ultimately, HSFDs have strong research backgrounds and similar characteristics despite disparate training pathways. Women and racial minority groups are largely underrepresented among leadership positions at hand surgery fellowships. These benchmarks can help inform future diversity initiatives.

"I Came up Short on the Academic Ladder": A Grounded Theory Study of Careerism in Academic Surgery

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to explore the definition of career success in academic surgery.

BACKGROUND

Career success in academic surgery is frequently defined as the achievement of a specific title, from full professor to department chair. This type of definition is convenient and established but potentially incomplete. The business literature has a more nuanced view of the relationship between titles and success, but this relationship has not been studied in medicine.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted from May to November 2020. Data were analyzed in an iterative fashion using grounded theory methodology to develop a conceptual model.

RESULTS

We conducted 26 semi-structured interviews with practicing surgeons differing in years of experience; 12 (46%) participants were female, mean age of 48. Participants included 5 chairs of surgery, 6 division chiefs, and 7 past or current presidents of national societies. Four themes emerged on the importance of titles: Some study participants reported that (1) titles are a barometer of success; others argued that (2) titles are not a sufficient metric to define success; (3) titles are a means to an end; and (4) there is a desire to achieve the title of a respected mentor.

CONCLUSIONS

As the definition of career success in academic surgery changes to encompass a broader range of interests and ambitions, the traditional markers of success must come into review. Academic surgeons see the value of titles as a marker of success and as a means to achieving other goals, but overwhelmingly our interviewees felt that titles were a double-edged sword and that a more inclusive definition of academic success was needed.