Recent trends in the U.S. Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (BSSR) workforce

The invisible frontline of the COVID-19 pandemic: Examining sourcing and the underrepresentation of female expertise in pandemic news coverage

Several studies have shown that female experts are seldom quoted within news media coverage about health and science issues. Yet, during the COVID-19 pandemic, and subsequent race for a vaccine, female health and science workers (broadly defined) were at the forefront of the discovery, testing, and implementation of several vaccinations. This study examines the extent to which female experts were represented in news coverage about the vaccine over a 2-year period in The New York Times (n = 1978). Of the expert sources quoted (3,555), the majority were male (n = 2417) as compared to female (n = 1138). This pattern held when looking specifically at researchers and medical experts. When both a male and female source were quoted, however, females were quoted first, suggesting that females were given the role of being a primary rather than supporting expert. Implications and future directions are discussed.

Health Care Provider Stigma Toward Patients With Substance Use Disorders: Protocol for a Nationally Representative Survey

BACKGROUND

The US overdose epidemic is an escalating public health emergency, accounting for over 100,000 deaths annually. Despite the availability of medications for opioid use disorders, provider-level barriers, such as negative attitudes, exacerbate the treatment gap in clinical care settings. Assessing the prevalence and intensity of provider stigma, defined as the negative perceptions and behaviors that providers embody and enact toward patients with substance use disorders, across providers with different specialties, is critical to expanding the delivery of substance use treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To thoroughly understand provider stigma toward patients with substance use disorders, we conducted a nationwide survey of emergency medicine and primary care physicians and dentists using a questionnaire designed to reveal how widely and intensely provider attitudes and stigma can impact these providers' clinical practices in caring for their patients. The survey also queried providers' stigma and clinical practices toward other chronic conditions, which can then be compared with their stigma and practices related to substance use disorders.

METHODS

Our cross-sectional survey was mailed to a nationally representative sample of primary care physicians, emergency medicine physicians, and dentists (N=3011), obtained by American Medical Association and American Dental Association licensees based on specified selection criteria. We oversampled nonmetropolitan practice areas, given the potential differences in provider stigma and available resources in these regions compared with metropolitan areas. Data collection followed a recommended series of contacts with participants per the Dillman Total Design Method, with mixed-modality options offered (email, mail, fax, and phone). A gradually increasing compensation scale (maximum US$250) was implemented to recruit chronic nonresponders and assess the association between requiring higher incentives to participate and providers stigma. The primary outcome, provider stigma, was measured using the Medical Condition Regard Scale, which inquired about participants' views on substance use and other chronic conditions. Additional survey measures included familiarity and social engagement with people with substance use disorders; clinical practices (screening, treating, and referring for a range of chronic conditions); subjective norms and social desirability; knowledge and prior education; and descriptions of their patient populations.

RESULTS

Data collection was facilitated through collaboration with the National Opinion Research Center between October 2020 and October 2022. The overall Council of American Survey Research Organizations completion rate was 53.62% (1240/2312.7; physicians overall: 855/1681.9, 50.83% [primary care physicians: 506/1081.3, 46.79%; emergency medicine physicians: 349/599.8, 58.2%]; dentists: 385/627.1, 61.4%). The ineligibility rate among those screened is applied to those not screened, causing denominators to include fractional numbers.

CONCLUSIONS

Using systematically quantified data on the prevalence and intensity of provider stigma toward substance use disorders in health care, we can provide evidence-based improvement strategies and policies to inform the development and implementation of stigma-reduction interventions for providers to address their perceptions and treatment of substance use.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/47548.

Outcomes of the UAMS summer undergraduate research program to increase diversity in research and health professions

The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) Summer Undergraduate Research Program (SURP) aims to increase diversity in research and health-related careers. The SURP provides underrepresented minority (URM) and disadvantaged students with research, mentoring, and networking experiences; real-life surgical observations; and simulated cardiovascular demonstrations. A postprogram survey was developed to assess program outcomes and explore ways of improving the program to stimulate URM and disadvantaged students' interest in research and health-related careers. This is a report of those postprogram survey findings. Using a survey research design, an online survey was emailed to participants (n = 88). Data were collected for 6 weeks beginning March 2020. There were 37 multiple-choice and open-ended questions regarding education, career choices, and program experiences. Responses were downloaded to statistical software for analyses. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Major themes were identified for qualitative data. Responses were received from 44.3% (n = 39) of former SURP participants. Overall, 59% stated that the SURP influenced their career goals. When asked about mentor-mentee relationships, 69.3% responded that their interactions were excellent or good; 61.5% maintained contact with their mentor after the SURP. Finally, 79% indicated their SURP experience was excellent or good, and 84.6% would recommend the SURP to others. The SURP has been successful at providing URM and disadvantaged students with positive research experiences and long-term mentor-mentee relationships and has influenced educational and/or career goals. Programs that expose URM and disadvantaged students to basic, clinical, and/or translational research are beneficial for stimulating interest in research and health-related careers.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Mentor-mentee relationships were extremely beneficial as many of the former participants maintained contact with their summer mentor after the program ended. This assessment also revealed that exposing underrepresented and minority students to research has a long-lasting effect on career and educational goals.

Systemic racial disparities in funding rates at the National Science Foundation

Concerns about systemic racism at academic and research institutions have increased over the past decade. Here, we investigate data from the National Science Foundation (NSF), a major funder of research in the United States, and find evidence for pervasive racial disparities. In particular, white principal investigators (PIs) are consistently funded at higher rates than most non-white PIs. Funding rates for white PIs have also been increasing relative to annual overall rates with time. Moreover, disparities occur across all disciplinary directorates within the NSF and are greater for research proposals. The distributions of average external review scores also exhibit systematic offsets based on PI race. Similar patterns have been described in other research funding bodies, suggesting that racial disparities are widespread. The prevalence and persistence of these racial disparities in funding have cascading impacts that perpetuate a cumulative advantage to white PIs across all of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

In Search of an Academic "Greatest Hits" Album: An Examination of Bibliometrics and Bibliometric Web Platforms

Despite the relative youth of bibliometric web platforms (Google Scholar was released in 2004), they play an increasingly significant role in the assessment of the impact of scholars and the research they produce. This scholarly essay provides a thorough review of the literature on bibliometric platforms, the extent to which they make available relevant manuscripts for inclusion in research, and their use for the assessment of scholarly work. We describe the metrics found on common bibliometric platforms, proposed metrics not commonly found in platforms, and how those metrics may differ based on scholar race and gender. We identify pitfalls of citation metrics present on bibliometric platforms. Finally, we identify areas for expansion of the research on bibliometric platforms and development of new metrics.

Fund behavioral science like the frameworks we endorse: the case for increased funding of preliminary studies by the National Institutes of Health

Innovative, groundbreaking science relies upon preliminary studies (aka pilot, feasibility, proof-of-concept). In the behavioral sciences, almost every large-scale intervention is supported by a series of one or more rigorously conducted preliminary studies. The importance of preliminary studies was established by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2014/2015 in two translational science frameworks (NIH Stage and ORBIT models). These frameworks outline the essential role preliminary studies play in developing the next generation of evidence-based behavioral prevention and treatment interventions. Data produced from preliminary studies are essential to secure funding from the NIH’s most widely used grant mechanism for large-scale clinical trials, namely the R01. Yet, despite their unquestionable importance, the resources available for behavioral scientists to conduct rigorous preliminary studies are limited. In this commentary, we discuss ways the existing funding structure at the NIH, despite its clear reliance upon high-quality preliminary studies, inadvertently discourages and disincentivizes their pursuit by systematically underfunding them. We outline how multiple complementary and pragmatic steps via a small reinvestment of funds from larger trials could result in a large increase in funding for smaller preliminary studies. We make the case such a reinvestment has the potential to increase innovative science, increase the number of investigators currently funded, and would yield lasting benefits for behavioral science and scientists alike.

I am a scientist . . . Ask Me Anything: Examining differences between male and female scientists participating in a Reddit AMA session

This article investigates interactions between scientists and the online community Reddit. Given that past research on computer-mediated communication between scientists and the public found that male scientists are typically more popular in online spaces than female scientists, we examined differences in popularity as well as potential gendered differences in communication style. Specifically, we examined 269 Reddit "Ask Me Anything" sessions as well as the comments linked with each session (n = 125,580). Overall, we find that male scientists receive more comments on their sessions, but the score an individual comment receives does not differ by gender. Similarly, we find that the message complexity of the comments does not differ by gender. Taken together, these suggest that Reddit AMA sessions might be an effective platform for both male and female scientists to engage with the public.

Charting a Path Towards Asian American Cancer Health Equity: A Way Forward

On July 29, 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration’s Oncology Center of Excellence convened Conversations on Cancer. This Conversation, the first ever by the US Food and Drug Administration, focused on Asian Americans and served as the platform for this Commentary. Panelists elaborated on topics ranging from heterogeneity in Asian American demographics to racism through a path to health equity and supplemented this Commentary with literature citations. Asian Americans are the fastest-growing US race group, yet data aggregation obscures distinctions and cancer disparities within the more than 24 million Asians living in the United States with harmful impacts on communities and patients, as illustrated by breast cancer survivor Susan Shinagawa’s patient-to-advocate journey. Bigotry against Asian Americans has been pervasive since the 19th century, but especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Asian Americans are unique as the first US population to experience cancer as the leading cause of death. Asian Americans are disproportionately affected by cancers because of infectious origins and have the highest rates of lung cancer among never-smoking women. The infinitesimal proportion of the National Institutes of Health’s budget compared with experiencing the highest percentage increases of any US racial population more than 3 decades highlights the dearth of focused research among Asian Americans. Recognizing the heterogeneity of Asian Americans and that disaggregated data are critical for accurately characterizing distinct ethnic groups, focusing on the impact of racism and COVID-19 on cancer disparities, and focusing and prioritizing funding resources are necessary steps forward for achieving health equity for Asian Americans.

Why so Few, Still? Challenges to Attracting, Advancing, and Keeping Women Faculty of Color in Academia

From its earliest beginnings, the university was not designed for women, and certainly not for women of color. Women of color in the United States are disproportionately under-represented in academia and are conspicuous by their absence across disciplines at senior ranks, particularly at research-intensive universities. This absence has an epistemic impact and affects future generations of scholars who do not see themselves represented in the academy. What are the barriers to attracting, advancing, and retaining women faculty of color in academia? To address this question we review empirical studies that document disparities in the assessment of research, teaching, and service in academia that have distinct implications for the hiring, promotion, and professional visibility of women of color. We argue that meaningful change in the representation, equity, and prestige of women faculty of color will require validating their experiences, supporting and valuing their research, creating opportunities for their professional recognition and advancement, and implementing corrective action for unjust assessment practices.

The Social Science of Institutional Transformation: Intersectional Change in the Academy

This article examines intersectional praxis as an approach to institutional transformation, arguing that intersectionality is both a catalyst for and outcome of gender equity efforts in the social sciences and other academic STEM fields. As such, approaching gender equity intersectionally can be understood as a way that theory and practice are co-constitutive in social science and hence an important aspect of transforming academic institutions. Through a case study of the US National Science Foundation (NSF) ADVANCE program for gender equity in STEM, I look at the development of ADVANCE from an effort to support women in scientific fields to becoming a program for institutional transformation grounded in an intersectional understanding of women's inequity in the academic labor force. I ask two related questions in the efforts to address gender inequities in STEM. First, what is the relationship between academic institutions (which are simultaneously sites for the discovery of knowledge and gender inequality) and the National Science foundation, as the premier American academic institutional funding agency? Second, how has this relationship, through those working on ADVANCE, fundamentally shifted the understanding of the social scientific tools and strategies necessary to advance equity for women in academia? In looking at these questions, I argue that, beyond women's representation in social sciences and academia broadly, intersectionality is an important scholarly advance in social science that offers a dialectical tool for change.

The role of education, occupational match on job satisfaction in the behavioral and social science workforce

While many studies that have been conducted in recent years examining the education and workforce outcomes of STEM graduates, few have focused on the behavioral and social sciences (BSS). Federal agencies, such as National Institutes of Health (NIH), are implementing policies to foster multidisciplinary research in an effort to find more effective solutions to complex problems. As a result, there is growing interest in the career pathways of BSS scientists. This study seeks to increase our understanding of how BSS graduates, particularly women and underrepresented minorities, transition to employment within their respective fields. The focus of this research is the impact of horizontal mismatch, defined as the misalignment between a worker's degree and occupational fields, on job satisfaction and wage outcomes. This analysis of returns to education when mismatch occurs, including a comparison among majors and various demographic groups, provides insights into the labor market experiences of these scientists. Mismatched graduates were found to be much more vulnerable, earning less, and having lower job satisfaction, than their counterparts employed in jobs that aligned with their field of study. Additional job-related training was found to have a positive influence on these outcomes. Also of interest in this study were variations in wage penalties and job satisfaction between groups having different gender and race diversity characteristics. These findings are useful to human resource development (HRD) professionals, governmental policymakers, and other stakeholders seeking strategies to improve the workforce outcomes of BSS scientists.

Late retirement, early careers, and the aging of U.S. science and engineering professors

Studies of rescuing early-career scientists often take narrow approaches and focus on PhD students or postdoc populations. In a multi-method systems approach, we examine the inter-relations between the two ends of the pipeline and ask: what are the effects of late retirement on aging and hiring in academia? With a simulation model, we postulate that the decline in the retirement rate in academia contributes to the aging pattern through two mechanisms: (a) direct effect: longer stay of established professors, and (b) indirect effect: a hiring decline in tenure-track positions. Late retirement explains more than half of the growth in average age and brings about 20% decline in hiring. We provide empirical evidence based on the natural experimental set-up of the removal of mandatory retirement in the 1990s.

Achieving Health Equity in Asian Populations

Research about Asian Americans and Asian health equity issues have significant gaps, in part, due to lack of funding and support for minority investigators and examinations of health in this population. This special issue is designed to further our understanding of Asian health equity, especially within the context of global Chinese populations to examine how sociocultural contexts impact aging and health. Through the findings reported in this special issue, we call for increased funding and support to minority research scholars to conduct research toward improving Asian health equity, with an emphasis on nuanced cultural contexts of this population.

Global Trends and Regional Variations in Studies of HIV/AIDS

We conduct textual analysis of a sample of more than 200,000 papers written on HIV/AIDS during the past three decades. Using the Latent Dirichlet Allocation method, we disentangle studies that address behavioral and social aspects from other studies and measure the trends of different topics as related to HIV/AIDS. We show that there is a regional variation in scientists’ approach to the problem of HIV/AIDS. Our results show that controlling for the economy, proximity to the HIV/AIDS problem correlates with the extent to which scientists look at the behavioral and social aspects of the disease rather than biomedical.