A1 Refereed original research article in a scientific journal
Leadership diversity in prosthodontics: Recommendations for the representation of women speakers at scientific prosthodontic meetings
Authors: Kamolphob Phasuk, Michelle E. Piasecki, Mathew T. Kattadiyil, Sreenivas Koka, Murat Mutluay
Publisher: MOSBY-ELSEVIER
Publication year: 2020
Journal: Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Journal name in source: JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
Journal acronym: J PROSTHET DENT
Volume: 124
Issue: 5
First page : 554
Last page: 558
Number of pages: 5
ISSN: 0022-3913
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.11.002
Self-archived copy’s web address: https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/1805/23615/1/Phasuk_2019_leadership.pdf
Abstract
Statement of problem. Leadership platforms in the professions include invitations to speak at the meetings of major organizations. However, the percentage of women speakers at prosthodontic meetings is lower than that of women prosthodontists overall. Recommendations or reporting requirements to address this deficiency are lacking.
Purpose. The purpose of this observational study was to determine the probability of the number of women speakers at any scientific meetings of 6 different prosthodontic organizations over the past decade occurring by chance alone and to make recommendations for scientific program committees and organizations regarding the number of women speakers at future meetings.
Material and methods. The number of men and women speakers at the 2009-2018 annual meetings of the Academy of Prosthodontics (AP), American Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics (AAFP), American College of Prosthodontics (ACP), American Prosthodontic Society (APS), Greater New York Academy of Prosthodontics (GNYAP), and Pacific Coast Society for Prosthodontics (PCSP) was recorded. The chi-square test was used to determine differences in the percentage of women speakers over time and between organizations. The BINOM.DIST function was used to calculate the probability of selecting the exact number of women speakers at each meeting (alpha=.05).
Results. The mean percentage of women speakers across all organizations and all years was 10.80%. The percentage ranged from 0.00% (AAFP 2013; ACP 2013; APS 2012, 2015; GNYAP 2009, 2014; and PCSP 2009, 2010, 2011) to 42.86% (AP 2013). No change in women speaker presence was observed over the time frame investigated. The AP had significantly more women speakers than the other organizations. Of the 60 meetings included, 25 meetings had a statistically significantly low number of women speakers, and 1 meeting had a statistically significantly high number of women speakers.
Conclusions. The number of women speakers at the scientific meetings of the organizations analyzed was significantly low and has not changed significantly over the years from 2009 to 2018. There were significantly more women speakers at the scientific meetings of the Academy of Prosthodontics than in the 5 other major prosthodontic organizations over the years 2009 to 2018. A recommendation is made that prosthodontic organizations include more women speakers on scientific programs. Specifically, a minimum of 25% of speakers should be women (rolling 3-year average) or 25% of podium time should be for women speakers (rolling 3-year average).
Statement of problem. Leadership platforms in the professions include invitations to speak at the meetings of major organizations. However, the percentage of women speakers at prosthodontic meetings is lower than that of women prosthodontists overall. Recommendations or reporting requirements to address this deficiency are lacking.
Purpose. The purpose of this observational study was to determine the probability of the number of women speakers at any scientific meetings of 6 different prosthodontic organizations over the past decade occurring by chance alone and to make recommendations for scientific program committees and organizations regarding the number of women speakers at future meetings.
Material and methods. The number of men and women speakers at the 2009-2018 annual meetings of the Academy of Prosthodontics (AP), American Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics (AAFP), American College of Prosthodontics (ACP), American Prosthodontic Society (APS), Greater New York Academy of Prosthodontics (GNYAP), and Pacific Coast Society for Prosthodontics (PCSP) was recorded. The chi-square test was used to determine differences in the percentage of women speakers over time and between organizations. The BINOM.DIST function was used to calculate the probability of selecting the exact number of women speakers at each meeting (alpha=.05).
Results. The mean percentage of women speakers across all organizations and all years was 10.80%. The percentage ranged from 0.00% (AAFP 2013; ACP 2013; APS 2012, 2015; GNYAP 2009, 2014; and PCSP 2009, 2010, 2011) to 42.86% (AP 2013). No change in women speaker presence was observed over the time frame investigated. The AP had significantly more women speakers than the other organizations. Of the 60 meetings included, 25 meetings had a statistically significantly low number of women speakers, and 1 meeting had a statistically significantly high number of women speakers.
Conclusions. The number of women speakers at the scientific meetings of the organizations analyzed was significantly low and has not changed significantly over the years from 2009 to 2018. There were significantly more women speakers at the scientific meetings of the Academy of Prosthodontics than in the 5 other major prosthodontic organizations over the years 2009 to 2018. A recommendation is made that prosthodontic organizations include more women speakers on scientific programs. Specifically, a minimum of 25% of speakers should be women (rolling 3-year average) or 25% of podium time should be for women speakers (rolling 3-year average).
UTU Research Portal