Gender- and personality-specific differences in academic qualifications, research motivation, and attractiveness of leadership positions: a survey among radiologists from Germany

Abstract

Purpose

This study investigated gender- and personality-specific differences in academic qualifications, research motivation, and options to increase the attractiveness of leadership positions in radiology.

Materials and Methods

A validated questionnaire with 66 questions was distributed via the German Roentgen Society and individually sent to 4,500 radiologists in Germany. Participants were asked about their gender. Personality dimensions were assessed using the OCEAN (Big Five) model. Multivariable regression analyses were employed.

Results

Of 510 included participants (women 237 (46.5%)), men were four times more likely to have acquired an associated professorship (AP, Habilitation Privatdozent) ((odds ratio (OR) 4.39 (2.22–8.67)). Also, they planned to achieve an AP more frequently (OR 2.87 (1.47–5.61)). The only gender-specific motivator for an AP was the option to become eligible for the position of chief physician (men OR 2.56 (1.07–6.15)). Mentors increased the probability of acquiring an AP (OR 2.07 (1.13–3.80)) or striving for an AP (4.82 (2.39–9.73)). Female mentees were likelier to have female mentors (OR 4.62 (1.68–12.73)). To increase the attractiveness of leadership positions, female radiologists perceived gender balance at the management level (OR 3.32 (2.28–4.82)), top sharing (OR 2.22 (1.48–3.32)), and better work-life balance (OR 2.02 (1.19–3.43)) as more relevant than male radiologists. More pronounced openness (OR 1.62 (1.10–2.38)) and extroversion (OR 1.45 (1.07–1.97)) were positively associated with planning an AP. More pronounced agreeableness (OR 0.67 (0.50–0.91)) was negatively associated.

Conclusions

Research motivation is mainly independent of gender. Academic qualification varies with gender and personality dimensions. Mentoring, female role models, top sharing, and better work-family compatibility could motivate women to pursue academic leadership.

Key Points

• Male radiologists are more frequently motivated to pursue an associated professorship by the option of becoming a chief physician.

• Openness and extroversion make pursuing an associated professorship more likely.

• Role models at the management level, top sharing, and flexible work time are more important for female radiologists.

Citation Format

• Molwitz I, Kemper C, Stahlmann K et al. Gender- and personality-specific differences in academic qualifications, research motivation, and attractiveness of leadership positions: a survey among radiologists from Germany. Rofo 2025; 197: 926–935

 

Scroll to top

Keywords

Radiology - Research Priorities - Career Choice - Gender Equality - Personality Assessment

Introduction

In many European countries, more than half of all medical students are female [1]. In Germany, this has been the case since 1999 [1]. Globally, women comprise almost half of all radiologists under the age of 35 years [2]. However, a disproportionately low number of female radiologists reach leadership positions. According to a systematic review based on 61 articles published between 1989 and 2020, 8–32% of female radiologists hold leadership positions (excluding senology) [3]. The number of female senior physicians in radiology has increased minimally. Concretely, the number of female senior radiologists at university hospitals in Germany has increased from approx. 33% in 2016 [4] to approx. 35% in 2022 [5].

To achieve leadership positions in academic medicine, it is necessary to acquire academic qualification, which is measured by publications and funding [6]. However, there is an inversion of the gender ratio with less women than men that acquire assistant or associated professorships, subsequently resulting in fewer female chief physicians and fewer female full professors [6].

In addition to academic qualification, structural factors like mentoring, support from superiors and the team, as well as research conditions influence a physician’s career. Other relevant individual factors include personality traits. Openness, extroversion [7] [8], conscientiousness, and a low level of neuroticism meaning greater emotional stability [9] have a positive association with promotions and leadership positions. In contrast, agreeableness in terms of a desire for harmony has a negative association with promotions [9]. However, a possible association between personality traits and academic qualification in radiology has not yet been evaluated.

But knowledge of the influence of structural and individual factors on an academic career is essential to create targeted means of support for young – and female – radiologists.

Therefore, the goal of this study was to evaluate gender- and personality-specific differences in academic qualification and research motivation based on a survey among radiologists. In addition, the survey participants' assessment of factors that increase the attractiveness of management positions was evaluated.

 

Scroll to top

Materials and Methods

Due to the anonymous character of the survey, it was not necessary to consult an ethics committee (ethics waiver: Charité – University Medicine Berlin, EA1/174/20).

Questionnaire

A validated [10] standardized questionnaire including 66 questions was used (Appendix 1). It included open and closed questions as well as assessments using a five-point Likert scale. Excerpts from this survey relating to work expectations and the prevalence of physical and mental exhaustion have already been published [9]. Apart from demographic data, exclusively not yet published results and evaluations are included in this article. Participants were asked to specify their gender (male, female, other). The Big Five/OCEAN personality model was used to evaluate personality traits.

 

Scroll to top

The Big Five personality model

The Big Five or OCEAN model is a personality model that is characterized by stability of the results over decades [11], cross-culture reproducibility, and predictive value for negative and positive life events [12]. It is based on the assumption that each personality consists of five dimensions. The acronym OCEAN stands for Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism (as the opposite of emotional stability). Classification is not binary (introversion vs. extroversion) but rather considers the spectrum of each dimension.

To be able to determine the five dimensions in a reasonable time period, a question combination was used [12], for which sufficient values in relation to convergent and discriminant validity, test-retest reliability, and agreement between self-analysis and third-party analysis had been demonstrated [12] (see Appendix 1, survey section III “work satisfaction and personality traits”).

 

Scroll to top

Data collection

The questionnaire was distributed by the mailing list of the Chair Holders of Radiology (Konferenz der Lehrstuhlinhaber) and the Young Radiology Forum of the German Roentgen Society, the Radiology Trainee Forum of the European Society of Radiology, and the Resident and Fellow Committee of the Radiological Society of North America. 4500 radiologists from the largest German hospitals were also individually contacted per e-mail. The survey was accessible between December 2020 and April 2021.

 

Scroll to top

Statistics

Categorical variables are provided as absolute and relative frequencies. All analyses were corrected for age. The relationship between gender and external funding or the number of publications was additionally adjusted for the current position. The analyses regarding personality included all five dimensions in one regression model. To analyze the association between personality traits and academic qualification, an adjustment was performed to account for the number of children and mentoring in addition to age and gender. To determine the association between personality traits and the number of publications, a correction to account for the current professional position, mentoring, and external funding as well as for age and gender was performed. Corresponding to the dependent variables, linear, binary logistic, or multinomial logistic regressions were used.

Since the number of participants working in other countries was low (n=74) and included 33 different nations, only participants with a German affiliation were included in the analyses. Also, due to insufficient numbers, participants who did not specify their gender (n=6) or specified their gender as diverse (n=2) were excluded from the analyses. Descriptive information regarding international participants and participants with not-specified or diverse gender is provided in the Appendix 2, Table 1 and 2.

This is an exploratory study. The P-values are thus descriptive. Measures of association (odds ratios = OR) are reported with 95% confidence intervals. The software SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) was used for statistical analyses.

 

Scroll to top

 

Scroll to top

Results

Study group

The final study group consisted of n=510 (female n=237, 47%) radiologists working in Germany. The average age of the women was 41.6 years (standard deviation ±10.1) and that of the men was 46.8 years (±11.1). Corrected for age, male radiologists had more children (1.49 ±1.3) than female radiologists (1.02 ±1.1; P=0.05). 33% of the female radiologists with children (n=123, 52%) stated that they were responsible for providing childcare in their partnership, while 14% of male radiologists with children (n=179, 66%) were responsible for providing childcare. Accordingly, the female partners of male radiologists were more often responsible for providing childcare than the male partners of female radiologists (OR 3.62 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 2.33–5.62)). Childcare facilities were used more often by female radiologists than male radiologists (OR 0.52 (95% CI 0.36–0.77)). Further characteristics of the survey's participants are provided in [Table 1].

Table 1 Characteristics of participants with German affiliations stratified by gender.

N (%) or mean ±SD	Female	Male	Total	Difference1 (Ref. female)
It was possible to leave questions unanswered. 1 Regression corrected for age * Multiple selections were permitted. Abbreviations: Ref = reference group, OR = odds ratio, 95% CI = 95% confidence interval, n.a. = not applicable
	237 (46.5)	273 (53.5)	510 (100)
				β (P-value)
Age (years)	41.6±10.1	46.8±11.1	44.4±11.0	5.18 (<0.001)
Current professional position				OR (95% CI)
Resident	87 (36.9)	59 (21.8)	146 (28.8)	Ref
Specialist	38 (16.1)	18 (6.6)	56 (11.1)	0.79 (0.35–1.77)
Senior physician	76 (32.2)	92 (34.0)	168 (33.1)	1.84 (0.90–3.76)
Physicians working in ambulatory care as a employee or self-employed	28 (11.9)	45 (16.6)	73 (14.4)	2.31 (1.01–5.29)
Chief physician	7 (3.0)	57 (21.0)	64 (12.6)	10.72 (3.63–31.64)
Where would you like to work in the future?* (The reference group is the group that did not select the respective response option.)
Ambulatory care/private practice self-employed	65 (27.4)	93 (34.1)	158 (31.0)	1.74 (1.16–2.61)
Ambulatory care/private practice as employee	76 (32.1)	48 (17.6)	124 (24.3)	0.54 (0.36–0.84)
University	66 (27.9)	79 (28.9)	145 (28.4)	1.41 (0.93–2.13)
Hospital	126 (53.2)	129 (47.3)	255 (50.0)	0.77 (0.54–1.11)
Outside of patient care in private industry	15 (6.3)	21 (7.7)	36 (7.1)	1.69 (0.83–3.41)
Outside patient care in public service	12 (5.1)	8 (2.9)	20 (3.9)	0.78 (0.31–1.99)
Research	14 (5.9)	17 (6.2)	31 (6.1)	1.54 (0.72–3.28)
What is your marital status? (The reference group is the group that did not select the respective response option.)
No data provided	8 (n.a.)	3 (n.a.)
Married/life partner	127 (55.5)	184 (68.1)	311 (62.3)	Ref
In a committed relationship	60 (26.2)	50 (18.5)	110 (22.0)	0.80 (0.50–1.27)
Not in a relationship/divorced/widowed	42 (18.3)	36 (13.3)	78 (15.6)	0.69 (0.41–1.59)
Is your partner currently employed?
No data provided	51 (n.a.)	40 (n.a.)
Yes	163 (87.6)	188 (80.7)	351 (83.8)	0.64 (0.37–1.13)
No	23 (12.4)	45 (19.3)	68 (16.2)	Ref
Who provides childcare during the day?* (The reference group is the group that did not select the respective response option.)
I provide childcare	41 (33.3)	25 (14.0)	66 (21.9)	0.40 (0.23–0.69)
My partner provides childcare	37 (30.1)	123 (68.7)	160 (53.0)	3.62 (2.33–5.62)
Other family members provide childcare	21 (17.1)	23 (12.9)	44 (14.6)	0.71 (0.37–1.37)
Childcare is provided by a nanny, au-pair, friends, acquaintances, or the like	26 (21.1)	32 (17.9)	58 (19.2)	0.72 (0.40–1.30)
Childcare is provided by a public institution	95 (77.2)	79 (44.1)	174 (57.6)	0.52 (0.36–0.77)

 

Scroll to top

Academic qualification and motivation for obtaining academic qualification

Of 510 participants 356 (70%) had a doctorate. There were no gender-specific differences in this regard (OR men vs. women 1.03 (95% CI 0.69–1.54)). Of all participants 71 (14%) had earned an associate professorship (Habilitation/Privatdozent). Men were four times more likely (n=59, 22%) than women (n= 12, 5%) to have achieved an associated professorship (OR 4.39 (95%-CI 2.22–8.67)). Among participants who had not yet earned an associate professorship, the probability of planning to do so was more than twice as high among men (OR 2.87 (95% CI 1.47–5.61)). Participants planning to pursue an associate professorship had published an average of 6.6 ±12.7 papers (2 ±2.3 as first author and 0.7 ±2.2 as last author). There were no gender-specific discrepancies between those who had already submitted an application for an associate professorship (n=17, 3%), those who were uncertain whether they should pursue an associate professorship (n=41, 8%), those who were not planning to pursue an associate professorship (n=270, 54%), and those who changed their minds about initial plans to pursue an associate professorship (n=50, 10%). The lowest number of publications was seen in the group that was still uncertain whether they should pursue an associate professorship with an average of 1.2 ±1.8 publications including 0.3 ±0.6 first authorships.

The option to be able to apply for a position as chief physician was the only motivation to pursue an associate professorship that was more pronounced among male radiologists than female radiologists (OR 2.56 (95% CI 1.07–6.15)) ([Fig. 1]). No gender-specific differences regarding research interest (OR 2.36 (95% CI 1.0–5.57), interest in teaching (OR 1.86 (95% CI 0.84–4.14)), or the hope for better career development opportunities (OR 1.62 (95% CI 0.73–3.59)) were identified as motivators for an associate professorship.

Fig. 1 Relevance of different motivations to pursue an associate professorship among male radiologists compared to female radiologists as a reference group. Displayed are motivators to pursue an associate professorship as stated by male radiologists compared to female radiologists. The only motivator which was more important for men was to become eligible for the position as chief physician. Abbreviations: OR = odds ratio, KI = confidence interval, marked fat = significant associations.

Among participants who did not plan to pursue an associate professorship, men were more likely to consider an associate professorship “more work than benefit” (OR 1.95 (95% CI 1.18–3.24)). Women (n=55, 33%) stated more frequently than men (n=37, 25%) that pursuing an associate professorship would not be compatible with their family life. However, this was not statistically relevant (OR 0.78 (95% CI 0.47–1.29)). Female radiologists with an associate professorship were as likely to have children as those without an associate professorship (OR 2.10 (95% CI 0.98–4.47)). The same was true for female radiologists who planned to pursue an associate professorship compared to those who were not planning to do so (OR 0.94 (95% CI 0.42–2.13)).

 

Scroll to top

Scientific achievements and mentoring

Male radiologists had on average 12.8 more published papers than female radiologists (median 4 vs. 1, P = <0.001 after adjusting for age and professional position).

Male radiologists also acquired external funding (n=82, 31%) more frequently than female radiologists (n=30, 13%) (corrected for age and professional position, OR 1.79 (95% CI 1.07–3.01)).

Of all participants 150 (31%) stated that that they have a mentor (OR 1.14 (95% CI 0.77–1.70)). Female mentors were less common (n=26, 18%) than male mentors (n=115, 79%). The probability of having a female mentor was four times higher for female mentees than for male mentees (OR 4.62 (95% CI 1.68–12.73)). Having a mentor increased the probability of having earned an associate professorship (OR 2.07 (95% CI 1.13–3.80)), having applied for an associate professorship (OR 3.52 (95% CI 1.29–9.63)), or planning to pursue an associate professorship (OR 4.82 (95% CI 2.39–9.73)).

 

Scroll to top

Satisfaction with research conditions and gender as a perceived career factor

There were no gender-specific differences regarding the satisfaction with inclusion in research projects (OR 0.60 (95% CI 0.35–1.01)), opportunities to develop one’s own projects and to apply for grants (OR 0.77 (95% CI 0.45–1.35)) ([Fig. 2]). Men tended to be more satisfied with their opportunities to attend conferences (women vs. men OR 0,62 (95%-KI 0,39–0,98)) and were less likely (n=98, 37%) of the opinion than women that their gender has an effect on their career (n=148, 64%) (OR 0.30 (95% CI 0.21–0.45)).

Fig. 2 Satisfaction with research conditions across both genders. Most participants were satisfied with their protected research time and involvement in research projects.

 

Scroll to top

Increasing the attractiveness of leadership positions

The following items included in the survey had high gender-independent agreement with regard to increasing the attractiveness of leadership positions: better work-life compatibility (84%), flexible work schedule (81%), improved funding (71%), top sharing (69%), and flatter hierarchies (63%). Balanced gender ratios in leadership positions (47%), dual career options (46%), and greater prestige in research (42%) were considered slightly less important.

However, gender balance at the leadership level was more important for female radiologists than for male radiologists (OR 3.32 (95% CI 2.28–4.82)) ([Fig. 3]). Top sharing (OR 2.22 (95% CI 1.48–3.32)), better work-family compatibility (OR 2.02 (95% CI 1.19–3.43)), flexible work hours (OR 1.83 (95% CI 1.13–2.97)), and flatter hierarchies (OR 1.30 (95% CI 0.89–1.89) were also considered more helpful by female radiologists than male radiologists ([Fig. 3]).

Fig. 3 Importance of factors to increase the attractiveness of leading positions for female and male radiologists. For female radiologists, work-family compatibility, flexible working hours, balanced gender ratios in leadership positions, and top sharing are more important than for male radiologists. Abbreviations: OR = odds ratio, KI = confidence interval, marked fat = significant associations.

 

Scroll to top

Correlation between academic career factors and personality dimensions

The probability of considering research opportunities important increased by 27% with every additional point on the Likert scale for the personality dimension “openness” (OR 1.27 (95% CI 1.01–1.61)). Moreover, participants with a greater degree of openness were more likely to name research as a desired future area of activity (OR 2.01 (95% CI 1.28–3.16)), were more likely to plan to pursue an associate professorship (OR 1.62 (95% CI 1.10–2.38)), or were more likely to have already earned an associate professorship (OR 1.49 (95% CI 1.07–2.07)). However, participants with a greater degree of openness who had not yet earned an associate professorship were also more often unsure whether they should strive to do so (OR 1.73 (95% CI 1.13–2.63)). Participants with a greater degree of openness were more motivated to earn an associate professorship due to an interest in teaching compared to participants with a lesser degree of openness (OR 1.81 (95% CI 1.14–2.88)).

Extroverted participants were not more likely to have earned an associate professorship than less extroverted participants but were more likely to plan to pursue an associate professorship (OR 1.45 (95% CI 1.07–1.97)). The only statistically different motivator for pursuing an associate professorship between extroverted and less extroverted participants was the opportunity to apply for a full professorship (extroversion OR 1.58 (95% CI 1.12–2.23)). At the same time, the probability of considering research as the desired future area of activity decreased with the participant’s level of extroversion (OR 0.72 (95% CI 0.54–0.95)).

Conscientiousness was not associated with an already earned or planned pursuit of an associate professorship in a statistically relevant manner. However, highly conscientious participants indicated that they are more motivated to pursue an associate professorship by the possibility of career opportunities outside the university context (OR 1.70 (95% CI 1.07–2.70)).

In the case of a high level of agreeableness, the following decreased even after correcting for gender, age, mentoring, professional position, and external funding: number of publications (Beta –3.65 (P = 0.044), probability of having earned an associate professorship (OR 0.67 (95% CI 0.50–0.91)), and considering research opportunities important (OR 0.72 (95% CI 0.54–0.95).

Participants with a low level of neuroticism (high emotional stability) considered the pursuit of an associate professorship to entail “more work than benefit” (OR 1.41 (95% CI 1.08–1.86)). Also, with an increasing level of neuroticism even after correcting for gender, age, mentoring, and professional position, the probability of acquiring external funding decreased (OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.56–0.91).

Details of the evaluated associations are listed in [Table 2].

Table 2 Association between the five personality dimensions of the OCEAN model, professional goals and academic qualification.

Increasingly pronounced personality dimension of:	Extroversion OR (95% CI)	Agreeableness OR (95% CI)	Conscientiousness OR (95% CI)	Emotional stability OR (95% CI)	Openness OR (95% CI)
1 Logistic regression corrected for gender and age 2 Logistic regression corrected for gender, age, mentoring, and current professional position 3 Linear regression corrected for gender, age, external funding, mentoring, and current professional position 4 Multinomial regression corrected for gender, age, mentoring, and number of children * Multiple selections were permitted. Abbreviations: Ref = reference group, OR = odds ratio, 95% CI = 95% confidence interval
Where would you like to work in the future?* (The reference group is the group that did not select the respective response option.)
Ambulatory care, self-employed1	0.97 (0.83–1.31)	1.08 (0.88–1.32)	1.08 (0.85–1.38)	0.98 (0.81–1.19)	1.0 (0.81–1.22)
Ambulatory care, employee1	0.72 (0.61–0.85)	1.22 (0.97–1.54)	1.11 (0.85–1.46)	0.90 (0.73–1.10)	0.95 (0.76–1.19)
University Hospital1	1.01 (0.86–1.19)	0.79 (0.64–0.98)	1.02 (0.80–1.31)	1.04 (0.85–1.27)	1.14 (0.92–1.41)
Non-university Hospital1	0.95 (0.83–1.10)	1.08 (0.90–1.30)	0.88 (0.71–1.10)	1.02 (0.86–1.22)	0.93 (0.77–1.12)
Research1	0.72 (0.54–0.95)	0.80 (0.54–1.19)	1.28 (0.78–2.11)	0.75 (0.53–1.05)	2.01 (1.28–3.16)
Did you plan or do you plan to pursue an associate professorship or have you already earned an associate professorship?4 (The reference group is the group that does not have/never had the desire to pursue an associate professorship.)
Yes, I have already earned my associate professorship.	1.11 (0.87–1.42)	0.67 (0.50–0.91)	1.05 (0.73–1.53)	0.79 (0.57–1.08)	1.49 (1.07–2.07)
Yes, I have applied for an associate professorship.	1.11 (0.74–1.66)	0.75 (0.45–1.27)	0.83 (0.46–1.48)	1.04 (0.64–1.69)	1.25 (0.75–2.10)
Yes, I plan to pursue an associate professorship.	1.45 (1.07–1.97)	0.97 (0.66–1.40)	0.88 (0.56–1.38)	0.94 (0.67–1.32)	1.62 (1.10–2.38)
I had planned to pursue an associate professorship but have changed my mind.	0.77 (0.61–0.98)	0.84 (0.61–1.17)	1.10 (0.72–1.67)	1.06 (0.77–1.47)	1.56 (1.09–2.22)
I don’t know yet.	0.76 (0.56–1.02)	0.92 (0.61–1.39)	0.85 (0.54–1.33)	0.89 (0.62–1.29)	1.73 (1.13–2.63)
Why do you want to pursue an associate professorship or why did you earn an associate professorship?1* (The reference group is the group that did not select the respective response option.)
To be able to apply for a full professorship1	1.58 (1.12–2.23)	0.80 (0.53–1.20)	1.14 (0.72–1.81)	0.96 (0.66–1.38)	1.09 (0.69–1.73)
To be able to apply for a position as a chief physician1	1.27 (0.93–1.74)	0.89 (0.59–1.34)	1.44 (0.90–2.30)	1.32 (0.90–1.93)	0.75 (0.47–1.19)
Because of an interest in research and science1	0.72 (0.51–1.0)	0.87 (0.57–1.32)	0.99 (0.62–1.61)	1.0 (0.68–1.46)	1.26 (0.79–2.01)
To have better career opportunities outside a university setting1	1.10 (0.83–1.46)	1.16 (0.80–1.70)	1.70 (1.07–2.70)	1.03 (0.74–1.44)	0.78 (0.51–1.20)
Because of an interest in teaching1	1.20 (0.89–1.62)	0.99 (0.67–1.47)	1.07 (0.66–1.74)	1.30 (0.91–1.84)	1.81 (1.14–2.88)
To have more opportunities for development1	1.05 (0.78–1.40)	1.24 (0.84–1.83)	1.15 (0.73–1.81)	1.28 (0.91–1.80)	1.24 (0.81–1.92)
To achieve greater independence1	1.19 (0.90–0.95)	1.01 (0.69–1.47)	1.52 (0.98–0.95)	1.04 (0.75–0.95)	0.89 (0.59–1.40)
Only among participants from university hospitals
External funding acquired2 (Reference group with no external funding)	1.07 (0.88–1.31)	0.78 (0.61–1.40)	1.17 (0.86–1.40)	0.71 (0.56–1.40)	1.21 (0.93–1.40)
	β (P-value)
Number of published papers3	0.82 (0.55)	–3.65 (0.044)	–0.43 (0.84)	–0.59 (0.74)	2.90 (0.12)
Free time in hours per week for research3	0.17 (0.15)	–0.23 (0.15)	0.10 (0.61)	0.09 (0.57)	0.15 (0.36)
What were your main expectations regarding your current professional activities?* (Only responses related to research are shown. Reference response: not important)
Research opportunities1	1.18 (0.99–1.40)	0.76 (0.60–0.95)	0.86 (0.66–1.40)	0.99 (0.80–1.40)	1.27 (1.01–1.61)
Career development opportunities1	1.29 (1.08–1.40)	0.96 (0.75–1.40)	1.20 (0.91–1.40)	0.71 (0.55–1.40)	1.44 (1.13–1.40)
Autonomy1	1.27 (1.05–1.40)	1.10 (0.84–1.40)	1.11 (0.83–1.40)	1.08 (0.85–1.38)	1.35 (1.05–1.74)
What was your level of dissatisfaction with the extent to which your expectations were met?* (Reference group is the satisfied group.)
With protected time for clinical research1	0.92 (0.76–1.12)	0.72 (0.54–0.95)	1.38 (1.0–0.95)	0.96 (0.75–1.22)	1.16 (0.86–0.95)
With the ability to attend conventions1	0.84 (0.71–1.0)	0.92 (0.72–0.95)	0.79 (0.61–0.95)	0.92 (0.74–0.95)	0.99 (0.78–0.95)
With inclusion in research projects1	0.70 (0.56–0.95)	0.80 (0.60–0.95)	1.07 (0.77–1.48)	1.25 (0.97–1.61)	1.09 (0.81–0.95)
With the opportunity to develop one’s own projects and apply for external funding1	0.83 (0.67, 1.03)	0.89 (0.67–1.17)	1.00 (0.72–1.39)	1.06 (0.82–0.95)	1.22 (0.91–0.95)

 

Scroll to top

 

Scroll to top

Discussion

The survey results from 510 radiologists in Germany showed as expected that female radiologists with an associate professorship are underrepresented. Furthermore, this study demonstrated that the motivators for pursuing academic qualification and satisfaction with research conditions are largely gender-independent. However, female radiologists consider a gender balance at the leadership level, top sharing, work-family compatibility, and flexible working hours more relevant for increasing the attractiveness of leadership positions than male radiologists. Mentoring had a relevant association with career success, with same-gender mentor-mentee relationships being preferred. Moreover, there was an association between the personality traits openness and extroversion and academic qualification.

Research motivators are the subject of numerous studies, particularly as the number of physicians participating in research is internationally decreasing [13]. It can be differentiated between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. In this study, the option of applying for a chief physician position was a more relevant extrinsic motivator for pursuing an associate professorship for male radiologists. In comparison, a meta-analysis including 46 studies identified the following as motivators for long-term interest in research: a mixture of intrinsic motivators (expanding the personal horizon, curiosity, enrichement of clinical activities) and high valuation of research benefits (contribution to the improvement of patient health and clinical practice) [13]. With respect to the intrinsic motivators evaluated in our study (research interest, teaching interest, development opportunities, and increasing independence), no gender difference was seen. Therefore, it would be a gender-independent approach to strengthen competence, autonomy, and social integration in research, as the main intrinsic motivators according to the self-determination theory of Deci and Ryan [14].

The high level of satisfaction with protected research time among the participants of this survey was surprising as a lack of protected research time and external funding as well as lacking organizational support are main obstacles to research according to the literature [13]. This may either be due to a selection bias, as colleagues with protected research time might have had more time to participate in the study, or protected research time has become a more frequent tool of supporting research in radiology.

Work-family compatibility and flexible work hours were seen as highly relevant by all participants independent of gender. Improving these aspects thus probably has the potential to increase the attractiveness of an academic career. Since female radiologists stated that they are more involved in childcare, this topic is likely even more relevant for young women.

The greatest discrepancy between female radiologists and male radiologists in the evaluation of factors for increasing the attractiveness of leadership positions was that a balanced gender ratio was judged as far more important by female radiologists. This coincides with the literature which describes a preference on the part of women to have female role models [15] and the rejection of female role models by male medical students [16].

In concordance, preferences regarding gender homogeneity in the mentoring relationship have been described, as well [17] [18] [19]. Our own previous studies in the field of radiology [20] [21] support the corresponding results of the present study. Regarding the observed association between mentoring and academic qualification decades of research support the relevance of mentoring for career development [22]. However, young women are limited in their preferred choice of female mentors due to the small number of potential female mentors. In light of the relevance of mentoring for academic success and possibly subconscious gender preferences, mixed-gender mentor-mentee relationships should be considered by potential mentors and mentees.

Concerning the results of the association between personality traits and academic qualification our findings are plausible when compared to the literature. Meta-analyses on academic performance at school, during academic studies, and for employees in academia have shown a positive effect of all personality dimensions, except neuroticism [23], with an especially pronounced effect for conscientiousness [24]. In our study an interest in research and research motivation was particularly associated with openness and extroversion. Interestingly, concerning openness, the literature is partly contradictory [25]. In the research context, openness may play a special role, as it is necessary to be open minded about new study fields and research results are inherently unpredictable. However, extroversion is known to correlate with salary and management positions [7]. This coincides with the fact that promotion to chief physician was a relevant motivator for pursuing an associate professorship for highly extroverted participants in our study.

One limitation of our study is a potential selection bias. Radiologists with a particular interest in research or with protected research time might have had more time and interest to complete the questionnaire. In relation to the personality test that was used, it should be noted that participants may have had previous experience with comparable test questions due to their medical background. Also, some attributes regarding the personality assessment are negative (e.g., “critical, argumentative”, “disorganized, careless”), while others are positive (e.g., “reliable, disciplined”). Thus, a social-desirability bias, which is also typical for surveys, might have affected the answers. Concerning the lower international response rates, these are probably due to the fact that individualized email requests were sent exclusively to radiologists that worked at German hospitals.

In summary, the present study shows that research motivation is largely intrinsic and gender-independent, but the status of academic qualification varies with gender and personality traits.

 

Scroll to top

Clinical relevance of the study

This study demonstrates, that more female mentors, the choice of mixed-gender mentor-mentee relationships, female role models in leadership positions, top sharing, increased work-family compatibility, and flexible work hours are necessary to promote academic qualification, particularly among women.

Achieving that while battling the current demographic trends and economic constraints, will be one of the biggest challenges we will face as academic radiologists in the future.

 

Scroll to top

 

Scroll to top

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

• References

• 1 Statistisches Bundesamt. Studierende insgesamt und Studierende Deutsche im Studienfach Medizin (Allgemein-Medizin) nach Geschlecht. Zugriff am 28. November 2023 unter: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bildung-Forschung-Kultur/Hochschulen/Tabellen/lrbil05.html
• 2 Cater SW, Yoon SC, Lowell DA. et al. Bridging the Gap: Identifying Global Trends in Gender Disparity Among the Radiology Physician Workforce. Acad Radiol 2018; 25: 1052-1061
• 3 Fichera G, Busch IM, Rimondini M. et al. Is Empowerment of Female Radiologists Still Needed? Findings of a Systematic Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18
• 4 Deutscher Ärztinnenbund. Medical women on top. Dokumentation des Anteils von Frauen in Führungspositionen in 16 Fächern der deutschen Universitätsmedizin. 2016 Zugriff am 10. Januar 2024 unter: https://www.aerztinnenbund.de/downloads/4/WoT.pdf
• 5 Deutscher Ärztinnenbund. Update: Medical women on top. Dokumentation des Anteils von Frauen in Führungspositionen in klinischen Fächern der deutschen Universitätsmedizin. 2022 Zugriff am 10. Januar 2024 unter: https://www.aerztinnenbund.de/downloads/8/MWoT2022_Web.pdf
• 6 Goswami AK, Kokabi N, Khaja MS. et al. Academic Radiology in the United States: Defining Gender Disparities in Faculty Leadership and Academic Rank. Acad Radiol 2022; 29: 714-725
• 7 Kang W, Guzman KL, Malvaso A. Big Five personality traits in the workplace: Investigating personality differences between employees, supervisors, managers, and entrepreneurs. Front Psychol 2023; 14: 976022
• 8 Spark A, O’Connor PJ, Jimmieson NL. et al. Is the transition to formal leadership caused by trait extraversion? A counterfactual hazard analysis using two large panel datasets. The Leadership Quarterly 2022; 33
• 9 Kordsmeyer TL, Speer AB, Wilms R. et al. Longitudinal Effects of Employees’ Big Five Personality Traits on Internal Promotions Differentiated by Job Level in a Multinational Company. J Bus Psychol 2024;
• 10 Dotto GP. Gender and sex-time to bridge the gap. EMBO Mol Med 2019; 11
• 11 Soldz S, Vaillant GE. The Big Five Personality Traits and the Life Course: A 45-Year Longitudinal Study. Journal of Research in Personality 1999; 33: 208-232
• 12 Gosling S. D., Rentfrow PJ, W.B. SJ. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality 2003; 37: 504-528
• 13 D’Arrietta LM, Vangaveti VN, Crowe MJ. et al. Rethinking Health Professionals’ Motivation to Do Research: A Systematic Review. J Multidiscip Healthc 2022; 15: 185-216
• 14 Ryan RR, Deci EL. Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology 2008; 49: 182-185
• 15 Gillooly SN, Hardt H, Smith AE. Having female role models correlates with PhD students’ attitudes toward their own academic success. PLoS One 2021; 16: e0255095
• 16 Lindberg O. Gender and role models in the education of medical doctors: a qualitative exploration of gendered ways of thinking. Int J Med Educ 2020; 11: 31-36
• 17 Schwartz LP, Lienard JF, David SV. Impact of gender on the formation and outcome of formal mentoring relationships in the life sciences. PLoS Biol 2022; 20: e3001771
• 18 Lin G, Murase JE, Murrell DF. et al. The impact of gender in mentor-mentee success: Results from the Women’s Dermatologic Society Mentorship Survey. Int J Womens Dermatol 2021; 7: 398-402
• 19 Bernard C, Pommier R, Vilgrain V. et al. Gender gap in articles published in European Radiology and CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology: evolution between 2002 and 2016. Eur Radiol 2020; 30: 1011-1019
• 20 Yamamura J, Molwitz I, Ozga AK. et al. Gender differences and cooperation in medical authorships – an analysis of the recent ten years in five key medical disciplines. BMC Med Educ 2023; 23: 68
• 21 Molwitz I, Keller S, Wolf-Baldauf L. et al. Female author representation differs between journals from the United States of America, Europe, and Asia: a 10-year comparison of five medical disciplines. Scientometrics 2022; 128: 1583-1600
• 22 Eby LT, Allen TD, Evans SC. et al. Does Mentoring Matter? A Multidisciplinary Meta-Analysis Comparing Mentored and Non-Mentored Individuals. J Vocat Behav 2008; 72: 254-267
• 23 Mammadov S. Big Five personality traits and academic performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality 2021; 90
• 24 Zell E, Lesich TL. Big five personality traits and performance: A quantitative synthesis of 50+ meta-analyses. Journal of Personality 2021; 90
• 25 Moutafi J, Furnham A, Crump J. Is Managerial Level Related to Personality. British Journal of Management 2007;

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 26. März 2024

Angenommen nach Revision: 28. August 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
16. Oktober 2024