A survey of nearly 300 physicians and scientists at The Ottawa Hospital's Department of Medicine found that perceptions of equity and inclusion vary sharply by gender, age and racial identity. The findings suggest that having a demographically diverse workforce does not guarantee that staff actually experience the workplace as fair.
What the survey measured
Researchers surveyed 297 physicians and scientists in the department, achieving a 59.9% response rate. Of those respondents, 43% (128 people) identified as women and 25% (73 people) identified as racialized. The age distribution differed notably by gender: 53.9% of women respondents were between 25 and 44 years old, while 39.6% of men were over age 55. These figures describe the survey sample itself, not the department's entire workforce.
Gaps in perceived fairness
After adjusting for age, women were substantially less likely than men to view gender treatment as equitable, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.26 (95% confidence interval 0.14-0.48, p0.001) - consistent with the 74% lower likelihood reported in the study. Women also had lower odds of viewing leadership opportunities as fair, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.43 (95% confidence interval 0.25-0.72, p=0.001), corresponding to a 57% lower likelihood than men.
Age showed a different pattern. After adjusting for gender, respondents over 55 were more than twice as likely as those aged 25-44 to see leadership access as equitable, with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.26 (95% confidence interval 1.19-4.29, p=0.01). Racialized respondents were less likely to feel their opinions were valued (p=0.03) and less likely to view leadership opportunities as equitable (p0.01), though the study's published results do not include odds ratios for these two comparisons, so their magnitude cannot be precisely quantified.
What the findings do and don't show
Because this is a cross-sectional survey of a single department, it captures perceptions at one point in time and cannot establish that gender, age or race directly caused these differences, nor can it track how views might shift over time. The study also cannot explain the underlying cultural or organizational mechanisms driving the gaps, or confirm whether similar patterns would appear in other academic medical institutions.
The authors argue that the results point to a broader lesson for employers in academic medicine and beyond: tracking representation statistics alone is insufficient to assess whether an organization is genuinely experienced as inclusive. They call for additional research into the structural and cultural factors behind these disparities, along with practical strategies to close the gaps in how different groups experience leadership access, recognition and equitable treatment.