Gender and Perceived Racial Diversity in Academic Otolaryngology

Objectives To characterize gender and perceived racial representation among academic otolaryngology faculty in the United States and evaluate associations with academic rank, leadership roles, and research productivity. Methods This cross‐sectional study evaluated faculty with professorial titles across 133 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education‐accredited otolaryngology residency programs in the United States. Faculty rosters were collected from program websites between October 2024 and March 2025 and supplemented with publicly available sources. Variables included perceived gender, perceived race, academic rank, leadership roles, years in practice, subspecialty training, and h ‐index. Associations were evaluated using chi‐square tests and multivariable ordinal logistic regression. Because demographic variables were assigned from publicly available information rather than self‐identification, perceived race was analyzed only as White versus non‐White and is interpreted as a limited, socially constructed variable. Results Among 1697 faculty, 69.1% were male and 68.8% were perceived as White. Women were more represented in pediatric otolaryngology and laryngology, whereas men were more represented in head and neck surgery, neurotology, and comprehensive otolaryngology ( p < 0.001). Women were more likely to be assistant professors and men professors ( p < 0.001). Women more often held residency leadership roles (9.7% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.002), whereas men more often held fellowship leadership roles (8.4% vs. 5.3%; p = 0.028) and chair positions (5.0% vs. 2.7%; p = 0.026). Men had more years in practice and higher h ‐indices (both p < 0.001). No significant differences by perceived race were observed in academic rank, leadership, or research productivity. In multivariable analysis, years in practice and h ‐index independently predicted higher academic rank, whereas gender and perceived race did not. Conclusion Academic rank was more strongly associated with years in practice and h ‐index than with gender or perceived race. Perceived‐race findings should be interpreted cautiously because binary externally assigned categories may obscure within‐group differences. Level of Evidence 4