Benefits, barriers and enablers of mentoring female health academics: An integrative review

Abstract

This integrative literature review synthesizes the primary research evidence on mentoring female health academics published from 2000 to 2018, to identify the benefits, enablers and barriers to mentoring women. The need for this review is underpinned by the magnitude of change in higher education, the high number of women in health disciplines, limited progress in advancing women’s academic careers, escalating role expectations, faculty shortages and staff turnover. Data were sourced from Scopus, PubMed, EMBASE and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Twenty-seven studies were included. Although effective mentoring facilitates personal and career development, academic craftsmanship, psychosocial support and job satisfaction, it is complicated by organizational factors and personal and relational dynamics. Enablers of mentoring are mentor availability and expertise, supportive relationships, mutuality and responsiveness. Lack of, or inadequate mentoring compromise women’s job satisfaction, career development and academic productivity. Providing female health academics access to experienced, well-connected mentors with common interests who are committed to advancing their career, is an investment in optimizing potential, promoting supportive work environments and increasing productivity and retention. Realizing the institutional potential that mentoring female health academics offers, is contingent on academic leaders valuing mentorship as faculty business and understanding the role that the contemporary academic environment plays in achieving mentoring outcomes. Further empirical and longitudinal research is needed to evaluate effective approaches for mentoring women in the contemporary academic environment.

Mentoring New and Early-Stage Investigators and Underrepresented Minority Faculty for Research Success in Health-Related Fields: An Integrative Literature Review (2010–2020)

“…Although we did not include a search term for “women” as an underrepresented subgroup, several of the studies included a majority of women [ 49 , 51 , 53 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 81 , 83 , 87 ]. Two of the studies we included exclusively surveyed women [ 52 , 84 ]. We included studies that included a majority of women or reviews focused exclusively on women as they are considered underrepresented in the male-dominated field of academic medicine.…”

“…Table 2 contains a summary of individual barriers to research success. Individual barriers that appeared in all three (3) faculty categories were a lack of time ( n = 5) [ 52 , 53 , 57 , 66 , 69 ] and finding work–life balance ( n = 4) [ 58 , 69 , 76 , 83 ].…”

“…The most frequently occurring individual barriers for UMF were related to bias and discrimination ( n = 5) [ 44 , 45 , 60 , 65 , 77 ] and isolation ( n = 5) [ 45 , 60 , 65 , 86 , 88 ]. Not included in the summary table, yet still worth mentioning as a barrier for UMF (both ethnic minorities and women), is the barrier of differential power dynamics ( n = 3), which occurs if the mentor–mentee relationship is hierarchical [ 52 ], if the mentor does not value the skill set or research area of the mentee [ 65 ], or if institutional and mentor values differ from the mentee [ 88 ]. Two studies mentioned financial barriers to success including a high cost of living combined with student loan debt, and childcare needs [ 76 , 86 ].…”

“…Institutional barriers were more frequently mentioned than individual barriers. The most frequently occurring institutional barrier for NI, ESI and UMF was a lack of mentors ( n = 12) [ 45 , 46 , 52 , 55 , 63 , 64 , 66 , 67 , 77 , 86 , 88 ]. Especially lacking were mentors who matched the area of study, expertise, diversity, or research deficits of the mentee.…”

“…Sixteen papers advocated for developing mentoring strategies leading to cultural humility and a culturally responsive institution, and of these, 13 included scholars of color in their sample [ 44 , 46 , 53 , 55 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 65 , 71 , 77 , 88 ]—one was a review about women in higher education [ 52 ], and two were focused on NI and ESI [ 67 , 70 ].…”