The Whole Picture of Female Nurse Faculty Leaders: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Gender stereotypes influence women and men who work as nurses. In education setting, the dominance of female nurses has been challenging given their respective roles in management and leadership, both professionally and personally.Objective: To explore the experience and synthesise available literature on female nurse leaders in the academic settings.Methods: Systematic review of qualitative study on any type of qualitative from academic database: ProQuest, PubMed, CINAHL, and MEDLINE was conducted. Starting from 1st January 1990 to 31 December 2021. The criteria; freely accessible, complete in terms of content, authored, published in the English language, and combination of keywords including nurse, nursing, faculty, dean, head, and director were applied. The review was reported following PRISMA format. The studies included were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool (CASP) 2017.Results: The screening process resulted in the selection of fourteen (14) studies from the USA, Canada, UK, and Australia that used a range of qualitative methodologies, including descriptive explorative, phenomenology, grounded theory, feminist research, case studies, and a number of data collection techniques, including open-surveys, interviews, field notes, campus observations, document analysis, and analytic memos. Thematic analyses were applied and yielded six main themes: dealing with power imbalance and gender discrimination; addressing problems related to people; disruption in fulfilling leadership roles; leadership personalities; people-oriented leadership quality; and change-oriented leadership quality.Conclusion: Female faculty leaders in nursing reported a variety of personal and professional challenges. The existing literature scarcely captured the gender-specific challenges encountered, including gender stereotyping, and struggle to balance their personal and professional life. Therefore, it is crucial that nurses provide chances for the following leaders in order to enhance nursing education, support the process of leadership regeneration, and develop the profession.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.066 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".