Harnessing the Collective Power of Gender Equity and Diversity in Nursing

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING Journal of Advanced Nursing Pub Date : 2025-02-15 DOI:10.1111/jan.16835
D. Candelaria, J. River, R. Gallagher, B. McCormack
{"title":"Harnessing the Collective Power of Gender Equity and Diversity in Nursing","authors":"D. Candelaria, J. River, R. Gallagher, B. McCormack","doi":"10.1111/jan.16835","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h2>1 Introduction</h2>\n<p>Equity and diversity are increasingly recognised as critical issues in the nursing profession. One important focus has been gender equity (Padgett <span>2024</span>). As a female-dominated profession, nursing has benefitted from feminist advocacy, which has played an important role in addressing systemic inequities and advancing the rights of women in nursing (Chinn <span>1985</span>). However, as more men choose nursing as a career, contradictory debates have ensued about the relative advantages or disadvantages faced by men compared to women (Padgett <span>2024</span>). These include claims of disadvantage and inequity for men, who make up the minority of nurses (comprising about 10% worldwide) (World Health Organization (WHO) <span>2020</span>). On the other hand, there are assertions of systemic privileges for men, evidenced by advantages in pay and career progression within nursing (Punshon et al. <span>2019</span>; Doleman et al. <span>2024</span>). Although claims of systemic disadvantages for men are less robust, they are persistently articulated in the nursing literature (Padgett <span>2024</span>).</p>\n<p>While addressing pay and career progression disparities remains a priority, we argue in this paper that building a more equitable and inclusive profession, and tackling oppressive systems and hierarchies, requires embracing a more nuanced understanding of gender relations and gender diversity. Importantly, we argue that a simplistic and dichotomous view of gender risks obscuring pressing equity issues related to the dynamic and sometimes abrasive intersections of gender, race, class, sexuality and other social structures (Carbado et al. <span>2013</span>) and overlooks nurses' personal agency in resisting structural power dynamics to support gender equity (Fisher <span>2006</span>). Moreover, gender is not binary, and trans and gender-diverse people are increasingly seeking visibility, recognition and equity within the nursing profession (Kellett and Fitton <span>2016</span>; Quinn et al. <span>2021</span>). Therefore, we argue that the focus of nursing should be on cultivating a reflexive and inclusive culture and addressing systemic inequity for nurses from diverse backgrounds, including those related to pay disparities, underrepresentation in leadership and unequal access to opportunities.</p>","PeriodicalId":54897,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Advanced Nursing","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Advanced Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.16835","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

1 Introduction

Equity and diversity are increasingly recognised as critical issues in the nursing profession. One important focus has been gender equity (Padgett 2024). As a female-dominated profession, nursing has benefitted from feminist advocacy, which has played an important role in addressing systemic inequities and advancing the rights of women in nursing (Chinn 1985). However, as more men choose nursing as a career, contradictory debates have ensued about the relative advantages or disadvantages faced by men compared to women (Padgett 2024). These include claims of disadvantage and inequity for men, who make up the minority of nurses (comprising about 10% worldwide) (World Health Organization (WHO) 2020). On the other hand, there are assertions of systemic privileges for men, evidenced by advantages in pay and career progression within nursing (Punshon et al. 2019; Doleman et al. 2024). Although claims of systemic disadvantages for men are less robust, they are persistently articulated in the nursing literature (Padgett 2024).

While addressing pay and career progression disparities remains a priority, we argue in this paper that building a more equitable and inclusive profession, and tackling oppressive systems and hierarchies, requires embracing a more nuanced understanding of gender relations and gender diversity. Importantly, we argue that a simplistic and dichotomous view of gender risks obscuring pressing equity issues related to the dynamic and sometimes abrasive intersections of gender, race, class, sexuality and other social structures (Carbado et al. 2013) and overlooks nurses' personal agency in resisting structural power dynamics to support gender equity (Fisher 2006). Moreover, gender is not binary, and trans and gender-diverse people are increasingly seeking visibility, recognition and equity within the nursing profession (Kellett and Fitton 2016; Quinn et al. 2021). Therefore, we argue that the focus of nursing should be on cultivating a reflexive and inclusive culture and addressing systemic inequity for nurses from diverse backgrounds, including those related to pay disparities, underrepresentation in leadership and unequal access to opportunities.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用护理领域性别平等和多样性的集体力量
公平性和多样性越来越被认为是护理专业的关键问题。一个重要的焦点是性别平等(Padgett 2024)。作为一个女性主导的职业,护理受益于女权主义的倡导,在解决系统性不平等和提高护理妇女权利方面发挥了重要作用(Chinn 1985)。然而,随着越来越多的男性选择护理作为职业,关于男性与女性相比所面临的相对优势或劣势的矛盾辩论随之而来(Padgett 2024)。其中包括对男性的不利待遇和不平等待遇,因为男性在护士中占少数(全世界约占10%)(世界卫生组织(世卫组织)2020年)。另一方面,男性享有系统性特权,这可以从护理行业的薪酬和职业发展优势中得到证明(Punshon等人,2019;Doleman et al. 2024)。尽管关于男性系统性劣势的说法不那么有力,但它们在护理文献中一直得到阐述(Padgett 2024)。虽然解决薪酬和职业发展差距仍然是一个优先事项,但我们在本文中认为,建立一个更加公平和包容的职业,并解决压迫性的制度和等级制度,需要对性别关系和性别多样性有更细致的理解。重要的是,我们认为,对性别的简单化和两分法观点有可能掩盖与性别、种族、阶级、性取向和其他社会结构的动态交叉点(有时是磨磨性交叉点)相关的紧迫公平问题(Carbado et al. 2013),并忽视了护士在抵制结构性权力动态以支持性别平等方面的个人能动性(Fisher 2006)。此外,性别不是二元的,跨性别和性别多样化的人越来越多地在护理专业中寻求知名度、认可和公平(Kellett和Fitton 2016;Quinn et al. 2021)。因此,我们认为护理的重点应该是培养一种反思和包容的文化,并解决来自不同背景的护士的系统性不平等问题,包括与薪酬差距、领导层代表性不足和机会不平等有关的不平等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
7.90%
发文量
369
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Advanced Nursing (JAN) contributes to the advancement of evidence-based nursing, midwifery and healthcare by disseminating high quality research and scholarship of contemporary relevance and with potential to advance knowledge for practice, education, management or policy. All JAN papers are required to have a sound scientific, evidential, theoretical or philosophical base and to be critical, questioning and scholarly in approach. As an international journal, JAN promotes diversity of research and scholarship in terms of culture, paradigm and healthcare context. For JAN’s worldwide readership, authors are expected to make clear the wider international relevance of their work and to demonstrate sensitivity to cultural considerations and differences.
期刊最新文献
The effects of clinical learning environment and career adaptability on resilience: A mediating analysis based on a survey of nursing interns. Correlation of psychological resilience with social support and coping style in Parkinson's disease: A cross-sectional study. The Mediating Role of Spirituality in Delineating the Interconnection Between Self-Efficacy and Resilience Among the Parents of Children With Newly Diagnosed Diabetes: A Community Nursing-Led Cross-Sectional Study. Men in Nursing: Let's Talk. Exploring Nursing Implications in the Standards of Care for Transgender and Gender Diverse Health, Version 8 by Coleman et al. (2022).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1