Program evaluation demonstrates increased senior representation for women in academic health disciplines, suggesting combined mentee support and assessor bias training promotes gender equity.
There are significant gender disparities across health disciplines, including substantial underrepresentation of women at senior levels in health education and research. This project aimed to develop and evaluate a targeted promotion mentoring program for women and non-binary academics working in health disciplines in a large metropolitan university in Australia. The program combined mentoring for individual academic staff members considering applying for promotion with briefings for promotion assessors on mitigating bias, addressing the common critique that mentoring programs ‘fix women’ rather than tackling systemic barriers. The program aligned with the goals of the international framework for gender equity in higher education. Evaluation design included descriptive statistical analysis of organisational workforce demographic information and a repeated cross-sectional qualitative survey of program participants. A total of 204 staff members participated in the program as mentees over the first 4 years. Promotion applications by participants in the program had an overall success rate of 82%-95%. Women’s representation at the two most senior academic levels improved. At Associate Professor level, the proportion of women increased from 45% in 2019 to 54% in 2025. At Professor level, representation increased from 32% women in 2019 to 45% women in 2025. Qualitative comments from mentees and mentors about their experiences indicate that the program demystified the promotion process, made mentees feel supported, and contributed to a sense of community and connection for both mentees and mentors. Targeted career mentoring focused on academic promotion increased representation of women academics at the senior levels within a health faculty. A dual approach of supporting applicants and educating assessors is effective. Attending to intersectional disadvantage and active inclusion for non-binary staff should be a focus for future work in this area.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McDougall et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: