Facilitating generative mentoring in higher education: a systematic review and measurement framework for mentoring, generativity, and the minority tax

Purpose The purpose of this study is to synthesise how faculty mentoring in higher education has been evaluated in relation to mentor generativity and equity-related pressures (including the minority tax) and to propose a minimum measurement framework for valid evaluation. Design/methodology/approach A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020-guided systematic review was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42025647836). The review question was developed using a Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research-informed approach appropriate to the inclusion of both quantitative and qualitative evidence. Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and EBSCOhost were searched from database inception to June 2025. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data, study quality was appraised using design-appropriate tools, and findings were narratively synthesised. Findings Eight studies met the inclusion criteria (six quantitative, two qualitative), with most of the evidence from the USA. No study directly measured mentor generativity using validated generativity instruments; instead, studies relied on proxy outcomes (e.g. satisfaction, productivity, promotion). This limits conclusions about the construct validity of generativity and may obscure costs when mentoring demands are high and recognition is low, especially for historically marginalised faculty. Research limitations/implications The evidence base was small (eight studies), predominantly U.S.-based, methodologically heterogeneous, and reliant on proxy outcomes rather than validated measures of mentor generativity. These limitations precluded meta-analysis and causal inference. Future research should directly measure generativity alongside mentoring load, institutional recognition, strain, and equity-related indicators across more diverse regions, disciplines, and institutional contexts. Practical implications The framework provides institutions and researchers with a concise set of indicators to evaluate mentoring programmes, inform workload crediting and promotion criteria, and monitor equity in the distribution and recognition of mentoring labour. Originality/value This review reframes the evaluation of faculty mentoring as a construct-measurement problem and proposes a minimum measurement framework that distinguishes direct generativity from commonly used proxy outcomes. By integrating mentoring load, institutional recognition, strain, and equity considerations, the framework also provides a basis for empirically testing the proposed “generativity paradox”, the conditions under which mentoring may be experienced as renewing, burdensome, or both.