Received: 30 November 2020 | Revised: 11 April 2021 | Accepted: 17 May 2021

DOI: 10.1111/nuf.12615

QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

Faculty development workshop on gender‐associated

incivility in nursing education

Benjamin Smallheer PhD, RN, ACNP‐BC, FNP‐BC, CCRN, CNE1 |

1
Stephanie A. Gedzyk‐Nieman DNP, MSN, RNC‐MNN |
Margory A. Molloy DNP, RN, CNE, CHSE1 | Cynthia M. Clark PhD, RN, ANEF, FAAN2 |
3 4
Helen Gordon DNP, CNM | Brett Morgan DNP, CRNA

1
School of Nursing, Duke University, Durham,
North Carolina, USA Abstract
2
School of Nursing, Boise State University, Background: Men comprise the minority of entry‐level baccalaureate nursing stu-
Boise, Idaho, USA
dents and are at increased risk of experiencing gender‐associated incivility.
3
Department of Nursing, North Carolina
Central University, Durham, Problem: Uncivil peer‐to‐peer behavior can negatively affect students' mental and
North Carolina, USA physical well‐being, and learning experience. Nursing faculty must be able to iden-
4
Department of Education and Practice, tify and address gender‐associated incivility among students.
American Association of Nurse Anesthetists,
Park Ridge, Illinois, USA Aim: The purpose of this quality improvement program was to train nursing faculty
to prevent, identify, and manage gender‐associated incivility in the educational
Correspondence
environment.
Benjamin Smallheer, School of Nursing, Duke
University, 307 Trent Dr, DUMC Box 3322, Methods: A day‐long interactive workshop utilizing trigger films, small group
Durham, NC 27710, USA.
discussions, and interactive theater was developed to train nursing faculty to
Email: benjamin.smallheer@duke.edu
implement proactive and reactive techniques to address uncivil behavior which
Funding information
will enhance the learning environment for all students. Utilizing Kirkpatrick's
Duke Faculty Advancement, Seed Grant 2018
Model of Evaluation, participants were surveyed at the conclusion of the
workshop and four months postworkshop to evaluate their learning and its
implementation.
Results: Participants gained greater understanding of the impact of gender‐
associated incivility and felt both empowered and better prepared to manage
gender‐associated conflict.
Conclusion: Similar approaches may be useful for schools of nursing that wish to
empower their nursing faculty to support an equitable nursing education environ-
ment free of gender‐associated incivility.

KEYWORDS
faculty development, gender incivility, nursing education

Cynthia M. Clark: Professor Emeritus.

Nursing Forum. 2021;1–8. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/nuf © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC | 1

2 |
1 | INTRODUCTION
1.1 | Problem
1
In the United States almost 11% of registered nurses and approxi-
mately 13% of students enrolled in entry‐level baccalaureate nursing
2
programs are men. Current numbers, although gradually increasing,
have yet to show the type of growth needed to support a diversified
nursing workforce that mirrors the general population. The literature
discusses the prevalence of uncivil behaviors within environments
containing a disproportionate number of one gender over another
and their effects on the minority gender group,3–5 including the
frequency of such uncivil behaviors in nursing education.6,7,23
Therefore men, because of their minority gender status may ex-
perience gender‐associated uncivil behaviors during their educa-
tional experience.
1.2 | Available knowledge
1.2.1 | Incivility in nursing education
Academic incivility, whether initiated or experienced by faculty,
students, or administrators is a considerable challenge for nursing
education. Clark8 defined incivility as a range of rude, disrespectful,
or aggressive behaviors that may result in emotional or physical
distress for all those involved. If left unaddressed, these offenses
may worsen or progress into more serious or threatening situations.
Incivility also comprises failing to act or speak up when action is
warranted, withholding vital information, or marginalizing and ex-
cluding others. More overt acts of incivility include spreading rumors
and negative gossip, posting disparaging comments on digital or so-
cial media sites, and making demeaning or belittling remarks towards
others. These behaviors, especially when experienced over a period
of time, can have enduring and damaging effects on the academic
environment.9
The dynamics of academic incivility are complex and multi-
directional including, but not limited to, uncivil experiences occurring
between and among faculty, students, preceptors, administrators,
staff nurses, and other healthcare professionals.10,11 Despite the
complexity and direction of academic incivility, the effects of these
behaviors can be significant. In addition to disrupting the learning
and work environments where faculty and students teach and learn,
incivility and other workplace aggressions violate several profes-
sional nursing standards and position statements. The International
Code of Ethics for Nurses12 emphasizes nurse's responsibility to treat
others with dignity and respect. The International Council of
Nurses13 further supports the development of “zero‐tolerance” po-
licies of violence in any form, including violations associated with
workplace incivility, bullying, and lateral violence. Similarly, Provision
1.5 of the American Nurses Association Code of Ethics 14
“requires
nurses to create an ethical environment and culture of civility and
kindness, treating colleagues, co‐workers, employees, students, and
SMALLHEER ET AL.
others with dignity and respect…and that any form of bullying,
harassment, intimidation, manipulation, threats or violence are
always morally unacceptable behaviors” (p. 4). The National League
for Nursing15 also published a vision statement highlighting the im-
portance of creating civil, healthy academic, and work environments,
stressing the role faculty have in the formation and preservation of
these environments. These foundational documents support the
need for civility that must be continuously exhibited by nursing
students, nurse educators, and practicing nurses.
1.2.2 | Gender‐associated incivility in nursing
education
Until recently, the topic of gender‐associated incivility in higher
education had not received much attention, although studies indicate
that gender plays a role in negative behaviors within groups,16,17
especially when the number of individuals of one gender is dis-
proportionate. Male incivility towards females in higher education
has been documented in disciplines other than nursing.11 However,
the male‐to‐female gender disproportion present in nursing training
programs places male nursing students at increased risk for in-
civilities directed towards them by their female colleagues.
Underrepresented male students have consistently reported
experiencing nursing education differently compared to students
identifying with the majority, including an inability to relate to
common teaching strategies, exclusion from clinical experiences,
expectations by faculty and/or colleagues that they select a specialty
other than bedside nursing, gender bias by faculty/instructors, and
general lack of acceptance by female peers and faculty.6,18–20 Such
gender‐associated inequity lays a groundwork for uncivil behaviors
in the classroom, online, and in clinical environments.
Factors contributing to gender‐associated incivility within
schools of nursing include stereotypes or implications of touch and
masculinity, a lack of social support in school and during transition to
practice, gender‐bias during recruitment and retention that may
unfairly favor or disadvantage male students, and gender‐bias during
clinical rotations such as obstetrics and labor and delivery.21 Other
more subtle, yet equally as powerful, forms of gender‐associated bias
that contribute to an uncivil environment include the predominant
use of the pronouns she/her/hers when referring to the nurse (rather
than diverse pronouns such as he/him or they/them) along with
images which represent nurses only as female.22 Furthermore, nur-
sing studies generally highlight the contributions of individuals such
as Florence Nightingale, Clara Barton, or Virginia Henderson; how-
ever, the history of men in nursing and the contributions of impactful
male nurses such as Walt Whitman and Luther Christman are often
excluded or minimized. This results in a lack of male role models
within the profession and challenges in transition to practice for male
nursing students.20,21,23–25
Gender‐associated incivility takes many forms: student assign-
ments during clinical rotations may be based on the ability to lift or
move a patient, or related statements may be made about a male
SMALLHEER ET AL.
student's physical stature, appearance, or body. In early conversa-
tions with pre‐licensure male nursing students, they shared experi-
ences of incivility from female counterparts and recalled multiple
episodes of alienating behaviors and comments. Direct statements
shared by the students included26:
• “Anytime the men's nursing club (school‐based chapter of the
American Association for Men in Nursing) had something that we
brought forward, we would, honestly, get kind of a lukewarm re-
sponse from our fellow cohort students.”
• “When we would talk about sports or something not related to
nursing, all of a sudden that becomes something to comment on.”
Experiences of peer‐to‐peer gender‐associated incivility can
negatively affect students' mental and physical well‐being as well as
their learning experience.27,28 Students who are of the gender‐
minority rely on faculty to intervene when they experience gender‐
28
associated incivility ; therefore, nursing faculty must be able to
identify gender‐associated uncivil behaviors and be empowered with
strategies to both proactively and reactively address them.
1.2.3 | Aims
The purpose of this quality improvement program was to (a) create
awareness of gender‐associated incivility in nursing education; (b)
initiate conversations concerning strategies to minimize issues, bar-
riers, and challenges for male nursing students; (c) identify strategies
to address gender‐associated incivility in nursing education and
practice; and (d) determine whether an innovative workshop focused
on gender‐associated incivility would enable nursing faculty to
identify, prevent, and manage it in the educational environment. The
PICOT question for this quality improvement program was: Does
participation in a gender‐associated incivility workshop for nursing
faculty and clinical instructors affect their knowledge of and ability
to intervene in gender‐associated incivility immediately after and
four months postworkshop participation?
2 | METHODS
2.1 | Intervention
We developed an interactive 1‐day faculty development workshop to
(a) identify gender‐associated instances of incivility in nursing edu-
cation, (b) explore strategies to address gender‐associated incivility
in nursing education, and (c) implement targeted approaches to ad-
dress gender‐associated incivility in nursing education. The work-
shop was offered to undergraduate faculty, graduate faculty, and
clinical instructors of all genders. We used a convenience sample of
nursing faculty and clinical instructors at a school of nursing based at
a private university in the Southeastern United States that employs
approximately 70 nursing faculty and 100 clinical instructors.
| 3
The workshop was advertised through email distribution, at faculty
meetings, and through the use of fliers. Approval by the Institutional
Review Board was obtained before the workshop.
The workshop opened with a one‐hour educational session re-
garding the opposing concepts of civility and incivility, and the im-
portance of addressing incivility in the educational setting.
Participants then transitioned into experiential sessions. They were
shown three trigger films developed by the workshop designers that
demonstrated gender‐associated incivility in the classroom, online,
and in the clinical environment. The film depicting classroom in-
civility portrayed a male student being mocked for asking a question
regarding the location of female genitalia structures. The film de-
picting online incivility showed a faculty member reading over dis-
cussion board posts in which female students minimized a male
student's contribution to class as “needing some testosterone in the
discussion.” Finally, the film depicting incivility in the clinical en-
vironment showed a male nursing student being told he must be
chaperoned into a female patient's room to perform an assessment
while a female student is told she can progress without supervision.
Following the viewing, participants were asked to share what
they perceived to be occurring in the films, how they had felt while
watching the uncivil interactions, and any other thoughts about the
trigger films they wished to share. Following a short break, partici-
pants were then divided into three small groups (one for each trigger
film). A group moderator, deemed to be an expert in that particular
trigger film area, lead the session by asking participants the following
questions:
1. What successful strategies have you used in the past to address
this particular type of gender‐associated incivility?
2. What new or modified strategies can you implement in the future
to address and/or prevent this particular type of gender‐
associated incivility?
3. What other types of gender‐associated incivility have you en-
countered in the classroom, online, and/or in the clinical setting?
These small group discussions lasted for 45 min, followed by a
1‐hour full group report‐out and debriefing where groups shared
their identified strategy ideas to address/prevent gender‐associated
incivility. Finally, a professional theater group that specializes in
audience participatory theater presented a 20‐min classroom scene
depicting several instances of gender‐associated incivility. These in-
cidences included racial incivility, bidirectional gender incivility, and
incivility towards individuals identifying as gender nonconforming. At
the conclusion of the scene, workshop participants were allowed to
ask the actors while remaining in character, questions regarding their
behaviors. Finally, a trained debriefer facilitated a 35‐min dialog
about the scene and key ideas/themes regarding (a) gender diversity
as a catalyst for growth and change, (b) the importance of being
proactive in recognizing potential conflict, and (c) strategies for ad-
dressing conflict. The workshop ended with a 30‐min session sum-
marizing its salient points and allowing participants one more
opportunity to share their thoughts, feelings, and experiences.
4 | SMALLHEER ET AL.

3 | MEASURES

disagree N (%)
Utilizing Kirkpatrick's Model for Evaluation,29 we launched a

Strongly

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)
five‐question, 5‐point Likert scale anonymous survey at the conclu-
sion of the workshop. Questions were scored from 5 (strongly agree)
to 1 (strongly disagree), and included:

• I am more aware of the consequences of incivility in the learning

environment.

Disagree

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)
• I have increased my understanding of gender‐associated incivility.

N (%)
• I have an improved ability to recognize gender‐associated incivility.
• I have the tools to be more proactive in preventing gender‐
associated incivility.

Neither agree or
• I have the ability to actively intervene when observing gender‐

disagree N (%)
associated incivility behaviors.

4 (16%)

3 (12%)
2 (8%)

2 (8%)

2 (8%)
Participants who completed the initial survey were invited to
provide an email address and be contacted four months after par-
ticipating in the workshop to complete a follow‐up survey. All re-
sponses were collected via Qualtrics survey software and were

Agree N (%)
anonymous. Recipients who submitted email addresses did not have

10 (40%)

13 (52%)

11 (44%)
4 (16%)

6 (24%)
their survey responses associated with their email. The 4‐month
postworkshop survey consisted of five survey questions. Four were
5‐point Likert scale questions similar to those on the initial survey
and were scored from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree), and
one was a yes/no response question:
Strongly agree

19 (76%)

17 (68%)

13 (52%)

11 (44%)
• I am more aware of the consequences of incivility in the learning 8 (32%)
N (%)

environment.
• I have increased my understanding of gender‐associated incivility.
• I have been able to be more proactive in preventing gender‐
I have the ability to actively intervene when observing gender‐associated incivility

associated incivility.
I have the tools to be more proactive in preventing gender‐associated incivility
I am more aware of the consequences of incivility in the learning environment

• I have had the opportunity to intervene when observing gender‐

associated incivility behaviors.
• I have applied what I have learned from the learning experience
I have an improved ability to recognize gender‐associated incivility

into my teaching practice.

I have increased my understanding of gender‐associated incivility

The 4‐month postworkshop survey allowed participants to ela-

borate on their responses and to provide examples of behavior
changes they had implemented after attending the workshop.

4 | RESULTS
Postsurvey data (N = 25)

A total of 40 participants consisting of faculty, clinical instructors,

and graduate students attended the workshop. There were 25 re-
sponses to the postworkshop survey and 11 responses to the
4‐month postsurvey (see Table 1). At the conclusion of the workshop,
the majority of respondents reported that they either agreed (A) or
behaviors

strongly agreed (SA) that they were more aware of the consequences
TABLE 1

of incivility in the learning environment (SA = 19; A = 4; 92%), had an

increased understanding of gender‐associated incivility (SA = 17;
A = 6; 92%), and had an improved ability to recognize
SMALLHEER ET AL. | 5

gender‐associated incivility (SA = 13; A = 10; 92%). Eighty‐eight per-

disagree N (%)
cent of respondents reported that they either agreed or strongly
agreed that they had the ability to actively intervene (SA = 11;

Strongly

2 (18%)
0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)
A = 11), and 84% reported that they either agreed or strongly agreed
that they had the tools to be more proactive in preventing gender‐
associated incivility (SA = 8; A = 13).
On the 4‐month postsurvey (see Table 2), all respondents reported
that they agreed (A) or strongly agreed (SA) that they were more aware

No 1 (9%)
of the consequences of incivility in the learning environment (SA = 4;

Disagree

4 (38%)
0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)
A = 7; 100%). The majority of respondents reported having an increased

N (%)
understanding of gender‐associated incivility (SA = 4; A = 6; 91%). Only
36% of respondents reported that they agreed (A) or strongly agreed
(SA) that they were able to be more proactive in preventing gender‐

Neither agree or
disagree N (%)
associated incivility (SA = 1; A = 3), and only 27% of respondents re-
ported having had an opportunity to intervene while observing gender‐

7 (63%)

2 (18%)
0 (0%)

1 (9%)
associated incivility behaviors (SA = 0; A = 3). When respondents were
asked if they had applied the lessons from the learning experience into
their teaching practice, 91% indicated they had (n = 10). Respondents
provided examples of changes to teaching practice including:

• Incorporating more educational opportunities in the classroom.

7 (63%)

6 (54%)

3 (27%)

3 (27%)
• Acknowledging when inappropriate gender generalizations Agree
were made. N (%)
• Using alternative pronouns in day‐to‐day language.
• Actively listening for uncivil or offensive language during class-
Strongly agree

room discussions.

Yes 10 (91%)
• Reviewing classroom content to ensure examples are supportive
4 (36%)

4 (38%)

of all genders.
1 (9%)

0 (0%)
N (%)

• Being proactive in writing gender‐neutral test questions.

• Editing class presentations to include pictures of male or diverse
people as nurses.
I have had the opportunity to intervene when observing gender‐associated incivility

I have applied what I have learned from the learning experience into my teaching
I have been able to be more proactive in preventing gender‐associated incivility
I am more aware of the consequences of incivility in the learning environment

During the small group discussions, participants were asked to

share ideas for strategies they would consider utilizing to prevent or
address gender‐associated incivility in the classroom, online, or in the
clinical environment. Four common themes emerged from these dis-
I have increased my understanding of gender‐associated incivility

cussions: (1) Setting expectations through norming and re‐norming, (2)

dialog and communication through conversations intended to refocus
and/or reframe interactions, (3) accountability when occurrences of
gender‐associated incivility are witnessed or reported, and (4) inten-
4‐Month post‐survey data (N = 25)

tional learning to help faculty and clinical instructors maintain skills and
strategies to prevent and intervene. Several of these themes and
examples of changes to teaching practice are also supported in the
literature.30–33 Table 3 further discusses these themes.

5 | DI SCUSSION

5.1 | Interpretation of findings

behaviors

activity
TABLE 2

The use of Kirkpatrick's Model of Evaluation34 allowed participants

to be evaluated on four levels: Level 1 ‐ Reaction, Level 2 ‐ Learning,
Level 3 ‐ Behavioral Change, and Level 4 ‐ Results. The postworkshop
6 | SMALLHEER ET AL.

TABLE 3 Strategy themes, descriptions, and exemplars

Theme Description Respondent exemplars

Setting expectations through Establishing and re‐establishing the typical Intentional introductions which include other staff (clinical)
norming and re‐norming performance of a group helps to embrace psychological safety by creating and
reviewing norms. Re‐norming in the moment further
supports expectations.

Refocus and/or reframe Adjust or express words or concepts differently By model appropriate behavior, intellectual candor can be
interactions supported by taking a moment to reset, and using
communication strategies such as OSCAR
performance, the ABC approach, or CUS method. The
desired outcome is restorative justice.

Accountability for occurrences Holding individuals responsible for behaviors Conversation with those involved are necessary to seek
of gender‐associated consistent with incivility related to gender more information on the behavior, investigate the
incivility differences intention, and allow opportunities to communicate.

Intentional learning for faculty
and clinical instructors
Purposeful engagement with faculty and clinical
instructors to maintain skills and strategies
which may be used to prevent and/or intervene
on incidences of gender‐associated incivility
Faculty and clinical instructors should have continued
training and in‐services to support the modeling of
appropriate behavior and the continued use of
communication strategies such as OSCAR
performance, ABC approach, and CUS method.

survey was developed to evaluate participants' awareness, under-
standing, and recognition of gender‐associated incivility as well as
their perceived ability to prevent gender‐associated incivility and
intervene when it occurred. There were positive responses to all five
questions; however, the greatest number of “strongly agree” re-
sponses concerned increased awareness (n = 19), understanding
(n = 17), and recognition (n = 13) of gender‐associated incivility;
fewer responses of "strongly agree” were given to questions con-
cerning intervention (n = 11) and prevention (n = 8). These findings
indicate that individuals who participated in the workshop (a) found
that it was useful for their work (Level 1); (b) found that it had
increased their expertise, knowledge and mindset (Level 2); and
anticipated that it would result in behavior change (Level 3).
On the 4‐month postsurvey, the majority of respondents an-
swered “yes” to indicate that they had applied the knowledge learned
in the workshop to their teaching (n = 10). Although the majority of
responses to the remaining survey questions were positive (“strongly
agree” or “agree”), the greatest number of respondents answered
“agree” to indicate increased awareness (n = 7) and understanding
(n = 6). The majority of respondents answered “neither agree or
disagree” regarding having the ability to be more proactive in pre-
venting gender‐associated incivility (n = 7). The Kirkpatrick Model of
Evaluation recommends that Level 3 evaluation occur 3–6 months
after training. These survey results, in combination with respondents'
reported examples of changes to their teaching practice, confirm that
the anticipated behavior change identified during the immediate
postworkshop survey resulted in a behavioral change four months
postworkshop (Level 3). Finally, the majority of respondents an-
swered “disagree” or “strongly disagree” when asked if they had
experienced an opportunity to intervene when observing gender‐
associated incivility behaviors. This may be due to two potential
causes: (1) faculty interventions of norming, serving as an example
and mentor, and establishing a zero‐tolerance policy in courses
diminished occurrences of gender‐associated incivility; or (2) faculty
were not able to identify occurrences. These findings are consistent
with the results of focus groups held with male nursing students in a
pre‐licensure nursing program26 in which participants indicated a
belief that faculty often were unaware of uncivil behaviors as they
were occurring. The scarcity of reported opportunities for inter-
vention may indicate a need for continued education and training of
classroom and clinical faculty regarding incidences and types of
gender‐associated incivility.
5.2 | Limitations and recommendations for
future work
This quality improvement initiative contained a small sample size.
The inclusion of other nursing schools could have diversified the
sample and increased the sample size. Additionally, due to the small
sample, Kirkpatrick Level 4 evaluation was unable to be determined.
This evaluation considers organizational performance and results.
Organizational impact was not able to be determined due to the low
percentage of respondents compared with the total number of fa-
culty and clinical instructors at the implementation site.
The attrition rate between the initial survey and the 4‐month
pPostworkshop survey limited the ability to truly evaluate the long‐
term impact of the workshop. Of the 40 attendees, 25 (62.5%)
completed the postsurvey. Of these 25, only 11 (44%) completed the
4‐month survey. These 11 respondents constitute 27.5% of the total
number of respondents. Continued efforts to decrease attrition will
strengthen quality improvement outcome evaluation.
Despite the improvement in awareness, understanding, and re-
cognition regarding gender‐associated incivility, the same level of
improvement was not seen in the areas of prevention and methods
to address gender‐associated incivility. Future workshops should
SMALLHEER ET AL.
dedicate more time to allowing participants enhanced opportunities
to brainstorm prevention and to practice intervention techniques.
Furthermore, the addition of a pre‐test could help workshop facil-
itators to assess areas on which to focus during the event and serve
as a means of measuring the workshop's effectiveness. The use of a
pre‐test is recommended for Kirkpatrick Level 2 evaluation (Learn-
ing). This workshop might also be useful for nursing students,
particularly since the topic originated from student reports of peer‐
to‐ peer gender‐associated incivility. A student workshop could be
provided to students of all genders to improve awareness and pro-
vide skills for preventing gender‐associated incivility and intervening
when it occurs. Future work could also include diverse panels as part
of the workshop and qualitative analysis of student experiences.
6 | C O N CL U S I O N
An inclusive educational environment for all nursing students is im-
perative for student success. As mentors and guides, faculty mem-
bers play a key role in creating and maintaining an equitable and
respectful environment conducive to learning. This workshop is a
means of educating faculty about gender‐associated incivility and
empowering them to support an inclusive environment. The lessons
learned from this workshop, however, are not unique to gender‐
associated incivility. Training faculty within institutions of higher
learning to recognize other forms of incivility, including racism, cul-
turalism, and ageism, is necessary to promote a diverse, inclusive,
equitable, and accepting nursing workforce. During nursing educa-
tion, students are taught the importance of teamwork for improving
patient outcomes; peer‐to‐peer incivility is a major deterrent to
fostering this necessary skill. If not addressed in the educational
setting, uncivil behaviors can be carried on into nursing practice.
Nursing faculty have a responsibility to foster and role‐model
civility. Although faculty may be generally informed about uncivil
behaviors, they may not be familiar with or prepared to address
gender‐associated incivility specifically. This highly interactive fa-
culty workshop was an effective method of engaging faculty with the
concept of gender‐associated incivility. Postworkshop surveys in-
dicate that participants improved their awareness and understanding
regarding this topic and were able to apply new knowledge to their
teaching practice. The results suggest that similar approaches may be
useful for other schools of nursing that seek to empower nursing
faculty and clinical instructors to create and support an equitable
environment free of gender‐associated incivility.
A C K N O W L E D GM E N T
This quality improvement project was supported by a Seed Grant from
the Duke University Office for Faculty Advancement. The funding or-
ganization was not involved in the design, implementation, interpreta-
tion, or reporting of data from this quality improvement project.
C O NF L IC T O F IN T E R ES T S
The authors declare that there are no conflict of interests.
| 7
DATA A VAILABILITY STA TEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available on
request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly
available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
OR C ID
Benjamin Smallheer http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6190-0526
Stephanie A. Gedzyk‐Nieman http://orcid.org/0000-0001-
6669-4429
REFER E NC ES
1. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Household Data Annual Averages:
Employed Persons by Detailed Occupation, Sex, Race, and Hispanic
or Latino ethnicity. US Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2020. Retrieved
from https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.pdf. Accessed November
10, 2020.
2. American Association of Colleges of Nursing [AACN]. 2019‐2020
Enrollment and graduations in baccalaureate and graduate programs in
nursing. American Association of Colleges of Nursing; 2020.
https://www.aacnnursing.org/Store/product-info/productcd/IDSR_
20ENROLLBACC. Accessed October 22, 2020.
3. Gedzyk‐Nieman SA, Svodoba G. Exploring attitudes of acceptance of
males in nursing among registered nurses. J Nurs Manag. 2019;27(3):
647‐654. https://doi.org/10/1111/jonm.12723
4. Heikes JE. When men are the minority: the case of men in nursing.
Sociol Q. 1991;32(3):389‐401. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/
https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1533-8525/issues
5. Kanter RM. Some effects of proportions on group life: skewed sex
ratios and responses to token women. Small Groups: Key Read-
ings. 2006:37‐54. Retrieved from http://www.journals.uchicago.
edu/loi/ajs
6. Sedgwick MG, Kellett P. Exploring masculinity and marginalization
of male undergraduate nursing students' experience of belonging
during clinical experiences. J Nurs Educ. 2015;54(3):121‐129.
https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20150218-15
7. Younas A, Sundus A, Zeb H, Sommer J. A mixed methods review of
male nursing students' challenges during nursing education and
strategies to tackle these challenges. J Prof Nurs. 2019;35(4):
260‐276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2019.01.008
8. Clark CM. Creating and Sustaining Civility in Nursing Education.
2nd ed. Indianapolis: Sigma Theta Tau International Publish-
ing; 2017.
9. Clark CM, Ritter K. Policy to foster civility and support a healthy
academic work environment. J Nurs Educ. 2018;57(6):325‐331.
https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20180522-02
10. Eka NGA, Chambers D. Incivility in nursing education: a systematic
literature review. Nurse Educ Pract. 2019;39:45‐54. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.nepr.2019.06.004
11. Lampman C. Women faculty at risk: U.S. professors report on their
experiences with student incivility, bullying, aggression, and sexual
attention. J Women High Educ. 2012;5(2):184‐208. https://doi.org/
10.1515/njawhe-2012-1108
12. International Council of Nurses [ICN]. ICN Code of ethics for nurses;
2012. Retrieved from https://www.icn.ch/sites/default/files/inline-files/
2012_ICN_Codeofethicsfornurses_%20eng.pdf. Accessed October
14, 2020.
13. International Council of Nurses [ICN]. Position statement: prevention and
management of workplace violence; 2017. Retrieved from https://www.icn.
ch/sites/default/files/inline-files/ICN_PS_Prevention_and_management_
of_workplace_violence.pdf. Accessed October 14, 2020.
14. American Nurses Association [ANA]. Code of ethics for nurses with in-
terpretive statements. American Nurses Association; 2015. https://www.
8 |
nursingworld.org/practice-policy/nursing-excellence/ethics/code-of-
ethics-for-nurses/coe-view-only/. Accessed October 14, 2020.
15. National League for Nursing [NLN]. Vision series: creating community
to build a civil and healthy academic work environment; 2018.
Retrieved from http://www.nln.org/newsroom/nln-position-
documents/nln-living-documents. Accessed October 14, 2020.
16. Gilbert JA, Raffo DM, Sutaro T. Gender, conflict, and workplace bul-
lying: is civility policy the silver bullet? J Managerial Issues. 2013:79‐98.
https://www.pittstate.edu/business/journals/journal-of-managerial-
issues.html
17. Welbourne JL, Sariol AM. When does incivility lead to counter-
productive work behavior? Roles of job involvement, task inter-
dependence, and gender. J Occup Health Psychol. 2017;22(2):
194‐206. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000029
18. Abushaikha L, eMahadeen A, Abdelkader R, Nabolsi M. Academic
challenges and positive aspects: perceptions of male nursing students.
Int Nurs Rev. 2014;61(2):263‐269. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12098
19. Carnevale T, Priode K. “The good ole'girls' nursing club”: the male
student perspective. J Transcult Nurs. 2018;29(3):285‐291. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1043659617703163
20. Hodges EA, Rowsey PJ, Gray TF, et al. Bridging the gender divide:
facilitating the educational path for men in nursing. J Nurs Educ. 2017;
56(5):295‐299. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20170421-08
21. Kim KA, Won MH, Shin SH, Go GY, Choi J. Male nursing students'
practicum experiences on delivery room. J Korean Acad‐Indust
Cooperation Soc. 2016;17(2):458‐469. https://doi.org/10.5762/
KAIS.2016.17.2.458
22. Carrigan TM, Brooks BA. Q: how will we achieve 20% by 2020? A:
men in nursing. Nurse Leader. 2016;14(2):115‐119. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.mnl.2015.12.012
23. Powers K, Herron EK, Sheeler C, Sain A. The lived experience of
being a male nursing student: implications for student retention and
success. J Prof Nurs. 2018;34(6):475‐482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
profnurs.2018.04.002
24. Smallheer B, Morgan B, Stern R. A historical look at men's in-
volvement in nursing and leadership in GAPNA. Geriatr Nurs. 2020;
41(1):52‐53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2020.01.003
25. Stott A. Exploring factors affecting attrition of male students from an
undergraduate nursing course: a qualitative study. Nurse Educ Today.
2007;27(4):325‐332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2006.05.013
SMALLHEER ET AL.
26. Morgan B, Smallheer B, Molloy M, Gordon H Identifying Srategies for
Addressing Perceived Barriers to Education for Pre‐licensure Male Nur-
sing Students. Podium Presentation at: 29th International Nursing Re-
search Congress: Innovative Global Nursing Practice and Education
Through Research and Evidence‐based Practice; July 19‐23. Melbourne,
Australia 2018. https://sigma.nursingrepository.org/handle/10755/
624161
27. Aul K. Who's uncivil to who? Perceptions of incivility in pre‐
licensure nursing programs. Nurse Educ Pract. 2017;27:36‐44.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2017.08.016
28. Sauer PA, Hannon AE, Beyer KB. Peer incivility among prelicensure
nursing students: a call to action for nursing faculty. Nurs Educ. 2017;
42(6):281‐285. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000375
29. Kirkpatrick D, Kirkpatric J. Evaluating Training Programs. 3rd ed. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett‐Koehler Publishers; 2006.
30. Brady MS, Sherrod DR. Retaining men in nursing programs designed
for women. J Nurs Educ. 2003;42(4):159‐162. https://www.healio.
com/nursing/journals/jne/1996-4-35-4
31. Frey Knepp KA. Understanding student and faculty incivility in
higher education. J Eff Teach. 2012;12(1):33‐46. https://files.eric.ed.
gov/fulltext/EJ1092106.pdf
32. Rawlins L. Faculty and student incivility in undergraduate nursing
education: an integrative review. J Nurs Educ. 2017;56(12):709‐716.
https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20171120-02
33. Rose K, Jenkins S, Mallory C, Astroth K, Woith W, Jarvill M. An
integrative review examining student‐to‐student incivility and ef-
fective strategies to address incivility in nursing education. Nurse
Educ. 2020;202045(3):165‐168. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.000
0000000000719.23
34. Kirkpatrick D. Great ideas revisited. Train Dev. 1996;50(1):54‐60.
How to cite this article: Smallheer B, Gedzyk‐Nieman SA,
Molloy MA, Clark CM, Gordon H, Morgan B. Faculty
development workshop on gender‐associated incivility in
nursing education. Nursing Forum. 2021;1‐8.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12615