Gender-Based Barriers for Male Students

in Nursing Education Programs:

Prevalence and Perceived Importance
Chad Ellis OLynn, PhD, RN

ABSTRACT
To meet the recent call to increase the number of nurses by recruiting men, nursing education programs will
need to reduce gender-based barriers. No study found has
adequately quantified the prevalence and perceived
importance of barriers to men in nursing education programs. These barriers create an academic environment
that is unfriendly to men. As such, I defined a new construct, male friendliness, as a function of the presence
and importance of these barriers.
The aims of this study were to describe the prevalence
and perceived importance of barriers and to develop a tool
to measure male friendliness in nursing programs. A pilot
tool addressing 33 barriers, which were obtained from the
literature, my experience, and a panel of nurse educators,
was mailed to 200 male nurses. The findings revealed
that seven barriers were importantly different in prevalence between different subsamples of male nurses, and
no barrier was rated unimportant by more than 20% of
respondents. The similarities in findings between groups
of male nurses, diverse in geography, school attendance,

Received: September 7, 2003

Accepted: October 21, 2003
Dr. OLynn is Adjunct Assistant Professor, Montana State
University-Bozeman, College of Nursing, Missoula Campus,
Missoula, Montana.
This study was supported by a block grant from the Montana State
University-Bozeman College of Nursing. Editorial assistance for the
manuscript was provided by Cindi Laukes and John Torma.
Address correspondence to Chad Ellis OLynn, PhD, RN, Adjunct
Assistant Professor, Montana State University-Bozeman, College of
Nursing, Missoula Campus, 32 Campus Drive #7416, Missoula, MT
59812-7416; e-mail: colynn@montana.edu.

May 2004, Vol. 43, No. 5

and graduation dates, suggest that the barriers men face

in nursing school are pervasive, consistent, and have
changed little over time. From the findings, the Inventory
of Male Friendliness in Nursing Programs (IMFNP) was
developed.

oth the professional and mainstream press have

given increased attention to the growing nursing
shortage. Unlike previous shortages, the current
shortage is believed to be unique due to demographics,
deteriorating working conditions, and the increased use of
technology in health care (Buerhaus, Staiger, &
Auerbach, 2000; Valentino, 2002). Strategies used to
address previous shortages focused primarily on efforts to
glorify the feminine image of nursing and increase the
recruitment of young women into the profession (Williams
& Bednash, 2001).
Unlike during previous shortages, the profession can no
longer rely on an unlimited supply of women to become
nurses. Today, women have increasingly more career
options available to them, and nursing must compete with
more lucrative professions for bright, talented women.
Consequently, nursing recruitment is increasingly directed toward individuals from ethnic minorities and men to
help fill the professions present and future vacancies.
Modern nursing does not have successful experience in
recruiting men into the profession. In fact, nursing has a
strong history of discouraging men from pursuing nursing
as a career (Avery, 2001; Burtt, 1998; Christman, 1988a,
1988b; Gomez, 1994; Mackintosh, 1997; Porter-OGrady,
1995; Simpkin, 1998; Sullivan, 2000), despite mens large
presence in the profession prior to the implementation of
the gender-exclusive nursing reforms spearheaded by
Florence Nightingale and her followers (Christman,
1988b; Davis & Bartfay, 2001; Gerencher, 2002; Gomez,
1994; Mackintosh, 1997; Wilson, 1997). Consequently,
229

GENDER-BASED BARRIERS

fewer than 6% of American RNs are men (Spratley,

Johnson, Sochalski, Fritz, & Spencer 2001). Gerencher
(2002) reported that if men entered the profession at the
same rate as women today, there would be no nursing
shortage. If this were true, the profession would benefit
greatly by making recruitment of men a priority.
Recruitment efforts aimed at men and individuals
from ethnic minorities have begun to increase. These
efforts will have more benefits than simply increasing the
number of nurses, including diversifying the work force
(American Association of Colleges of Nursing [AACN],
1997, 2001; American Nurses Association, 2002; Anders,
1993; Davis & Bartfay, 2001; Sullivan, 2000; Villeneuve,
1994). Diversifying the work force is a desirable goal, as
the authors above raise questions regarding the legitimacy of a predominantly Caucasian female work force delivering nursing care to a relatively gender-balanced and
increasingly ethnically diverse U.S. population. Despite
recent calls for increasing work force diversity, open hostility to increasing the number of men in nursing has
been evident (Avery, 2001; Bainbridge, 2001; Chiasson,
2001; Christman, 1988b; Davis & Bartfay, 2001; Evans,
1996; Hunt, 1991; Inman, 1998; Williams, 1995).
Successful recruitment of more men into nursing will
rely on a collaborative effort from the nursing profession,
nursing schools, employers, government agencies, and
marketers. Although there are obvious challenges of
obtaining resources and changing societal perceptions
and nursing traditions, it is likely that more men will
choose nursing as a career because nursing can offer stable employment with reasonable wages in an otherwise
unstable economy. Academic institutions will need to
increase male enrollment and retain male students in
their educational programs if the goals of diversifying the
nursing work force and lessening the current shortage are
to be realized. Unfortunately, the literature suggests that
nursing education programs abound with gender-based
barriers to men that may hamper their academic potential (AACN, 1997; Dunham, 2001; Dunn & Griggs, 1998a,
1998b; Kelly, Shoemaker & Steele, 1996; Milligan, 2001;
Paterson et al., 1995, 1996; Sommers, 2000; Streubert,
1994; Trachtenberg, 2000; Villeneuve, 1994).
Although gender-based barriers exist, the exact relationship of these barriers to male student academic success, retention, and satisfaction, and the transition of
men into professional nursing practice are relatively
unexplored phenomena. However, some authors have
suggested that barriers contribute to male attrition rates
as high as 50% in some schools (Sprouse, 1996).
Villeneuve (1994) challenged nursing academia when he
stated, Why the attrition rate of male students is higher
than their female colleagues remains unclear, but we
must find ways to bridge these kinds of gaps (p. 222). If
barriers do contribute to the poor retention of male students, then it is important for nursing education programs to identify gender-based barriers, understand their
relative importance to male students, and develop strategies to reduce these barriers.
230

The purpose of this study was to describe the prevalence and perceived importance of barriers to men who
graduated from a nursing education program. These barriers form the foundation of the heretofore unexplored
construct of male friendliness, which I defined as a function of the presence and importance of these barriers. In
other words, the greater the presence of important, gender-based barriers to men in nursing education programs,
the less friendly the program will be to male students.
The studys findings were used to develop a tool to measure male friendliness in current nursing education programs. This tool underscores the significance of this line
of inquiry. If nursing programs are to optimally retain
male students, then they must have a way to identify
potential barriers and measure the effectiveness of strategies employed to reduce the identified barriers.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The bulk of the literature reviewed on men in nursing
pertained to three major themes:
The history of men in nursing.
Discrimination toward men in nursing.
The experiences of male nursing students.
No study reviewed quantified the prevalence or importance of barriers to men in nursing schools. However, the
literature provided anecdotal accounts of barriers that
have existed in the past, which may still be present today.
The History of Men in Nursing
Until the mid-to-late 1800s, the roles of men and
women in nursing were similar. Nurses were either
inspired by religious and altruistic convictions, or were
employed because no other employer would hire them.
However, the discussion of men in nursing is minimal in
popular nursing history texts (e.g., Donahue, 1996;
Kalisch & Kalisch, 1986), despite the fact that the first
nursing school on record was established for men in India
in approximately 250 B.C.E. (Wilson, 1997). With the
advent of the Industrial Revolution, employment offering
higher wages was available for men in urban areas, and
the number of men in nursing declined (Donahue, 1996;
Mackintosh, 1997).
A significant blow to the status of men in nursing came
with the reforms established by Florence Nightingale and
her followers. Nightingale advocated for improved education and status for nurses and was considered an early
advocate for broadening the career options for women
(Donahue, 1996; Dossey, 1999). However, true to her
Victorian background, Nightingale established schools of
nursing that did not mix male and female students. Men
were barred from her schools, a tradition which, in many
countries, persisted well into the 20th century (Donahue,
1996; Kalisch & Kalisch, 1986). The value of educated
nurses was quickly recognized, and men currently working in health care institutions, barred from furthering
their education in most nursing education programs,
were relegated to non-nursing positions (e.g., attendants,
Journal of Nursing Education

OLYNN

orderlies) (Kalisch & Kalisch, 1986). The inaccessibility of

nursing education to most men and the militarys refusal
to commission male nurses reduced the percentage of U.S.
male nurses to 1% by 1963 (Christman, 1988b).
Discrimination Toward Men in Nursing
Civil rights legislation and affirmative action initiatives generally lessened discriminatory practices within
American educational institutions. However, while
schools of medicine, engineering, and pharmacy were
expanding opportunities for women, schools of nursing
were not increasing enrollment of men, as men were not
a protected class under affirmative action mandates
(Avery, 2001). With a lack of men in the profession and
nursing academia, nursing curricula developed in a fashion that preferenced women. The result has been a feminization of nursing curricula and the nursing profession,
so much so that barriers now exist for men (AACN, 2001;
Villeneuve, 1994). Sullivan (2000) found it curious that
the profession does not recognize how the feminization of
nursing has discouraged men. According to Sullivan
(2000), We [nurses] wait for men to apply for admission
to nursing schools, and when they stay away, we figuratively shrug our shoulders at their lack of interest (p.
253). The feminization of nursing has been so pervasive,
that the image of nursing and caring has been used to
symbolize the essence of femininity itself (Arber &
Gilbert, 1989; MacDougall, 1997; Paterson et al., 1996;
Thomas, 1993).
Some view the feminization of the nursing profession as
blatant discrimination. Evidence of other types of discriminatory barriers noted in the literature include the refusal
to make nursing conferences and events gender neutral,
the pervasive literary bias that men neither belong nor
have a voice in nursing, the reinforcement of the stereotype
that men lack the caring skills requisite for nursing practice, the disregard for mens contributions to the profession,
the continued use of the pronoun she to refer to the generic nurse, the support for litigation to bar men from obstetric and gynecologic care settings, tokenism, and the portrayal of male nurses as advancing in their careers on the
backs of their female colleagues (AACN, 1997; Avery, 2001;
Burtt, 1998; Christman, 1988a; Coombes, 1998; Davis &
Bartfay, 2001; Egeland & Brown, 1988; Gomez, 1994;
Hawke, 1998; Haywood, 1994; Kelly et al., 1996;
Mackintosh, 1997; Poliafico, 1998; Porter-OGrady, 1995;
Simpkin, 1998; Sprouse, 1996; Sullivan, 2000; Swingle,
2001; Villeneuve, 1994; Young & James, 2001).
The Experiences of Male Nursing Students
Much of the literature pertaining to mens experiences
in nursing school is qualitative and anecdotal in nature.
Many of the discriminatory issues mentioned above have
also been noted in nursing academia. However, men
entering nursing schools face additional challenges,
including lack of information and support from guidance
counselors, lack of exposure to nonfeminist paradigms of
nursing care, lack of sufficient role models (e.g., male facMay 2004, Vol. 43, No. 5

ulty and preceptors), unequal clinical opportunities and

requirements, isolationism, poor instruction on the appropriate use of touch, lack of content related to genderbased social relationships, and the nonuse of teaching
strategies amenable to male learning needs (Barkley &
Kohler, 1992; Dunn & Griggs, 1998a, 1998b; Kelly et al.,
1996; Kippenbrock, 1990; Okrainec, 1994; Paterson et al.,
1996; Rochelle, 2002; Streubert, 1994; Trachtenberg,
2000; Villeneuve, 1994).
The literature reviewed provided a foundation for a list
of potential barriers faced by men in nursing education
programs. These barriers, along with those identified by
a panel of nurse educators, provided the items for the survey tool used in this study.
THEORETICAL BASES OF THE BARRIERS
The conceptual framework underlying most of the barriers was the model of gender-role conflict. Gender-role conflict occurs when behaviors conflict with perceived gender
roles. Gender roles are socioculturally developed normative
behaviors and expectations (ONeil, Helms, Gable, David &
Wrightsman, 1986). This gender-role conflict model was
proposed by Pleck and was further refined by ONeil et al.
According to ONeil et al. (1986), much of the gender-role
conflict men experience is based on a deep-set fear of femininity. The gender-role conflict model explains many of the
barriers experienced by men in nursing education programs as they confront the feminine paradigms, imagery,
and modeled behaviors of current nursing practice.
However, gender roles are not fixed, and often change within an individual with age and life circumstances and within a society as cultural values and norms shift (Cournoyer
& Mahalik, 1995; Good et al., 1995; ONeil et al., 1986). A
smaller group of the barriers identified for the survey tool
were based on Learning Style Theory, as developed by
Dunn and Griggs (1998a, 1998b). In this theory, styles of
preferred learning are biologically and developmentally
based. The majority of men have greater difficulty learning
in the traditional, lecture-based classroom environment
than their Caucasian female counterparts.
METHOD
Sample
A diverse sample of male nurses was surveyed to
explore the prevalence and perceived importance of gender-based barriers in nursing education programs. A survey tool was developed for the initial inquiry. Items on the
tool addressed potential barriers and were structured in a
Likert scale format with three response options of generally agree/important, neutral, and generally disagree/not important. Participants were asked to
respond to a statement identifying a barrier by indicating
whether the barrier was present in their nursing program
and important to them. A three-stem response set was
used because the purpose of this study was to identify barrier presence, not degree of presence. In addition, the topic
231

GENDER-BASED BARRIERS

TABLE 1
Barriers Importantly Different Between Subsamples
Barriers Identified as More Prevalent
AAMN Subsample

TABLE 2
Barriers Identified as More Prevalent
by Groups Based on Graduation Date
Barriers Identified as More Prevalent

Different requirements/limitations for male students in

Ob/Gyn rotations.

Less Recent Graduates

Program did not prepare male students well for working

primarily with women.

No opportunity to work with male nurses in the clinical setting.

Exclusive use of lecture in the classroom setting.

Montana RN Subsample

No content presented on the different communication styles

between men and women.

No male faculty.

No mens health content presented.

Gender was a barrier in making collegial relationships

with faculty.

Program did not actively recruit men to enroll.

Barriers Identified as More Important

More Recent Graduates

Nervous that female patients would accuse male students
of sexual inappropriateness when providing intimate care.

AAMN Subsample
Program did not actively recruit men to enroll.
No history of men in nursing presented in the program.
No opportunity to work with male nurses in the clinical setting.
No male faculty.
Faculty usually referred to the nurse as she.
Masculine style of caring not presented in the program.
No mentorship program available for male students.
Felt isolated from other men in college.
Feminine style of caring emphasized in the program.
Montana RN Subsample
None
Note: A barrier was identified as importantly different if the samples
differed by more than 10 percentage points for responses of generally
agree and generally disagree for a barriers presence or perceived
importance.

of gender-based barriers in nursing schools is relatively

unexplored, making analysis of fine levels of discrimination pertaining to these barriers of questionable value.
Items were clearly described and written in occasional
reverse order to avoid use of the same response for barrier
presence or importance (Foddy, 1993; Fowler, 1993).
The sample was randomly selected from two populations: current male members of the American Assembly of
Men in Nursing (AAMN) and current male licensed RNs
from the state of Montana. These two populations were
mutually exclusive and were believed to represent differing
levels of male advocacy activities and demographic characteristics. A letter accompanied each survey, which detailed
terms of confidentiality and consent. In addition, a token
reimbursement of $1.00 was attached to each survey to
encourage participation (as recommended by Fowler, 1993).

included. The list of 30 barriers was then reviewed by 16

nurse educators who were current members of the AAMN
and by two deans of schools of nursing with active support
programs for male students. It was believed that these
individuals were cognizant of issues pertinent to both
nursing education and male nursing students. These individuals served as a panel of content experts. No panel
member recommended removal of any items, and 8 members recommended three additional items pertaining to
barriers not previously addressed. The complete list of
items was structured into the survey tool, which was then
reviewed by three male nurse educator colleagues for
grammar and clarity. The study was approved by a local
institutional review board.
Data Analysis
Responses from returned surveys were recorded and
analyzed using descriptive, nonparametric statistics. Data
were analyzed by subsample (AAMN RNs versus Montana
RNs), by graduation date (those who had graduated prior
to 1992 versus those who had graduated between 1992 and
2002), and by total combined sample. An important difference in findings between any two groups was defined a priori as being greater than 10 percentage points.
Criteria for item inclusion in the final measurement
tool were determined a priori. More specifically, any item
deemed important by at least 30% of respondents would
be included, regardless of reported prevalence. The exception to this criterion was those barriers based on Learning
Style Theory. According to Dunn and Griggs (1998a), few
individuals are aware of their learning style needs or the
significance of those needs. Therefore, these items were
included if at least 10% of respondents identified the item
as important.
RESULTS

Procedure
Initially, 27 items were developed from barriers identified in the literature. After informal interviews with 10
male nursing students, three additional barriers were
232

Response Rate
Of the 200 surveys mailed, 19 were returned with
incorrect, nonforwarding addresses or by women. Surveys
Journal of Nursing Education

OLYNN

returned by women were not used for data analysis.

Because neither mailing list had gender listed, gender of
potential respondents was determined by the name printed on the mailing list. This left an eligible pool of 181
respondents. From this pool, 111 completed surveys were
received, 64 from the AAMN subsample and 47 from the
Montana RN subsample. The overall response rate was
61%.
Subsamples
From the AAMN subsample, the respondents attended
64 different nursing schools in 22 states. Their mean age
at graduation was 29.8 (SD = 7.8 years). Fifty-six percent
of the subsample had known a male nurse prior to
enrolling in nursing school. Thirty-three percent of
AAMN respondents had graduated in the past 10 years.
The subsample reflected 83% Caucasian ethnicity, and 9%
of the respondents now resided in rural areas (defined for
this study as living more than 100 miles from a city of
100,000 or more people).
From the Montana RN subsample, the respondents
attended 26 different nursing schools in 19 states. Their
mean age at graduation was 29.9 (SD = 7.0 years). Fiftyseven percent of the subsample had known a male nurse
prior to enrolling in nursing school. Forty-five percent of
Montana RN respondents had graduated in the past 10
years. The subsample reflected 96% Caucasian ethnicity,
and 100% of the respondents now resided in rural areas.
Of the 33 barriers identified on the tool, the AAMN subsample and the Montana RN subsample disagreed on barrier presence, leading to an important difference for only
four barriers. For perceived importance, the two subsamples disagreed enough to create an important difference for
nine barriers. Generally, the Montana RN subsample rated
barriers as more neutral in perceived importance than the
AAMN subsample. Barriers that were importantly different
between subsamples are listed in Table 1.
Graduation Date
All of the returned surveys were then divided by graduation date (those who had graduated prior to 1992 versus those who had graduated between 1992 and 2002).
For barrier presence, there was an important difference
between groups for 7 of the 33 barriers. Only one barrier
(nervous that female patients would accuse male students of sexual inappropriateness when providing intimate care) was deemed more prevalent by the more
recent graduates, compared to the less recent graduates.
There was no barrier showing an important difference
between these groups for perceived importance. These
results are summarized in Table 2.
Ethnicity and Total Group
Only 13 of the 111 respondents were of non-Caucasian
ethnicity. Therefore, a comparative analysis of Caucasian
versus non-Caucasian respondents was not performed. A
list of the top 10 barriers for prevalence and importance
for the total group is listed in Table 3.
May 2004, Vol. 43, No. 5

TABLE 3
Top 10 Ratings of Barrier Presence
and Perceived Importance (n = 111)
% Stating
the Barrier
was Present

Barrier
1. No mentorship program for male students

99.1

2. No history of men in nursing presented

86.5

3. Textbooks referred to the nurse as she

82.0

4. Exclusive use of lecture format in class

74.5

5. Not encouraged to seek peer support from

other male students

74.5

6. Felt had to prove self because people expect

nurses to be women

69.1

7. No male faculty

67.8

8. Faculty usually referred to the nurse as she

65.8

9. No opportunity to work with male nurses in

the clinical setting

62.7

10. No guidance provided on the appropriate

use of touch

61.8

Barrier

% Stating
the Barrier
was Important

1. Did not feel welcome as a male student in

the clinical setting

91.9

2. Nervous that female patients would accuse

male students of sexual inappropriateness
when providing intimate care

90.1

3. Decision to pursue nursing as a career not

supported by important people in the
students lives

90.0

4. Anti-male remarks made by faculty in

classroom

89.1

5. Not invited to all student activities

83.6

6. Program did not prepare male students well

to work primarily with women

82.9

7. Program did not actively recruit men to enroll

80.2

8. Different requirements/limitations for male

students in Ob/Gyn clinical rotations

80.0

9. No content presented on communication style

differences between men and women

80.0

10. No other men in nursing class

78.4

THE INVENTORY OF MALE FRIENDLINESS

IN NURSING PROGRAMS TOOL
None of the barriers met the criteria for exclusion from
the final measurement tool. Also, no additional genderbased barriers were identified from the qualitative comments provided by respondents on the returned surveys.
Several respondents did recommend that items addressing the barriers faced by homosexual students in nursing
education programs be included. However, although these
233

GENDER-BASED BARRIERS

barriers are important and worthy of study, I believe they

are conceptually different than those based on gender.
Consequently, the final measurement tool, the Inventory
of Male Friendliness in Nursing Programs (IMFNP),
addresses the 33 barriers identified in the original study
tool.
Scoring criteria for the IMFNP will be based on two
factors: the perceived importance of the barrier (as determined by study respondents) and the level of control a
nursing education program has over a barrier (determined a priori and validated by an expert panel). Barriers
that are deemed most important and that are under the
full control of a nursing program (e.g., anti-male remarks
made by faculty in class) will be weighted most heavily,
whereas barriers that are deemed not under the control of
a nursing program (e.g., decision to pursue nursing as a
career not supported by important people in the students
lives) will not be scored but will be included for informational purposes. Response sets for the IMFNP will be

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Although the AAMN and Montana RN subsamples

were nearly identical in age at graduation from nursing
school and nearly identical in their prior exposure to male
nurses, the subsamples represented great diversity in
school location and type, as well as the rurality of their
current residence. Despite this diversity, relatively few
differences were noted in barrier presence and importance, although the Montana RN subsample tended to be
more neutral in their scoring of barrier importance. Even
when respondents were grouped by year of graduation,
relatively few differences were noted in barrier presence,
although most barriers were less prevalent for more
recent graduates. One may interpret this finding as
recent progress in reducing gender-based barriers in
nursing programs. The one barrier identified as more
prevalent by more recent graduates (i.e., being accused of
sexual inappropriateness) may be a
reflection of our increasingly litigious
society. Even fewer differences in barriThe findings suggest that nursing education, as a whole, er importance were noted between
more and less recent graduates.
From the findings, the IMFNP tool
has failed to provide an environment optimally conducive
was developed. This tool, designed to
to attracting and retaining men as students and, thus, measure male friendliness of nursing
education programs, provides scoring
preparing men for the nursing profession. weights based on the perceived importance of a barrier and the level of control a nursing program has in minimizing a specific barrier. Content validity
has been established for the IMFNP.
However, it is recommended that this study be repeated
composed of five options, ranging from strongly agree to
with a larger, more ethnically diverse sample to explore
strongly disagree, to discriminate the pervasiveness of
the perceptions of gender-based barriers for male nursing
an individual barrier within a nursing program, as well
students from ethnic minorities. It is also recommended
as to facilitate future statistical analyses.
that the IMFNP be piloted with recent nursing graduates
to determine its reliability and construct validity properLIMITATIONS
ties. If the tool is determined to be satisfactory in measuring male friendliness, it would be important to invesSeveral limitations of this study are noteworthy.
tigate possible relationships between male friendliness in
Foremost is the reliance on respondent memory. The
nursing education programs and outcomes such as male
majority of respondents (61.3%) graduated from nursing
nursing student failure and attrition rates, male satisfacschool more than 10 years ago. Recall of events occurring
tion with their nursing education, and successful transiduring their academic years may have accuracy limitation of men into professional nursing practice.
tions. However, based on interviews I conducted with
male nurses prior to initiating the study, many barriers
CONCLUSIONS
men faced in nursing school produced vivid and lasting
memories. In addition, I believe the memories of less
The findings of this study provide a unique contriburecent graduates, compared to the memories of more
tion, as no study identified in the literature has reported
recent graduates, would be balanced by the less recent
the prevalence or perceived importance of barriers to men
graduates perspectives in determining how important
enrolled in nursing education programs in a quantitative
these barriers were as they transitioned into nursing
manner. These barriers provide the foundational basis for
practice. Another limitation is the lack of nurses of minorthe newly defined, author-created construct male friendity ethnicity contributing to the findings. Non-Caucasian
liness.
nurses may have experienced these barriers differently
The similarities in findings between groups of male
and perceived them to be more or less important than
nurses, diverse in geography, school attendance, and
their Caucasian colleagues.
234

Journal of Nursing Education

OLYNN

graduation dates, suggest that the barriers confronted by

men in nursing school are pervasive, consistent, and have
changed surprisingly little during the past few decades.
The findings suggest that nursing education, as a whole,
has failed to provide an environment optimally conducive
to attracting and retaining men as students and, thus,
preparing men for the nursing profession.
The genesis of the IMFNP from this study is noteworthy. This tool can be instrumental in further investigating
the issues identified in this study. The IMFNP can provide valuable information to a nursing education program, by detailing its strengths and areas for improvement, in the service of providing an educational environment friendly to male nursing students.
REFERENCES
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (1997). Position
statement: Diversity and equality of opportunity. Retrieved
February 12, 2002, from http://www.aacn.nche.edu/
Publications/positions/diverse.htm
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2001). Issue bulletin: Effective strategies for increasing diversity in nursing
programs. Retrieved February 4, 2002, from http://www.aacn.
nche.edu/Publications/issues/dec01.htm
American Nurses Association. (2002). Nursings agenda for the
future. Retrieved April 15, 2002, from http://www.
nursingworld.org/naf
Anders, R.L. (1993). Targeting male students. Nurse Educator,
18(2), 4.
Arber, S., & Gilbert, N. (1989). Men: The forgotten carers.
Sociology, 23(1), 111-118.
Avery, C.T. (Producer). (2001). A conversation with Luther: The
opinions and predictions of Dr. Luther Christman [Motion picture]. (Available from the American Assembly for Men in
Nursing, 111 Cornell Road, Latham, NY 12110)
Bainbridge, D. (2001). Disappointed in article on men in nursing.
Canadian Nurse, 97(7), 7.
Barkley, T.W., & Kohler, P.A. (1992). Is nursings image a deterrent to recruiting men into the profession? Male high school
students respond. Nursing Forum, 27(2), 9-13.
Buerhaus, P.I., Staiger, D.O., & Auerbach, D.I. (2000).
Implications of an aging registered nurse workforce. Journal
of the American Medical Association, 283, 2948-2954.
Burtt, K. (1998). Male nurses still face bias. American Journal of
Nursing, 98(9), 64-65.
Chiasson, F. (2001). Men needed in the trenches. Canadian
Nurse, 97(7), 4.
Christman, L. (1988a). Men in nursing. Imprint, 35(3), 75.
Christman, L. (1988b). Men in nursing. In J.L. Fitzpatrick, R.L.
Tasinton, & J.Q. Benoliel (Eds.), Annual review of nursing
research (pp. 193-205). New York: Springer.
Coombes, R. (1998). Jobs for the girls. Nursing Times, 94(9), 1415.
Cournoyer, R.J., & Mahalik, J.R. (1995). Cross-sectional study of
gender role conflict examining college and middle-aged men.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(1), 11-19.
Davis, M.T., & Bartfay, W.J. (2001). Men in nursing: An untapped
resource. Canadian Nurse, 97(5), 14-18.
Donahue, M.P. (1996). Nursing: The finest art: An illustrated history (2nd ed.). St. Louis: Mosby.
Dossey, B.M. (1999). Florence Nightingale: Mystic, visionary,
healer. Springhouse, PA: Springhouse.
Dunham, K.S. (2001). How to survive and maybe even love nursing school. Philadelphia: Davis.
Dunn, R., & Griggs, S.A. (Eds.). (1998a). Learning styles and the
nursing profession. New York: National League for Nursing
Press.

May 2004, Vol. 43, No. 5

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S.A. (1998b). Multiculturalism and learning

style. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Egeland, J.W., & Brown, J.S. (1988). Sex role stereotyping and
role strain of male registered nurses. Research in Nursing &
Health, 11, 257-267.
Evans, J. (1996). Men in nursing: Issues of gender segregation
and hidden advantage. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26,
226-231.
Foddy, W. (1993). Constructing questions for interviews and questionnaires: Theory and practice in social research. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Fowler, F.J. (1993). Survey research methods. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Gerencher, K. (2002). Men in white: Nursing field recruiting
males with big opportunities. Retrieved February 27, 2002,
from http://www.CBS.marketwatch.com
Gomez, A. (1994). Men in nursing: A historical perspective. Nurse
Educator, 19(5), 13-14.
Good, G.E., Robertson, J.M., ONeil, J.M., Fitzgerald, L.F.,
Stevens, M., DeBord, K.A., et al. (1995). Male gender role conflict: Psychometric issues and relations to psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(1), 3-10.
Hawke, C. (1998). Nursing a fine line: Patient privacy and sex
discrimination. Nursing Management, 29(10), 56-61.
Haywood, M. (1994). Male order. Nursing Times, 90(20), 52.
Hunt, M. (1991). Who flies highest? Nursing Times, 87(7), 29-31.
Inman, K. (1998). Male order nursing. Nursing Times, 94(32), 1213.
Kalisch, P.A., & Kalisch, B.J. (1986). The advance of American
nursing (2nd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown & Company.
Kelly, N.R., Shoemaker, M., & Steele, T. (1996). The experience of
being a male nurse. Journal of Nursing Education, 35, 170174.
Kippenbrock, T. (1990). School of nursing variables related to
male student college choice. Journal of Nursing Education,
29, 118-121.
MacDougall, G. (1997). Caring: A masculine perspective. Journal
of Advanced Nursing, 25, 809-813.
Mackintosh, C. (1997). A historical study of men in nursing.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26, 232-236.
Milligan, F. (2001). The concept of care in male nurse work: An
ontological hermeneutic study in acute hospitals. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 35, 7-16.
Okrainec, G. D. (1994). Perceptions of nursing education held by
male nursing students. Western Journal of Nursing Research,
16, 94-107.
ONeil, J.M., Helms, B.J., Gable, R.K., David, L., & Wrightsman,
L.S. (1986). Gender-role conflict scale: College mens fear of
femininity. Sex Roles, 14, 335-350.
Paterson, B.L., Crawford, M., Saydak, M., Venkatesh, P.,
Tschikota, S., & Aronowitz, T. (1995). How male students
learn to care. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 22, 600-609.
Paterson, B.L., Tschikota, S., Crawford, M., Saydak, M.,
Venkatesh, P., & Aronowitz, T. (1996). Learning to care:
Gender issues for male nursing students. Canadian Journal
of Nursing Research, 28(1), 25-39.
Poliafico, J.K. (1998). Nursings gender gap. RN, 61(10), 39-42.
Porter-OGrady, T. (1995). Reverse discrimination in nursing
leadership: Hitting the concrete ceiling. Nursing
Administration Quarterly, 19(2), 56-62.
Rochelle, R.R. (2002). Recruiting men in nursing: Insights for the
profession. Unpublished masters thesis, Gonzaga University,
Spokane, WA.
Simpkin, W. (1998). Gender bashing. Nursing Times, 94(49), 3237.
Sommers, C.H. (2000). The war against boys. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Spratley, E., Johnson, A., Sochalski, J., Fritz, M., & Spencer, W.
(2001). The registered nurse population March 2000: Findings
from the national sample survey of registered nurses.

235

GENDER-BASED BARRIERS

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Bureau of Health Professions, Division of Nursing.
Sprouse, D.O. (1996). Message from the president. Interaction,
14(3), 1-4.
Streubert, H.J. (1994). Male nursing students: Perceptions of
clinical experience. Nurse Educator, 19(5), 29-32.
Sullivan, E.J. (2000). Men in nursing: The importance of gender
diversity. Journal of Professional Nursing, 16, 253-254.
Swingle, A.B. (2001). Still not much of a guy thing. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins Health System.
Thomas, C. (1993). Deconstructing concepts of care. Sociology,
27, 649-669.
Trachtenberg, I. (2000). Hear our voices: A phenomenological perspective of male nursing students experiences in obstetrics
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved March 13,
2002, from the Sigma Theta Tau Virginia Henderson
International Nursing Library Web site: http://www.
stti.iupui.edu/VirginiaHendersonLibrary/studyFullView.aspx
?SID=19193

Valentino, L.M. (2002). Future employment trends in nursing:

The nursing shortage has struck just about everywhere in the
United States and theres no relief in sight, but its effects vary
by region and specialty. American Journal of Nursing,
102(Suppl. 1), 24-28.
Villeneuve, M.J. (1994). Recruiting and retaining men in nursing: A review of the literature. Journal of Professional
Nursing, 10, 217-228.
Williams, C.A., & Bednash, G. (2001, March-April). The unfolding nursing shortage and AACNs strategy. Contents Syllabus,
27(2). Retrieved January 24, 2002, from http://www.
aacn.nche.edu/Publications/Syllabus/marchapr01/memo.htm
Williams, C.L. (1995). Hidden advantage for men in nursing.
Nursing Administration Quarterly, 19(2), 63-70.
Wilson, B. (1997). Men in American nursing history. Retrieved April
8, 2002, from http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/6011/
Young, J.L., & James, E.H. (2001). Token majority: The work
attitudes of male flight attendants. Sex Roles, 45, 299-319.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.