Nursing has improved over the centuries from the physician's handmaiden to a recognised profession. Yet, the image of a nurse is often associated with notions of caring and nurturing‐ attributes considered feminine. Indeed, cultural, and societal biases exist that can deter men from entering the nursing profession where their sense of masculinity is questioned. Several studies have highlighted the existence of gender‐based stereotypes, stigma, rejection, loneliness and discrimination which impact the retention of men in the nursing profession. Despite the established (...) evidence regarding negative experiences, it appears limited attention has been paid to the men who decide to stay in nursing: how do they thrive in a profession wherein biases are evident within and in the wider societal context? Undoubtedly, several factors such as job security and financial incentives may contribute to men remaining in nursing. Beyond these, we borrow the notion of ‘constructive resistance’ to underscore that though the biases may be apparent, male nurses are able to construct alternatives that accommodate the image of a man in the nursing profession. Strategies such as developing the image as a ‘super nurse’ can create opportunities for male nurses to be preferred by other healthcare providers as well as female nurses. Thus, although resistance may usually appear as a negative phenomenon, constructive resistance represents hidden advantages which offers an opportunity to retain male nurses. These need to be highlighted and explored more as they can offer deeper insight into strategies that can be employed to improve retention and representation of men in nursing particularly at a time when the impact of nursing shortage remains a global issue. (shrink)

Introduction: Non-violent resistance, carried out by healthcare workers, has been a common phenomenon. Despite this and despite the issues this type of action raises, we know little about the healthcare workers who engage in this action and their perspectives about its justification. This exploratory study sought to address this gap, examining these fundamental questions amongst a sample of healthcare workers who have engaged in acts of resistance, exploring their understanding of non-violent resistance, its justification and the barriers they faced in (...) engaging in such action. Methods: Participants were recruited through Medact's ( https://www.medact.org/ ) member database and directed to an online survey hosted on Qualtrics. While participants were unlikely to be representative of the broader UK healthcare community, participants were in an advantageous position to comment on non-violent resistance. Descriptive quantitative analysis and a content analysis were conducted. Results: The majority of participants felt that non-violent resistance could be justified dependent on its cause and/or the action in question. Within this, most felt that if action were non-violent, that if it didn't harm patients and that if the issue in question had to do with health being compromised, action was often justified. A number of others framed their justification as being a right or duty to engage in non-violent resistance. In relation to barriers to engaging in non-violent resistance, these fell into three categories: personal, professional and broader concerns related to society or the general culture found in healthcare. Within these, time and concerns about registration or the consequences of engaging in action were cited as the greatest barriers. Conclusions: These results suggest that healthcare workers who regularly engage in non-violent action carefully thought through their actions, acknowledging the diversity of actions and issues that could be challenged, for many patient care remained a primary concern. There is a need for clarity from regulatory bodies and in particular the need for dialogue between healthcare bodies and healthcare workers who continue to engage in acts of non-violent resistance. (shrink)