Career Status, Progression and Aspirations of Dental Academics in Australia

ABSTRACT

Introduction

Attracting and retaining oral health professionals in an academic career is a challenge, globally and in Australia.

Methods

This study surveyed the current status, progression and aspirations of dental academics across 13 training institutions in Australia. The survey asked about their current appointment, time in academia, promotion plans, leadership roles and aspirations as well as facilitators and barriers to these aspirations.

Results

Of the 472 invited to participate, 120 responded with fairly complete data, a response rate of 25%. There was a good representation across genders, age groups and appointment types. Reasons for taking up a leadership role related to making a difference and wanting to utilise skills and talents. Barrier‐like situations were not common but differed by gender, with female academics more often (29%) reporting a lack of support and mentorship, compared to 6% of male academics. This and meeting research (publications, grants) criteria for progress/promotion and attaining leadership roles were identified as concerns by the respondents. Heavy teaching loads and increasing administrative responsibilities were also identified as barriers, impacting research productivity.

Conclusions

To ensure current academic staff are retained, implementing a support and mentorship program beyond the annual appraisal requirement is critical, in particular for female academics who most often report feeling unsupported and lacking mentorship.

1. Introduction

Attracting oral health professionals to an academic career, and retaining them, globally and in Australia, is a significant challenge [1, 2]. Data from the United States showed that in 2015–2016, about 5% of budgeted positions were vacant, amounting to 271 positions [2]. About 78% of these vacancies were related to clinical science academic appointments. Almost a half (47%) were vacant for more than 6 months.

In Australia a significant majority of oral health practitioners work in the clinical private sector. In 2022, 84% of dentists worked in the private sector and 5% worked in public clinics ( Dental Workforce ). A mixed methods study of 85 Australian dental practitioners showed that 80% highly regarded an academic career but most were not aware of a pathway [3]. Respondents listed experience, further study and networks as important for pathways to academia. They identified poor working conditions, geographical locations of universities, loss of clinical skills and lack of a clear career pathway as barriers for an academic career.

There is little to no national information on the career progression and aspirations, facilitators and barriers to attain academic success of the current dental academic workforce in Australia. Identifying facilitators and barriers is important to implement strategies to facilitate the progression and aspirations of dental academics as well as their retention and well‐being. It is important to assess these by sociodemographic factors such as gender. All this information is also valuable for succession planning.

Ensuring a critical mass of academic staff in oral health training institutions is essential not only to maintain a high standard in the training of new oral health professionals but also to ensure the well‐being of the academics. The issue of attracting and retaining academic staff is key generally and especially when institutions are considering increasing student numbers and/or their program offerings. Having a passionate and committed academic staff is important to offer programs of a high standard that meet the educational and professional requirements set by the university and accrediting bodies. The student experience is enhanced if the teaching staff are satisfied in their roles. New graduates may also be more likely to consider an academic career. The aim of the study was to explore the current status, career progression and aspirations of Australian dental academics. The study also further assessed the perceived facilitators and barriers to progression and aspirations.

2. Methods

This study was an online cross‐sectional survey of all dental academics at the 13 tertiary institutions training oral health professionals in Australia. The invitation to participate was e‐mailed to the Heads/Deans of Schools/Departments for dissemination to all their academic staff. The survey was also sent to the chief investigator's network via e‐mail or to publicly available contact details if the HoS/Dean did not respond. Two reminders were sent to increase the response rate. The number of academics to whom the invitation was sent was received from the Heads/Deans or delegated staff member.

The survey was anonymous, and consent was implied if the survey was accessed and submitted. Demographic information gathered was limited; for example, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status and employer information were not collected to ensure the privacy of participants.

The survey was developed based on similar surveys, mainly from the United States, with modifications for the Australian setting [4]. The survey asked about the current status of the participant's academic position, leadership aspirations and promotion plans and related facilitators and barriers. The analysis reports descriptive quantitative findings and summarises the open comments. Specific comments are included as quotes but limited to ensure the privacy of the participants. A gender comparison was performed for some of the quantitative responses. This gender comparison only included participants who indicated a gender of male or female (90% of participants). Due to rounding of percentages to the nearest integer, the sum of percentages may not be 100%.

3. Results

One hundred and fifty‐two responses were received; however, 21 were largely incomplete and excluded from the analysis. The 11 responses that indicated they were casual appointments were also excluded as they were a very small proportion of the casual working pool in dental academia. This left a sample of 120 for the analysis. The total number of academics, excluding casuals, invited to participate was 472. This is a response rate of approximately 25%.

The gender distribution showed slightly more female respondents, and 10% preferred not to say or did not answer (Table 1). Half the respondents were aged 31–50 years, and almost a fifth were older than 60 years. More than half were born outside Australia, and 40% completed their entry level oral health qualification outside Australia. A third each were dentists and dental specialists. Most were in continuing positions, either full‐time (46%) or part‐time (26%). A third were senior lecturers, a similar percentage were lecturers, and a quarter were professors or associate professors.

TABLE 1.

Demographic and work characteristics of respondents.

	Number (%)
Gender
Male	50 (42)
Female	58 (48)
Prefer not to say	7 (6)
Missing	5 (4)
Age group
≤ 30 years	3 (3)
31–40 years	28 (23)
41–50 years	32 (27)
51–60 years	28 (23)
> 60 years	22 (18)
Missing	7 (6)
Country of birth
Australia	50 (42)
Elsewhere	63 (53)
Missing	7 (6)
Country where entry level oral health qualification was completed
Australia	65 (54)
Elsewhere	48 (40)
Missing	7 (6)
Professional qualification
Dental Hygienist/Oral/Dental Health Therapist	21 (18)
Dentist	39 (33)
Dental Specialist	39 (33)
Other	9 (8)
Missing	12 (10)
Do you currently work?
Full‐time, continuing	55 (46)
Full‐time, contract	12 (10)
Part‐time, continuing	31 (26)
Part‐time, contract	22 (18)
Appointment type
Teaching and Research	42 (35)
Teaching focussed	35 (29)
Research focussed	8 (7)
Clinical academic	34 (28)
Other	1 (1)
Appointment level
Professor	10 (8)
Associate Professor	20 (17)
Senior Lecturer	39 (33)
Lecturer	36 (30)
Associate Lecturer	9 (8)
Missing	6 (5)

More than a half (55%) have worked in dental academia for more than 10 years, 72% have been in their current job for less than 11 years, and 57% felt they had less than 11 years left in dental academia (Table 2).

TABLE 2.

Time span in dental academia.

	Number (%)
	≤ 5 years	6–10 years	11–20 years	> 20 years
Time in dental academia	27 (23)	27 (23)	37 (31)	29 (24)
Time in current job	70 (58)	17 (14)	20 (17)	12 (10)
Time left in dental academia	31 (26)	37 (31)	32 (27)	20 (17)

3.1. Leadership

More than half (55%) indicated they were not in a leadership position. Of the 53 who were, 20 were in a senior school‐level role and 33 in a program‐level role. Of the leaders, 65% at the school level and 58% at the program level were male. Almost two‐thirds (64%) of those not in leadership were female compared to 30% of male respondents. More than half (55%) of the leaders were older than 50 years of age.

Overall, the main reasons for taking on or desiring a leadership role were ‘make a difference’ and ‘want to utilise skills and talents’ (Table 3). Female participants more often (> 5% difference) selected the following reasons compared to male respondents: ‘Increase pay’ and ‘enhance promotion prospects’; but less often selected: ‘enjoy strategy, vision’ and ‘asked to take more responsibility’.

TABLE 3.

Reasons to take on leadership role, overall and by gender.

	Overall N (%)	Male N (%)	Female N (%)
Increase pay	33 (28)	13 (26)	19 (33)
Desire for more responsibility	19 (16)	7 (14)	11 (19)
Desire for leadership opportunities	38 (32)	17 (34)	20 (35)
Enjoy strategy, vision	48 (40)	23 (46)	22 (38)
Want to utilise skills and talents	68 (57)	32 (64)	32 (55)
Asked to take more responsibility	33 (28)	18 (36)	14 (24)
Make a difference	77 (64)	33 (66)	40 (69)
Enhance promotion prospects	42 (35)	16 (32)	22 (38)
Enhance competitiveness for work opportunities	24 (20)	9 (18)	13 (22)
Other	11 (9)	4 (8)	6 (10)

Note: The overall column includes participants who preferred not to indicate a gender or did not answer; and the gender comparison excludes these participants.

Of those not in a leadership role (51 of 60 responded), more than half (55%) desired a leadership role in the future. Almost two‐thirds (64%) of the 33 female respondents desired a leadership role.

Eighteen participants provided comments on what the employer could do to assist in attaining a leadership role. Most comments highlighted the need for mentoring and support. There were comments about the lack of recognition of heavy teaching loads and the increasing burden of administrative tasks. Fifteen participants provided comments on what they still need to do to attain a leadership role. Comments generally were related to additional training, including completing a PhD and research grant success.

Few ‘barrier‐like’ situations were selected by respondents (Table 4). The most common, selected by 20% of respondents, was ‘Little mentorship/support for advancement’. There was a significant difference by gender with 29% of female respondents selecting ‘Little mentorship/support for advancement’ compared to 6% of male respondents. Other differences of note were ‘Value my own time/family/lifestyle’; ‘Not willing to relocate to seek out opportunities’ and ‘Don't have the necessary credentials/qualifications’.

TABLE 4.

Current situation related to leadership.

	Overall (%)	Male N (%)	Female N (%)
Little mentorship/support for advancement	24 (20)	3 (6)	17 (29)
Culture not supportive	14 (12)	4 (8)	8 (14)
No positions available in my institution	12 (10)	2 (4)	8 (14)
Currently satisfied with my position and role	17 (14)	5 (10)	11 (19)
Enjoy being a follower	3 (3)	1 (2)	2 (3)
Do not care to have the hassles of leadership decision‐making and difficult people	10 (8)	5 (10)	4 (7)
Value my own time/family/lifestyle	22 (18)	4 (8)	13 (22)
Not the right time in my life (parenting/childcare responsibilities, etc.)	17 (14)	6 (12)	10 (17)
Leadership roles are currently not appealing	10 (8)	4 (8)	6 (10)
Too many real barriers for leadership in my institution	11 (9)	4 (8)	6 (10)
Not willing to relocate to seek out opportunities	14 (12)	2 (4)	11 (19)
Do not have the necessary credentials/qualifications	11 (9)	1 (2)	9 (16)
Other	1 (1)	1 (2)	0

Note: The overall column includes participants who preferred not to indicate a gender or did not answer; and the gender comparison excludes these participants.

3.2. Promotion

Of the 102 for whom this question was applicable, 62% plan to apply for promotion, 64% plan to apply in the next 2 years and 29% in the next 3–5 years.

Twenty‐seven comments were received related to what still needed to be achieved to be successfully promoted. Almost all comments related to research, more time and the need to increase publications and grants. A number of comments were related to completing their PhD. Comments that concerned participants most about applying for promotion generally centred around not meeting research requirements (publications, grants).

Comments about barriers experienced or currently experiencing for career advancement were highly varied with no common themes. Comments generally were around balancing work and family, teaching workload impacting research productivity and lack of mentorship and support.

Fifteen per cent of participants indicated that they were actively looking for work elsewhere, with almost a half looking outside dental academia, mainly clinical private practice.

Participants were asked for any final comments related to their career status, progression and aspirations; here are a few comments that summarise these responses:

I am a clinical academic and I enjoy what I do. Much is talked about the need for clinical academics but not supported, when they are not successful in competitive grant applications.

I believe the clinical academic career pathway in dentistry in Australia is fraught with challenges, and those that succeed have had to be incredibly resilient. I have been fortunate to have had support, both professional and personal that has enabled me to progress many others are not so fortunate.

Teaching and service roles are not well recognised, compared with research, but people who care about students and their experience should be recognised better.

There needs to be succession planning and investment to grow people. There is a focus on roles but not the people who are there that can be nurtured to lead the future.

4. Discussion

More than half of respondents worked in academia for a long (> 10 years) time and more than half do not see themselves in academia in 10 years‐time. The majority of respondents were born outside Australia suggesting that schools are somewhat reliant on ‘importing’ academic staff, potentially from low‐ and middle‐income countries [5]. Leadership roles were skewed to males with almost two‐thirds of female respondents not in leadership compared to 30% of male respondents. However, most female respondents desired a leadership role in the future. Reasons for taking on a leadership role were altruistic, related to wanting to make a difference and utilising skills and talents to support the vision and mission of the school, and these were not different by gender. Barriers were selected more often by female respondents especially related to mentoring and support and valuing lifestyle. General themes emerging from the qualitative data suggest that mentorship is often lacking in dental schools and the high teaching workload impacting research productivity, making progression and promotion challenging.

The gender inequities in academic progression, leadership roles and differences in barriers is unsurprising as this is a global phenomenon [6, 7, 8], but mainly supported by evidence from the United States [4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]. The first national study of women in academic dentistry in the United States in 2015 showed that women were keen to seek leadership roles however pay equity, development and mentoring were needed [13]. A follow‐up study in 2023 showed improvements in the number of women academics in leadership roles, increasing from 53% to 76%, however, respondents felt that there was a ‘need for structural change to achieve success: pay equity, mentorship, and inclusive and supportive work environments’ [4]. Kim et al. [9] showed that for the period 2011–2019, women faculty members in the United States was 36%–40% but were 18%–26% of professors. A scoping review showed a low prevalence of women in leadership positions in dentistry globally [14]. In this current study, of the 28 professors and associate professors who indicated a gender, 10 (36%) were female. Of the 75 lecturers (all levels) who indicated a gender, 45 (60%) were female. A recent analysis only focussed on the leadership of Australian oral health organisations showed that of the 65 leadership positions across the 13 training institutions, 59% of all positions, 83% of the senior leaders and all heads of schools training dentists were men [15].

The issues related to career progression and aspirations of dental academics must be a focus of the school leadership, not only to ensure current staff are retained and looked after but also new staff are recruited for succession of the current staff nearing retirement. Mentoring and support beyond the usual university annual academic appraisal need to be in place to ensure that staff are able to attain the requirements for progression, promotion and taking on leadership roles and achieve professional growth and academic success [16, 17]. While this mentoring and support should be for all staff, findings here suggest that female academics particularly feel overlooked and not have the appropriate support and credentials for senior roles in schools. Meeting requirements for promotion and leadership is a long‐term process but should be worked towards all the time. Staff need mentoring in the process, strategically setting realistic short‐, medium‐ and long‐term goals to ensure the performance criteria for promotion and the selection criteria for senior school leadership are met when the time comes. Central to this is ensuring staff have time for research to attain the metrics related to publications (both quantity and quality), impact and translation, grant applications and the realities of being successful and Higher Degree Research supervision, in particular as the principal advisor. Universities are increasingly focussing on equitable and fair workload for appointment type and level, so all academic staff have opportunities to build a professional profile across teaching, research and service (leadership). Evidence suggests that female academics spend more time on teaching and service, and male academics spend more time on research [18, 19]. Differences are stark when comparing research metrics by gender. For example, of 400 most‐cited dental papers, men were the lead or senior author on 84%, [20] and in a separate analysis, women were 20% and 16% the lead or senior author, respectively, on highly cited papers [21]. Women were significantly less likely to be chief editors of dental journals, with only 18% of 159 chief editors across 124 journals being women [22]. Recognition of research performance was reflected in the analysis of the internationally prestigious International Association for Dental, Oral and Craniofacial Research (IADR) Distinguished Scientist Awards (1955–2018), where 82 (13%) of 618 were awarded to women [23]. From 2019 to 2024 (99 awards), 35% were awarded to women [24]. The Distinguished Scientists Awards are awarded to mid‐ and late‐career researchers, and these findings suggest women are struggling to be successful (breaking the glass ceiling) which may be due to limited time for research over the academic career.

A limitation of the study is the low response rate, even with reminders; however, a response rate of 25% for an online survey is expected. Similar research in the United States, focussed on women dental academics, elicited response rates of 36% [13] and 26% [4]. It was, however, hoped that dental academics, many of whom conduct research, would appreciate the need for a higher response and would therefore have responded. Response rates may have been improved by pre‐invitation notification, personalised invitations, incentives (prize draw) and multiple recruitment methods [25, 26]. A further limitation is that the modified instrument was not pilot tested. A pilot study of the modified version may have improved the validity of the instrument.

5. Conclusion

Information on the careers of dental academics is limited, especially in Australia. This survey of 120 Australian dental academics, representative by gender, age and appointment type, provides the current leadership with information to retain their current staff and ensure they are mentored and supported in their professional development and academic success. The information may also be useful for succession planning. While the leadership is male dominated, female academics were keen on leadership roles. Reasons for taking up a leadership role related to making a difference and wanting to utilise skills and talents. Barrier‐like situations were not common but differed by gender, with female academics more often reporting a lack of support and mentorship. This and meeting research (publications, grants) requirements for progress/promotion and attaining leadership roles were identified as concerns by the respondents. Heavy teaching loads and increasing administrative responsibilities were also mentioned as barriers, impacting research productivity.

Ethics Statement

The study received ethics approval from the Health and Behavioural Science Low & Negligible Research Ethics Committee (2024/HE001352).

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Lalloo R., “Career Status, Progression and Aspirations of Dental Academics in Australia,” European Journal of Dental Education 30, no. 2 (2026): 533–538, 10.1111/eje.13146.

Data Availability Statement

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.