Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI
Education SciencesEducation Sciences
PDF
  • Review
  • Open Access

23 February 2026

Hidden Faculty Service in U.S. Higher Education: A Literature Review

,
,
,
,
and
1
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, School of Science and Engineering, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA 15282, USA
2
Department of Psychology, The McAnulty College of Liberal Arts, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA 15282, USA
3
Department of Accounting, Information Systems, and Supply Chain Management, Palumbo-Donahue School of Business, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA 15282, USA
4
School of Nursing, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA 15282, USA
Educ. Sci.2026, 16(2), 352;https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16020352
This article belongs to the Special Issue Advancing Change in Faculty Evaluation: Pathways to Inclusive Evaluative Cultures and Structures
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

Although faculty service is fundamental to higher education, particular forms of service, described as hidden service, are not formally recognized in faculty evaluation and reward processes. Studies show that hidden service is disproportionately performed by women, faculty of color, and other historically marginalized groups, creating additional barriers to advancement. This narrative review synthesizes research on hidden service in U.S. higher education, focusing on three key areas: how hidden service is conceptualized, how faculty engagement in hidden service is measured, and what strategies have been proposed for its recognition. Findings indicate multiple mechanisms by which faculty service work becomes invisible and examples of hidden service activities across professional, mentoring, and emotional labor domains. Additionally, our findings point to multiple institutional strategies for integrating the recognition and valuation of hidden service into faculty evaluation and reward systems.

1. Introduction

In academic contexts, service is broadly defined as applying one’s knowledge, skills, and professional expertise to benefit students, the institution, the discipline, and the community in a manner consistent with the mission of the university (Driscoll & Lynton, 2023; Misra et al., 2012; Pfeifer, 2016). Faculty are expected to engage in a broad range of service activities that support the functioning of departments, academic programs, and the institution. Although some service activities, such as leadership roles and high-profile committee work, are recognized in annual performance evaluations and promotion and tenure decisions, many others lack formal recognition.
Hidden service (also known as invisible labor or institutional housework) refers to service work that is not typically included in a curriculum vitae or other evaluation documents and is often unrecognized or unrewarded even though it is foundational to the healthy functioning of an institution (Bird et al., 2004; O’Meara et al., 2017a). Examples include informal mentoring of students or junior faculty, department maintenance work, emotional labor, participation in recruitment activities, community building, and committee work (Gordon et al., 2024; Hart, 2016; Poor et al., 2009).
Because service is routinely undervalued in faculty performance evaluations, hidden service may be especially consequential for retention and promotion. When a faculty member’s performance is assessed, their teaching, research, and service accomplishments are disproportionately evaluated. Service work, often perceived as ambiguous and insignificant (McCabe & McCabe, 2010; Reybold & Corda, 2011), tends to carry little importance in performance reviews (Johnsrud & Rosser, 2002; Park, 1996). In fact, it has been shown that faculty rarely get denied tenure due to insufficient service contributions (Hanasono et al., 2019). On the contrary, significant service work can have a negative impact on research productivity, which is typically prioritized in promotion and tenure processes (Misra et al., 2011). It has also been shown that heavy service loads are connected to early career dissatisfaction (Reybold, 2005) and intent to leave the university (Johnsrud & Rosser, 2002). These negative effects are amplified for hidden service, which is often excluded entirely from evaluation processes.
A growing body of literature has highlighted inequities in the distribution of service work, showing that women, faculty of color, and other historically marginalized groups in academia disproportionately engage in hidden service (Gordon et al., 2024; Guarino & Borden, 2017; Jauchen, 2023; Melaku & Beeman, 2023; O’Meara et al., 2017a; Reid, 2021; Rideau, 2021). This inequitable distribution of service can contribute to disparities in recognition, research opportunities, and career advancement (Bird et al., 2004; Docka-Filipek et al., 2023; Domingo et al., 2022). As such, hidden service is often studied as an issue of workload equity, with a focus on its impact on underrepresented faculty.
Although these equity issues are well-documented and critically important, this review instead focuses on how hidden service is conceptualized, measured, and recognized. Specifically, we seek to identify the types of service work that tend to go unrecognized in evaluation practices, the methods researchers use to assess faculty engagement in hidden service, and the strategies that have been proposed to recognize hidden service work. By summarizing these conceptual and methodological foundations, this review aims to support future research and evaluation reform efforts that more accurately document and appropriately reward the full scope of faculty service work.
We conducted a narrative review to address the following three areas and questions surrounding hidden service in higher education in the United States (U.S.):
  • Conceptualization of Hidden Service: How are faculty service activities in higher education rendered invisible, and which activities are most often cited as such in the literature?
  • Measurement of Hidden Service: How have researchers assessed faculty engagement in hidden service, both formally and informally?
  • Recognition of Hidden Service: What strategies have been proposed to improve the recognition of hidden service performed by faculty?
This review addresses a gap in the literature by supporting the visibility and measurement of diverse faculty efforts that extend beyond traditional definitions of service. Results will help to ensure that often unrecognized service activities that contribute to the mission of higher education are acknowledged in policy and included in formal faculty evaluation systems.

2. Methods

A narrative review was conducted, beginning with extensive literature searches across multiple databases selected based on their relevance to the topic of hidden service in academia. Database selection was decided by multiple test searches to ensure appropriateness and coverage. Databases accessible via EBSCO were included for their interdisciplinary scope: ERIC for its focus on education; APA PsycInfo for psychology; and MEDLINE and CINAHL to represent the health sciences. Scopus was included for its extensive multidisciplinary coverage. Since Medline was included, PubMed was excluded, as its results, though relevant, would be redundant.
These searches utilized a combination of Boolean operators, keywords, and subject headings to locate articles addressing hidden service in higher education. The concept of hidden service was captured through the following keywords: CAMPUS SERVICE, HIDDEN SERVICE, INVISIBLE SERVICE, SECRET SERVICE, FACULTY SERVICE, UNRECOGNIZED SERVICE, ACADEMIC LABOR/LABOUR, EMOTIONAL LABOR/LABOUR, INVISIBLE LABOR/LABOUR, FACULTY MENTOR/SHIP/ING, INSTITUTIONAL HOUSEKEEPING, NON-PROMOTABLE TASKS, and ACADEMIC CITIZENSHIP. The focus on a higher education setting was captured through the following keywords: FACULTY, PROFESSOR*, HIGHER EDUCATION, COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY*, and CAMPUS. Database-specific subject terms were also applied.
The searches were conducted on 20 December 2024. A total of 9722 studies were identified from databases (MEDLINE, n = 1899; Proquest, n = 1818; ERIC, n = 1598; Scopus, n = 1520; Academic Search Elite, n = 1224; CINAHL, n = 907; PsycINFO, n = 756). The authors used EndNote to store search results and locate full texts; articles that could not be located via EndNote were manually gathered through Interlibrary Loan. Full texts were uploaded in Covidence review management software (Covidence, 2025), which also provided a deduplicating feature. After removing 2568 duplicate references, the authors screened 7154 studies.
Titles, abstracts, and full texts of the identified articles were reviewed independently by two of the authors to determine their eligibility for inclusion. Disagreements were resolved through discussion and consultation with a third author. An initial 6550 studies were excluded based on review of titles and abstracts for reasons such as wrong focus or not being published in a peer-reviewed journal. Based on full-text reviews of 604 studies, 95 articles were found to meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria below and were used to extract the data presented in the results.

2.1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) published in English in a peer-reviewed journal within the last 10 years; (2) focused on institutions of higher education, including universities, colleges, and community colleges; (3) examined institutional work performed by faculty outside the scope of teaching and research; and (4) explicitly identified this institutional work as not being recognized in evaluation processes such as workload allocation, formal documentation, performance assessment, and promotion and tenure review.
Although the search strategy was not geographically limited, studies conducted outside of the United States were excluded from the final review to ensure contextual relevance.

2.2. Limitations

This narrative literature review focused on methodological rigor, and a transparent, systematic approach was applied to minimize the risk of subjectivity or bias in the inclusion of articles. Nevertheless, it is possible that relevant articles indexed in other databases or unpublished research studies were not identified. In addition, because this review was limited to articles published in the U.S. in the last 10 years, the findings may not generalize to other time periods or to international contexts.
A quality review of articles included in this review was not included for two reasons. First, as a narrative review, this kind of assessment is not required. Second, our aim was to identify the full range of articles addressing hidden service, regardless of article quality.
Another limitation of this review lies in the way we approached the concept of hidden service. When operationalizing this concept, our choice of search terms may reflect subjective interpretations or disciplinary biases. In turn, this could have influenced which studies were included or excluded, potentially affecting the comprehensiveness of the review and synthesis of the findings.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of Scholarship on Hidden Service

A total of 95 articles published between 2014 and 2024 met the inclusion criteria and were identified as addressing hidden service in U.S. higher education (see Appendix A). Scholarship on hidden service appeared in 70 unique journals and was distributed across higher education, health and medical education, and other discipline-specific publications. Nearly half of the studies were published in higher education journals (46%), approximately one quarter in medical and health sciences (25%), and the remainder in discipline-specific journals (28%). This distribution indicates that hidden service is examined both in fields where workload equity and faculty evaluation are central concerns (e.g., higher education) and in professional schools characterized by substantial mentoring, clinical responsibilities, and accreditation-related tasks (e.g., health sciences). The prominence of the Journal of Diversity in Higher Education (7 articles), American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education (6), and Academic Medicine (4) further reflects that much of the research on hidden service arises at the intersection of equity considerations and professional training environments.
The temporal distribution of articles indicated a notable increase in scholarship on hidden service in recent years. Thirty-six articles (38%) appeared between 2014 and 2019, whereas 59 articles (62%) were published from 2020 onward. The years 2021 and 2024 each recorded 14 publications, followed by 2023 with 13. This pattern suggests a sustained scholarly interest in hidden service after the COVID-19 pandemic, when faculty workload, care work, and emotional labor became more prominent topics in academic discourse.
Articles examined diverse faculty populations but often did not specify appointment type. Most studies did not clearly identify the tenure status of the faculty included in their samples. Only 17% focused exclusively on tenure-track or tenured faculty, and 6% examined non-tenure-track or contingent faculty. As expectations, levels of job security, and career consequences differ substantially across these groups, the absence of explicit information about appointment type constrained the extent to which conclusions can be drawn about the conceptualization of hidden service across faculty groups and differences in recognition practices by appointment category.
The institutional contexts represented in the literature also vary across studies. Nearly half of the studies included faculty from multiple institutions (45%). Single-institution studies were most often conducted at research universities (14%) or within professional units (e.g., campus centers; 9%). In contrast, comprehensive state universities (4%), community colleges (4%), regional universities (3%), and liberal arts colleges (2%) were less frequently represented, and institutional type was not specified in 21% of articles. Overall, this distribution indicates that the existing literature is concentrated in research-intensive and professional or health-related contexts, while other institutional settings remain comparatively less represented.
Articles contributed to this review in multiple ways. All 95 articles (100%) informed the conceptualization of hidden service by identifying examples of hidden service activities or describing mechanisms through which service becomes invisible. Smaller proportions addressed measurement (31%) and recognition strategies (28%), and only 10 articles (11%) contributed to all three areas (conceptualization, measurement, and recognition). These patterns collectively indicate that the literature is well developed conceptually, while systematic approaches to measurement and empirically examined strategies for recognition remain less fully developed.
Overall, the body of scholarship is interdisciplinary, has grown steadily since 2020, and is concentrated in higher education and health-related contexts, while institutions outside research-intensive settings remain comparatively less represented and appointment type is often unspecified.

3.2. Conceptualization of Hidden Service

Although the term hidden service (or invisible service) is rarely explicitly used in the literature, all articles in this review describe faculty service work that is invisible or overlooked in some capacity. Below, we identify common mechanisms by which this service work is rendered hidden and provide examples of hidden service from the literature.

3.2.1. Forms of Invisibility

Institutions of higher education formally recognize faculty service in several ways, including through consideration in promotion and tenure decisions, inclusion in merit pay evaluations, and the granting of teaching reductions. Service activities become “hidden” when they are excluded from these or other evaluation and reward processes. The articles reviewed identified multiple mechanisms through which service work is rendered hidden (see Table 1).
Table 1. Mechanisms that render faculty service hidden.
The most common form of invisibility was exclusion from tenure and promotion decisions (e.g., Domingo et al., 2022; Hanasono et al., 2019; Jach, 2024; O’Meara, 2016). Other common forms of invisibility included a lack of recognition in workload allocation or extension beyond contractual duties (e.g., Choi, 2023; Pollard & Kumar, 2021), no course release or protected time (e.g., Charron et al., 2019; Giancola et al., 2020; Perry & Parikh, 2017), exclusion from merit pay decisions (e.g., McGee et al., 2022), absence from performance evaluations or annual reports (e.g., Berheide et al., 2022; Glenn et al., 2024), and lack of financial compensation (e.g., Doran & Hengesteg, 2021).
Less frequently mentioned forms of invisibility included the lack of a formal title (e.g., Rodrigo & Romberger, 2017; Wildermuth et al., 2023), omission from curriculum vitae (e.g., Freeman & Chambers, 2021; Hanasono et al., 2019), and lack of awareness among colleagues (e.g., Hanasono et al., 2019). Finally, several articles characterized certain service activities as invisible or hidden without specifying the precise mechanism by which the service was hidden (e.g., Bean et al., 2014; Deel, 2016; Sarabipour et al., 2023).

3.2.2. Examples of Hidden Service

The articles reviewed provided numerous examples of hidden service activities that can be grouped into three overarching categories: Professional, Institutional, and Community Service; Mentoring and Professional Development; and Emotional Labor. Within each category, multiple examples of hidden service work were identified (see Table 2). Many of these examples acknowledge what is often described as “minority tax,” which refers to disproportionate service burdens placed on certain faculty. For example, Kalet et al. (2022) noted that Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Hispanic or Latino, or Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander physician–scientists are often overburdened with committee work as a form of tokenism. For this review, we did not create a separate category for minority tax or other diversity, equity, and inclusion-related labor because our focus is on the specific activities (e.g., committee work) rather than the reasons a faculty member may be asked to perform them (e.g., to diversify the committee).
Table 2. Examples of hidden service in the literature.
The first category encompasses service activities that sustain the professional, institutional, and community functions of higher education. The most common example in this category was service on committees and task forces (e.g., Campbell et al., 2023; Fowler et al., 2024). Another common example was service work in support of campus life, mission, or operations (e.g., Domingo et al., 2022; Glenn et al., 2024). Additional examples included the design of new policies and programs (Doran & Hengesteg, 2021), community-related service (e.g., Mosier & Opp, 2020), journal editorial work (e.g., Saunders, 2016), providing trainings for colleagues (e.g., Rodrigo & Romberger, 2017), student recruitment (e.g., Heiden-Rootes et al., 2024), public engagement (e.g., Christie et al., 2017), guest lecturing (Domingo et al., 2022), conference planning (e.g., Saunders, 2016), administrative work (e.g., Wildermuth et al., 2023), accreditation-related service (Trendowski, 2023), and international engagement (Nyangau, 2018).
The second category, Mentoring and Professional Development, includes service activities that foster the growth of students, faculty colleagues, or other professionals. The most common examples were mentorship of faculty colleagues (e.g., Celeste & Joseph, 2021; Giancola et al., 2020; Mancuso et al., 2019) and mentorship or role modeling for students (e.g., Davis & Jacobsen, 2014; Guillaume & Apodaca, 2022). Advising and providing career guidance for students was also frequently noted (e.g., Hart-Baldridge, 2020; Trendowski, 2023). Additional examples included efforts to retain students from marginalized groups (Gordon et al., 2024), mentoring professionals outside of the institution (Bloom-Feshbach et al., 2024), writing letters of recommendation (e.g., Culpepper et al., 2021; Miller & Struve, 2020), responding to student emails (Deel, 2016), advising student organizations (Heiden-Rootes et al., 2024), and supervising undergraduate research (e.g., Martello et al., 2021).
The third category, Emotional Labor, comprises activities that tend to the emotional well-being of students, faculty colleagues, and other university members. Some of the articles included in this category draw directly from Hochschild, who coined the theory of emotional labor by observing how flight attendants “induce or suppress feelings in order to sustain an outward countenance that produces the proper state of mind in others” (Hochschild, 2012, p. 7). For the purpose of this review, we included examples only when they described the management of others’ emotions. The most common example in this category was emotional caretaking and nurturing of students (e.g., Freeman & Chambers, 2021; Reid, 2021). Other examples included providing emotional support for colleagues (e.g., Kennedy et al., 2022; Oberhauser & Caretta, 2019) and conflict management (e.g., Hanasono et al., 2019).

3.3. Measuring Faculty Engagement in Hidden Service

Many articles reference quantitative or qualitative metrics when describing faculty engagement in hidden service engagement. However, only eight articles present formal studies in which faculty contributions of hidden service were systematically measured. Below, we summarize the metrics commonly used to describe faculty engagement in hidden service and the approaches used to formally measure it.

3.3.1. Metrics of Hidden Service Engagement

The most frequently used metric to describe faculty engagement in hidden service was the amount of time faculty spend on these activities. Examples include time spent on committee work (Campbell et al., 2023; Domingo et al., 2022; L. R. Fitzpatrick et al., 2016), time spent performing community service (Domingo et al., 2022), time spent advising or mentoring students (Domingo et al., 2022; Guillaume & Apodaca, 2022; Hanasono et al., 2019; Rideau, 2021), time spent on journal editing (Saunders, 2016), time spent mentoring faculty peers (Mancuso et al., 2019), time spent performing relational service (Hanasono et al., 2019), and time spent performing emotional labor (Anderson et al., 2020; Berheide et al., 2022; Lawless, 2018; Nevárez, 2024).
Time devoted to hidden service was expressed in different forms. Many articles used hours per week when quantifying time spent on unrewarded or unrecognized service (e.g., Domingo et al., 2022; L. R. Fitzpatrick et al., 2016; O’Meara et al., 2017b). Other forms included the difference between actual and perceived service workload (Nottingham et al., 2018) and descriptive estimates such as “a lot of time” (Berheide et al., 2022). In some cases, engagement in hidden service was quantified as the reallocation of time intended for teaching or research, such as using a sabbatical to perform institutionally beneficial service work (K. Fitzpatrick & Sweet, 2024). Notably, Fassiotto et al. (2018) used time (hours) to quantify faculty engagement in hidden service, but the authors remarked that some activities were better assessed by the value of the task to others (e.g., department and institution) rather than the time spent performing it.
Beyond time, other articles referenced the volume or frequency of the hidden service work. Specific examples include the number of students mentored or advised (Culpepper et al., 2021; Hart-Baldridge, 2020), the number of letters of recommendation written (Hanasono et al., 2019), the number of committees served (Culpepper et al., 2021), the frequency of public engagements (Christie et al., 2017), and the frequency of new service requests (O’Meara et al., 2017b). Mentoring work was further quantified using measures such as the frequency of contact with mentees (Bean et al., 2014) and the amount of progress made by the mentee (e.g., “some” or “a lot” in Giancola et al., 2020).
Qualitative metrics describing faculty engagement in hidden service, particularly in the context of mentoring and emotional labor, were also found in the literature. Examples of these metrics include the perceived need for and impact of emotional labor, both of which could be drawn from faculty narratives (Reid, 2021). Other examples include the quality of mentorship provided, which could be extracted from feedback from mentees (Bean et al., 2014; Mascarenhas et al., 2019), and tangible mentee outcomes, such as accepted abstracts and manuscripts and new leadership positions (Mancuso et al., 2019).

3.3.2. Formal Measurement Approaches

Table 3 summarizes the eight articles that employed formal approaches to systematically measure faculty engagement in hidden service. The studies utilized a range of quantitative and mixed-methods designs, with data primarily collected through surveys and, in one case, through archival records. Surveys were the predominant instrument type and commonly included Likert-scale items to assess both behavioral dimensions (e.g., time spent on service activities such as mentoring, advising, and committee work) and perceptual dimensions (e.g., perceived emotional support provided to students or colleagues, mentoring burden, and interpersonal strain). The questions varied in structure and specificity, ranging from single-item measures to multi-item scales and latent constructs, and were designed to capture either direct engagement in service tasks or the perceived burden of such involvement.
Table 3. Summary of studies that formally measured faculty engagement in hidden service activities.
Sample populations consisted of faculty members serving in varied roles and capacities, including tenured and tenure-track professors, mentors in federally funded research development programs, faculty in STEM and social behavioral sciences, directors of public administration programs, and medical educators. These faculty were affiliated with diverse institutional contexts, including small liberal arts colleges, public research universities, federal research programs, and professional schools, reflecting a broad spectrum of academic environments.
Most of the articles used behavioral approaches to measure hidden service, focusing on the actual activities faculty engage in that often go unrecognized in formal evaluations. These studies asked faculty to report their involvement in service-related tasks such as committee work, student advising, mentoring, and professional or community engagement, using a mix of time estimates, frequency ratings, and activity counts to capture the extent of their contributions. While most relied on survey items that asked faculty to estimate time spent on such services (Christie et al., 2017; Domingo et al., 2022; Maisel et al., 2017; Rabinowitz et al., 2021; Wood et al., 2016), one study analyzed institutional records (i.e., annual faculty reports) to count service activities across organizational levels (O’Meara et al., 2017a).
A smaller group of articles used perceptual approaches to assess faculty engagement in hidden service, particularly in relation to emotional labor and mentoring burdens. These studies employed Likert-scale instruments to assess faculty members’ perceptions of the time they spend supporting students and the frequency with which they engage in emotionally and interpersonally supportive behaviors in the workplace (Berheide et al., 2022; Rinfret et al., 2022). The instruments captured self-assessments of perceived time investment, emotional and cognitive strain, and the extent to which these responsibilities may interfere with or compete against other core academic duties.
Although not framed with a primary focus on hidden service, several studies outside those listed in Table 3 captured related forms of service while investigating institutional practices and academic roles. Surveys were commonly used, often incorporating Likert-type scales to assess service. For example, mentoring-related service was captured through survey items assessing the frequency and modality of interactions, such as scheduled meetings, informal exchanges, and various communication formats (Bean et al., 2014; Mascarenhas et al., 2019). Some surveys used binary indicators to document the presence or absence of specific service behaviors, such as participation in outreach or external service activities, editorial roles, and informal student meetings (Mascarenhas et al., 2019; Mosier & Opp, 2020; O’Meara et al., 2017b). Time diaries were also used to quantify service activities such as student and peer advising and to capture aspects of unplanned labor, such as the number of unsolicited work requests received (O’Meara et al., 2017b). In another study, a time-banking system was implemented to log service activities, assigning credit values based on time invested or perceived effort, thereby formalizing contributions (Fassiotto et al., 2018). Collectively, these varied instruments (e.g., surveys, time diaries, and time-banking systems) demonstrate how hidden service can be systematically captured through behavioral measures that quantify faculty contributions across multiple dimensions of academic work.

3.4. Strategies for Recognition of Hidden Service

The literature revealed several institutional strategies specifically aimed at improving the recognition and valuation of hidden service work. These strategies represent systematic approaches to making previously invisible contributions visible and formally acknowledged within faculty evaluation and reward structures. While the broader literature addresses issues of equitable service distribution and workload management, the recommendations synthesized here focus specifically on mechanisms for recognizing hidden service in promotion, tenure, compensation, and other formal evaluation processes (see Table 4).
Table 4. Strategies for recognition of hidden service.

3.4.1. Making Invisible Labor Visible Through Documentation

A foundational strategy emphasized across multiple studies involves systematically documenting forms of service work that typically remain invisible in faculty evaluation processes. Several articles advocate for requiring faculty to document emotional labor in their annual reports and tenure portfolios, particularly the care work performed during challenging periods such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Anderson et al., 2020; Berheide et al., 2022). This documentation strategy extends beyond emotional labor to encompass other forms of hidden service. O’Meara et al. (2017a) propose creating public “service dashboards” that track faculty service contributions by gender and other demographic characteristics to make the patterns of service distribution transparent at the institutional level. Hanasono et al. (2019) recommend documenting specific invisible service activities such as letters of recommendation written, hours spent mentoring, and participation in recruitment events. These documentation approaches serve the dual purpose of making hidden labor visible for recognition purposes while also providing data to identify and address inequitable service distribution patterns.

3.4.2. Recognizing Service in Promotion and Tenure

Multiple scholars called for strengthening the recognition of service work within promotion and tenure processes, particularly those activities that have historically been invisible or undervalued in faculty evaluation. A prerequisite to this recognition is establishing clear expectations and evaluation criteria. Several scholars emphasized the importance of transparency in service expectations and evaluation criteria. Kennedy et al. (2022) advocated for promoting transparency in expectations of faculty and staff, developing clear criteria for tenure and promotion that reward achievements equitably, and fostering organizational cultures that recognize positive faculty citizenship. Domingo et al. (2022) recommended developing a clearer and more consistent evaluative system for service, using a ground-up approach to establish departmental criteria that explicitly include expectations for service contributions. Similarly, Jach (2024) called for updating tenure guidelines and performance review expectations to include measurable service contributions with clear expectations and performance metrics.
Beyond establishing clear criteria, several studies advocated for including mentoring in evaluation processes, promotion criteria, and annual reviews (Bloom-Feshbach et al., 2024; Busby & Draucker, 2024; DeAngelo et al., 2016; Fowler et al., 2024; Garrett et al., 2023; Giancola et al., 2020). Others emphasized creating institutional policies that legitimize and support service work (Johnson et al., 2015; Maisel et al., 2017; Margherio, 2021; Mascarenhas et al., 2019; Mullen, 2023; Oberhauser & Caretta, 2019) and providing formal recognition for both mentoring and community service contributions (Mosier & Opp, 2020; Rodríguez et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2016; L. Sood et al., 2022). These recommendations reflect a consistent call across disciplines for elevating service work, particularly forms that have traditionally been hidden, to a status comparable to teaching and research in faculty evaluation processes.

3.4.3. Implementing Formal Compensation and Protected Time

Recognition of hidden service work increasingly includes calls for tangible compensation and structural support. Several articles (Glenn et al., 2024; Mancuso et al., 2019; Perry & Parikh, 2017) advocate for providing protected time, stipends, or continuing medical education credits for mentoring activities, acknowledging that effective mentoring requires significant time investment that competes with other professional responsibilities. Sarabipour et al. (2023) extended this concept by recommending allocated protected time and formal training for both mentors and mentees, creating institutional infrastructure to support high-quality mentoring relationships. These recommendations emphasize that meaningful recognition requires institutional commitment of resources that demonstrate the genuine value placed on this work, moving beyond symbolic acknowledgment.

4. Discussion

This narrative review provides a comprehensive synthesis of the literature published over the last decade examining hidden faculty service in U.S. higher education. We adopted a deliberately broad approach to defining hidden service to capture the full scope of faculty service activities that fall outside traditional evaluation and reward structures. Because scholarship on this topic is often embedded within research on faculty workload, mentoring, and emotional labor, our search strategy included a wide range of keywords and disciplinary databases. This approach resulted in the identification of 95 articles providing a conceptual understanding of hidden service across multiple domains. Our findings suggest that hidden service does not refer to a single type of service, but rather to a range of unrecognized service activities that are essential to institutional functioning, faculty development, and student success.
Although the term hidden service is rarely used explicitly in the literature, the types of work involved and mechanisms that render this labor invisible are consistent across disciplines and institution types. Hidden service is most often characterized by its exclusion from formal evaluation procedures such as promotion and tenure, workload allocation, and compensation. Scholars have described hidden service as invisible labor or institutional housekeeping, emphasizing the unrecognized maintenance work that sustains departments and universities. This labor frequently includes committee work, service aligned with the mission of the institution, student recruitment and retention efforts, mentoring, and emotional labor. Hidden service activities can also occur outside of the university through community-building activities such as public lectures (Christie et al., 2017), collaborative advocacy efforts (Ginsburg et al., 2020), and contributions to public service programs (Mosier & Opp, 2020). Faculty engage in hidden service for a variety of reasons (Alleman et al., 2020; Nyangau, 2018; O’Meara, 2016; O’Meara et al., 2017b), including enjoyment of the work or its outcomes, perceived benefits to themselves, their students, or the institution, and a desire to effect change. Other reasons include fulfilling a sense of obligation, avoiding potential negative consequences of declining, and feeling as though “no” was not an option.
A substantial portion of hidden service work identified in our review centers around the caretaking of others, particularly students and colleagues. This relational labor includes both formal mentoring and informal advising or emotional support that often extends beyond official expectations. This burden is unevenly distributed across faculty and often disproportionately on those from underrepresented groups. For example, Black engineering and computing faculty report substantial uncompensated service focused on mentoring and retaining Black students (McGee et al., 2022). Similarly, women faculty, who often are viewed as natural caregivers, perform invisible labor supporting students through family challenges, health concerns, and aggressions such as racism and assault (Reid, 2021). Although many faculty undertake this work willingly and view it as meaningful, it is additional and often invisible labor. Such contributions can be difficult to quantify, as they occur informally and are rarely fully captured by common evaluation metrics such as the number of advisees or time spent mentoring.
Our review suggests that measuring faculty engagement in hidden service is an underdeveloped area of research. Many articles describe faculty contributions to hidden service using quantitative metrics such as time spent on unrecognized service activities, number of committees served, and frequency of mentorship, but only eight studies measured hidden service engagement in a systematic way. These studies employed a range of instruments (e.g., surveys and review of institutional records) and response formats to capture behavioral and perceptual measures of hidden service. The results of these studies shed light on patterns of engagement in hidden service but also reveal important limitations. For example, time-based metrics often miss the emotional or relational impacts of service (Hanasono et al., 2019), and self-reported data can be influenced by memory or feelings of overload or stress at the time of reporting (Berheide et al., 2022). Future research and reform efforts could address this gap by incorporating quantitative data with faculty narratives and workload records into faculty evaluation processes to better capture both the scale and impact of hidden service work.
The literature offers numerous suggestions for recognizing hidden service, ranging from documentation dashboards and equitable workload policies to compensation and promotion reform. Many of these strategies are articulated at the institutional level and require substantial structural change. However, important progress can also be made through practical interventions within smaller units, such as departments and schools. For example, annual faculty reporting processes can be modified to explicitly ask about faculty involvement in less visible service work including mentoring, informal advising, and community service. Importantly, faculty should be asked not only about the presence of these activities but also about the time invested and their impact. These unit-level practices offer a feasible and immediate mechanism for increasing the visibility of hidden service within existing evaluation systems.
At the same time, the literature also emphasizes that visibility alone is insufficient; recognition must translate into value through credit or compensation for mentoring, advising, and other relational work. Mechanisms such as protected time, workload adjustments, or formal evaluation credit can prevent these responsibilities from falling repeatedly on the same faculty. However, the majority of studies propose recommendations for recognition strategies without reporting their implementation or evaluation, making it difficult to ascertain their effectiveness in practice. A small number of studies examine existing institutional practices through observational or survey methods, such as assessing faculty perceptions of current mentoring incentives (Maisel et al., 2017) or the importance of mentoring awards (L. Sood et al., 2022). The few studies that describe implemented strategies focus exclusively on formal mentoring programs with systematic evaluation (Giancola et al., 2020; Mascarenhas et al., 2019; Mullen, 2023), with no reported implementations of broader service recognition approaches such as documentation systems, revised promotion criteria, or compensation structures. When viewed across our conceptualization, measurement, and recognition findings, it appears that forms of hidden service that are formalized (e.g., committee work) or role-based (e.g., mentoring) are more likely to move from description to documentation and recognition, whereas relational, emotional, and informal forms of hidden service are more often discussed conceptually than systematically measured or explicitly recognized.
Most of the articles used in this review were published in higher education and health science journals. There are important opportunities for discipline-based inquiry beyond these two fields. In disciplines with low representation of women and faculty of color, such as many STEM and professional fields, service related to diversity and mentoring may be unevenly distributed among underrepresented faculty while remaining overlooked within formal evaluation systems. Further research could help clarify how these patterns are produced and sustained within distinct disciplinary cultures and reward structures. This work would be particularly valuable by informing discipline-appropriate approaches to service recognition.
Institutional context is also relevant for understanding how hidden service is conceptualized and recognized. In research-intensive universities, formal evaluation systems that prioritize publications and grants can make mentoring, diversity-related labor, and emotional support less visible because these activities do not map cleanly onto prevailing research metrics. In teaching-focused institutions, regional universities, and community colleges, service is often integral to student support and program continuity, yet it may remain under-documented due to high teaching loads, lean staffing, and limited reporting infrastructure. As such, the processes through which service becomes invisible differ (e.g., metric misalignment versus gap in documentation), even as common mechanisms persist across institutional types (e.g., insufficient protected time). Thus, although reward systems across institutional types tend to undervalue service in similar ways, strategies for improved recognition may differ and should be context-dependent.
The limited number of implemented recognition strategies in our review offers preliminary insights into factors that may facilitate institutional action. The three successful implementations shared several characteristics: clear program structures with defined roles and expectations, systematic evaluation mechanisms, and institutional commitment of resources beyond symbolic acknowledgment (Giancola et al., 2020; Mascarenhas et al., 2019; Mullen, 2023). However, all three occurred within health sciences contexts where mentoring already had some legitimacy and where accreditation requirements or clinical training models provided existing frameworks for faculty development. Translating these implementation lessons to other disciplines or institutional contexts may require adapting the core principles rather than replicating the specific programs. For instance, disciplines without strong mentoring traditions might begin by piloting service documentation systems that make diverse forms of hidden service visible (Hanasono et al., 2019; O’Meara et al., 2017b) before attempting comprehensive recognition reforms, while resource-constrained institutions might prioritize low-cost interventions such as modified annual reporting processes (Anderson et al., 2020; Berheide et al., 2022) that integrate hidden service into existing evaluation workflows.
Hidden service activities are fundamental to the health and sustainability of higher education institutions. When these contributions are formally recognized and rewarded, the positive outcomes may extend beyond individual faculty members to include improved organizational functioning, increased faculty morale, and higher retention rates (Kennedy et al., 2022; Sheets et al., 2018). Furthermore, given the consistent and clear evidence that hidden service is not distributed equitably across faculty groups, with women and faculty of color tending to complete more of this work (Gordon et al., 2024; Guarino & Borden, 2017; Jauchen, 2023; Melaku & Beeman, 2023; O’Meara et al., 2017a; Reid, 2021; Rideau, 2021), reforms aimed at making service visible and valued have the potential to directly support the advancement of faculty from underrepresented groups.
Our findings regarding the conceptualization, measurement, and recognition of hidden service complement the research on visible service. Even when service activities are formally recognized, they are typically given less weight than research and teaching during performance evaluations (Domingo et al., 2022; Johnsrud & Rosser, 2002; Park, 1996). Additionally, research shows that visible forms of service are also inequitably distributed, with women and members of underrepresented groups undertaking a disproportionate share of service responsibilities (Domingo et al., 2022). These excessive service burdens have been shown to hinder research productivity and career advancement (Hanasono et al., 2019; Misra et al., 2011). Formal recognition of hidden service can contribute to a more accurate assessment of total service workloads among faculty and highlight the broader undervaluation of service within academic reward structures.

5. Conclusions

This review indicates that hidden service is a systemic issue in U.S. higher education, sustained by evaluation systems that fail to recognize the full scope of faculty service work. Across disciplines and institution types, faculty contribute substantial time and energy to institutional, professional, and community service, mentoring, and emotional labor that is essential to success of the institution but often carries little or no weight in formal assessments, such as promotion and tenure. The invisibility of this service work is not just procedural but also cultural, reflecting beliefs that faculty service is a moral obligation or personal choice rather than a professional contribution worthy of documentation and recognition (McCabe & McCabe, 2010; Reybold & Corda, 2011; Tange, 2023). Addressing this misalignment requires intentional structural reform to ensure all forms of academic labor are visible, valued, and rewarded.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the conceptualization of this review. A.S.C. conducted the literature search and uploaded all articles to Covidence for screening. R.M.N., L.E.K., M.H., P.O., and M.A.K. reviewed all articles and determined eligibility based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. R.M.N., L.E.K., M.H., P.O., and M.A.K. organized and synthesized the results. All authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research is based upon work partially supported by the National Science Foundation ADVANCE program under Award No. 2426556. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Summary of 95 articles that met the inclusion criteria for this literature review.
Table A1. Summary of 95 articles that met the inclusion criteria for this literature review.
Role in Analysis
Author(s)YearJournalConc.Meas.Strat.
Alleman et al.2020Journal of the Professoriate✓
Anderson et al.2020Journal of Contemporary Ethnography✓✓✓
Bean et al.2014Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning✓✓
Berheide et al.2022Sex Roles✓✓✓
Bloom-Feshbach et al.2024Journal of Hospital Medicine✓ ✓
Busby & Draucker2024Journal of Professional Nursing✓ ✓
Campbell et al.2023BMC Medical Education✓✓
Celeste & Joseph2021Communication, Culture and Critique✓
Charron et al.2019Annals of Global Health✓
Choi2023New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development✓
Christie et al.2017Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement✓✓
Culpepper et al.2021New Directions for Higher Education✓✓
Davis & Jacobsen2014Innovative Higher Education✓
DeAngelo et al.2016Innovative Higher Education✓ ✓
Deel2016Higher Education Politics & Economics✓
Docka-Filipek & Stone2021Gender, Work & Organization✓
Domingo et al.2022Journal of Diversity in Higher Education✓✓✓
Doran & Hengesteg2021Journal of Diversity in Higher Education✓
Drake et al.2019The Review of Higher Education✓
Enders et al.2021Journal of Clinical and Translational Science✓
Fassiotto et al.2018Academic Medicine✓✓
Fitzpatrick et al.2016American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education✓✓
Fitzpatrick & Sweet2024Journal of Research in Music Education✓✓
Fountain & Newcomer2016Journal of Public Affairs Education✓
Fowler et al.2024Translational Behavioral Medicine✓ ✓
Freeman & Chambers2021Journal of Negro Education✓
Garrett et al.2023Journal of Diversity in Higher Education✓ ✓
Genao et al.2022Journal of Education Human Resources✓
Giancola et al.2020The Journal of Pediatrics✓✓✓
Ginsburg et al.2020American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education✓
Glenn et al.2024Women & Language✓ ✓
Gonzales & Ayers2018The Review of Higher Education✓
Gordon et al.2024Journal of Diversity in Higher Education✓
Guillaume & Apodaca2022Race Ethnicity and Education✓✓
Hamblin et al.2020Community College Journal of Research and Practice✓
Hanasono et al.2019Journal of Diversity in Higher Education✓✓✓
Hart-Baldridge2020NACADA Journal✓✓
Heiden-Rootes et al.2024Studies in Higher Education✓
Holzweiss2023Journal of the Professoriate✓✓
Jach2024New York Journal of Student Affairs✓ ✓
Johnson et al.2015Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning✓ ✓
Jones et al.2016NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education✓
Kahn & Pason2021Rhetoric and Public Affairs✓
Kalet et al.2022Academic Medicine✓
Kennedy et al.2022American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education✓ ✓
Law et al.2014American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education✓
Lawless2018Review of Communication✓✓
Maisel et al.2017Academic Medicine✓✓✓
Mancuso et al.2019Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions✓✓✓
Margherio2021Ethics & Behavior✓ ✓
Martello et al.2021Advances in Engineering Education✓
Mascarenhas et al.2019European Journal of Dental Education✓✓✓
McGee et al.2022The Journal of Higher Education✓
Melaku & Beeman2023Ethnic and Racial Studies✓
Miller & Struve2020Innovative Higher Education✓
Mosier & Opp2020Teaching Public Administration✓✓✓
Mullen2023Journal of Research on Leadership Education✓ ✓
Myers & Id-Deen2023Student Success✓
Nevárez2024Multicultural Perspectives✓✓
Newman et al.2023American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education✓
Norander & Zenk2023Advancing Women in Leadership Journal✓
Nordberg et al.2024International Journal of Bias, Identity and Diversities in Education✓
Nottingham et al.2018Athletic Training Education Journal✓✓
Nyangau2018FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education✓
O’Meara2016Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education✓
O’Meara, Kuvaeva, & Nyunt2017The Journal of Higher Education✓✓✓
O’Meara, Kuvaeva, Nyunt, et al.2017American Educational Research Journal✓✓
O’Meara et al.2019The Journal of Higher Education✓
Oberhauser & Caretta2019Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography✓ ✓
Olson & Nayar-Bhalerao2021International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education✓
Pabón-Colón2023Theatre History Studies✓
Perry & Parikh2017Journal of the American College of Radiology✓ ✓
Pfeiffenberger et al.2014American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education✓
Pollard & Kumar2021The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning✓
Quinteros & Covarrubias2024Journal of Diversity in Higher Education✓
Rabinowitz et al.2021American Journal of Gastroenterology✓✓
Raymond & Kannan2014Journal of Management Education✓
Reid2021PS: Political Science & Politics✓✓
Rideau2021Journal of Diversity in Higher Education✓
Rinfret et al.2022Journal of Public Affairs Education✓✓
Rodrigo & Romberger2017Computers and Composition✓
Rodríguez et al.2014Family Medicine✓ ✓
Sarabipour et al.2023Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences✓ ✓
Sarabipour et al.2024Nature Human Behaviour✓
Saunders2016Small Axe: A Caribbean Journal of Criticism✓✓
Smith et al.2016To Improve the Academy✓ ✓
Sood et al.2016Academic Medicine✓
Sood et al.2022The Chronicle of Mentoring & Coaching✓ ✓
Strong & Punksungka2024Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education✓
Topp et al.2017Western Journal of Nursing Research✓
Trendowski2023International Journal of Kinesiology in Higher Education✓
Ueda et al.2024AERA Open✓
Wildermuth et al.2023Studies in Higher Education✓
Wood et al.2016Journal of the Professoriate✓✓
Young et al.2022Journal on Excellence in College Teaching✓

References

  1. Alleman, N., Allen, C. C., & Haviland, D. (2020). Full time, non-tenure track faculty, service, and organizational commitment. Journal of the Professoriate, 11(1), 48–77. [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, L. B., Ruiz-Mesa, K., Jones-Bodie, A., Waldbuesser, C., Hall, J., Broeckelman-Post, M. A., & Hosek, A. M. (2020). I second that emotion: A collaborative examination of emotions felt in course administration work. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 49(2), 201–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bean, N. M., Lucas, L., & Hyers, L. L. (2014). Mentoring in higher education should be the norm to assure success: Lessons learned from the faculty mentoring program, West Chester University, 2008–2011. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 22(1), 56–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Berheide, C. W., Carpenter, M. A., & Cotter, D. A. (2022). Teaching college in the time of COVID-19: Gender and race differences in faculty emotional labor. Sex Roles, 86(7–8), 441–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Bird, S., Litt, J., & Wang, Y. (2004). Creating status of women reports: Institutional housekeeping as “women’s work”. NWSA Journal, 16(1), 194–206. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4317042 (accessed on 9 February 2026).
  6. Bloom-Feshbach, K., Klimenko, M., Fluet, K., & Lang, V. J. (2024). Mentoring: Shaping the professional identity of the academic internal medicine hospitalist. Journal of Hospital Medicine, 19(12), 1104–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Busby, K. R., & Draucker, C. B. (2024). Institutional factors that affect faculty mentoring in academic nursing programs. Journal of Professional Nursing, 54, 164–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Campbell, K. M., Ogbeide, S. A., Echiverri, A., Guillaume, G., Henderson, J. E., Jackson, N., Marquez, C. M., Miranda, C., Montoya, M., Oni, K., Pierre, G., Semenya, A. M., Scott, L., Udezi, V., Flattes, V. J., Rodríguez, J. E., & Washington, J. C. (2023). Are committee experiences of minoritized family medicine faculty part of the minority tax? A qualitative study. BMC Medical Education, 23(1), 862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Celeste, M., & Joseph, R. L. (2021). Prying the doors open: Women of color mentoring in the field of communication. Communication, Culture and Critique, 14(4), 657–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Charron, K., Kalbarczyk, A., Martin, N. A., Combs, E. A., Ward, M., & Leontsini, E. (2019). Building blocks of global health mentorship: Motivation, expectations, and institutional support. Annals of Global Health, 85(1), 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Choi, M. (2023). BIPOC women faculty in community colleges and the expectations of emotional labor. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 35(2), 104–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Christie, L. D., Djupe, P. A., O’Rourke, S. P., & Smith, E. S. (2017). Whose job is it anyway? The place of public engagement in the liberal arts college. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 21(4), 23–50. [Google Scholar]
  13. Covidence. (2025). Covidence systematic review software. Veritas Health Innovation. Available online: https://www.covidence.org (accessed on 9 February 2026).
  14. Culpepper, D., Templeton, L., & O’Meara, K. (2021). Making faculty work visible: An equity-minded approach. New Directions for Higher Education, 2021(193–194), 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Davis, S. N., & Jacobsen, S. K. (2014). Curricular integration as innovation: Faculty insights on barriers to institutionalizing change. Innovative Higher Education, 39(1), 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. DeAngelo, L., Mason, J., & Winters, D. (2016). Faculty engagement in mentoring undergraduate students: How institutional environments regulate and promote extra-role behavior. Innovative Higher Education, 41(4), 317–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Deel, K. (2016). Will social critique force the faculty role to evolve? Higher Education Politics & Economics, 2(1), 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Docka-Filipek, D., Draper, C., Snow, J., & Stone, L. B. (2023). ‘Professor moms’ & ‘hidden service’ in pandemic times: Students report women faculty more supportive & accommodating amid U.S. COVID crisis onset. Innovative Higher Education, 48, 787–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Docka-Filipek, D., & Stone, L. B. (2021). Twice a “housewife”: On academic precarity, “hysterical” women, faculty mental health, and service as gendered care work for the “university family” in pandemic times. Gender, Work & Organization, 28(6), 2158–2179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Domingo, C. R., Gerber, N. C., Harris, D., Mamo, L., Pasion, S. G., Rebanal, R. D., & Rosser, S. V. (2022). More service or more advancement: Institutional barriers to academic success for women and women of color faculty at a large public comprehensive minority-serving state university. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 15(3), 365–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Doran, E. E., & Hengesteg, P. S. (2021). Advocating for Mexican American studies in whitestream community colleges: A focus on faculty efforts. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 14(1), 84–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Drake, A., Struve, L., Meghani, S. A., & Bukoski, B. (2019). Invisible labor, visible change: Non-tenure-track faculty agency in a research university. The Review of Higher Education, 42(4), 1635–1664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Driscoll, A., & Lynton, E. A. (2023). Making outreach visible: A guide to documenting professional service and outreach (digital ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Enders, F. T., Golembiewski, E. H., Orellana, M., Silvano, C. J., Sloan, J., & Balls-Berry, J. (2021). The hidden curriculum in health care academia: An exploratory study for the development of an action plan for the inclusion of diverse trainees. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 5(1), e203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Fassiotto, M., Simard, C., Sandborg, C., Valantine, H., & Raymond, J. (2018). An integrated career coaching and time-banking system promoting flexibility, wellness, and success: A pilot program at Stanford University School of Medicine. Academic Medicine, 93(6), 881–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fitzpatrick, K., & Sweet, B. (2024). Motherhood in the music academy. Journal of Research in Music Education, 71(4), 373–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fitzpatrick, L. R., Millette-Snodgrass, C., & Atef, E. (2016). A novel mathematical model for determining faculty workload. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 80(9), 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Fountain, J., & Newcomer, K. E. (2016). Developing and sustaining effective faculty mentoring programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 22(4), 483–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fowler, L. A., Quiñones-Cordero, M. M., Sidani, J. E., Bernhart, J. A., Mendoza-Vasconez, A. S., Bannon, S. M., & Unni, E. J. (2024). The urgency of restructuring the landscape of behavioral medicine: Commentary from early-career diversity institute scholars. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 14(3), 149–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Freeman, S., Jr., & Chambers, C. R. (2021). Recommendations for full professorship pathways: Understandings from the lived experiences of Black faculty at PWIs who rose to the rank of full before age 45. Journal of Negro Education, 90(4), 483–495. [Google Scholar]
  31. Garrett, S. D., Williams, M. S., & Carr, A. M. (2023). Finding their way: Exploring the experiences of tenured Black women faculty. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 16(5), 527–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Genao, S., Beeman, A., & Melaku, T. M. (2022). Leaning on our academic shields of gendered support. Journal of Education Human Resources, 40(1), 29–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Giancola, J. K., Whitman, B., & Wilmott, R. W. (2020). Establishing a mentoring culture within the department: The role of the chair. The Journal of Pediatrics, 225, 4–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Ginsburg, D. B., Law, A. V., Mann, H. J., Palombi, L., Smith, W. T., Truong, H.-A., Volino, L. R., & Ekoma, J. O. (2020). Report of the 2018-2019 strategic engagement standing committee. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(1), 7597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Glenn, C. L., Graham, L., Harris, T. M., & Scott, K. D. (2024). Shifting “Lift as we climb:“ The urgency of redefining our identities in academic spaces. Women & Language, 47(1), 135–151. [Google Scholar]
  36. Gonzales, L. D., & Ayers, D. F. (2018). The convergence of institutional logics on the community college sector and the normalization of emotional labor: A new theoretical approach for considering the community college faculty labor expectations. The Review of Higher Education, 41(3), 455–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gordon, H. R., Willink, K., & Hunter, K. (2024). Invisible labor and the associate professor: Identity and workload inequity. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 17(3), 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Guarino, C. M., & Borden, V. M. (2017). Faculty service loads and gender: Are women taking care of the academic family? Research in Higher Education, 58, 672–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Guillaume, R. O., & Apodaca, E. C. (2022). Early career faculty of color and promotion and tenure: The intersection of advancement in the academy and cultural taxation. Race Ethnicity and Education, 25(4), 546–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hamblin, L., Barker, D., & Arghode, V. (2020). A phenomenological approach to explore faculty perceptions about invisible labor. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 44(10–12), 804–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hanasono, L. K., Broido, E. M., Yacobucci, M. M., Root, K. V., Peña, S., & O’Neil, D. A. (2019). Secret service: Revealing gender biases in the visibility and value of faculty service. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 12(1), 85–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hart, J. (2016). Dissecting a gendered organization: Implications for career trajectories for mid-career faculty women in STEM. The Journal of Higher Education, 87(5), 605–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hart-Baldridge, E. (2020). Faculty advisor perspectives of academic advising. NACADA Journal, 40(1), 10–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Heiden-Rootes, K., SmithBattle, L., & Hankins, M. (2024). Describing values in tension and neoliberalism at a mission-driven, private university: A qualitative case study of faculty service workload. Studies in Higher Education, 50(3), 583–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hochschild, A. R. (2012). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling (3rd ed.). University of California Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Holzweiss, P. (2023). “I’m drowning”: The invisible labor of doctoral supervisors in the United States. Journal of the Professoriate, 14(1), 35–60. [Google Scholar]
  47. Jach, E. A. (2024). Academic citizenship as civic professionalism. New York Journal of Student Affairs, 24(1), 2. [Google Scholar]
  48. Jauchen, J. G. (2023). Institutional activism in diversity, equity, and inclusion faculty service in STEM. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 29(2), 51–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Johnson, W. B., Behling, L. L., Miller, P., & Vandermaas-Peeler, M. (2015). Undergraduate research mentoring: Obstacles and opportunities. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 23(5), 441–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Johnsrud, L. K., & Rosser, V. J. (2002). Faculty members’ morale and their intention to leave: A multilevel explanation. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 518–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jones, S. J., Warnick, E. M., & Palmer, E. M. (2016). Environment barriers and their effects on the perception of women on the tenure track. NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education, 9(1), 21–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kahn, S., & Pason, A. (2021). What do we mean by academic labor (in Rhetorical Studies)? Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 24(1–2), 109–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kalet, A., Libby, A. M., Jagsi, R., Brady, K., Chavis-Keeling, D., Pillinger, M. H., Daumit, G. L., Drake, A. F., Drake, W. P., Fraser, V., Ford, D., Hochman, J. S., Jones, R. D., Mangurian, C., Meagher, E. A., McGuinness, G., Regensteiner, J. G., Rubin, D. C., Yaffe, K., & Ravenell, J. E. (2022). Mentoring underrepresented minority physician-scientists to success. Academic Medicine, 97(4), 497–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Kennedy, D. R., Clapp, P., DeLuca, J. L., Filtz, T. M., Kroon, L., Lamberts, J. T., Oliphant, C. M., Prescott, W. A., & Ray, S. D. (2022). Enhancing pharmacy faculty well-being and productivity while reducing burnout. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 86(5), 8764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Law, A. V., Bottenberg, M. M., Brozick, A. H., Currie, J. D., DiVall, M. V., Haines, S. T., Jolowsky, C., Koh-Knox, C. P., Leonard, G. A., Phelps, S. J., Rao, D., Webster, A., & Yablonski, E. (2014). A checklist for the development of faculty mentorship programs. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(5), 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Lawless, B. (2018). Documenting a labor of love: Emotional labor as academic labor. Review of Communication, 18(2), 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Maisel, N. C., Halvorson, M. A., Finney, J. W., Bi, X., Hayashi, K. P., Blonigen, D. M., Weitlauf, J. C., Timko, C., & Cronkite, R. C. (2017). Institutional incentives for mentoring at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and Universities: Associations with mentors’ perceptions and time spent mentoring. Academic Medicine, 92(4), 521–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Mancuso, C. A., Berman, J. R., Robbins, L., & Paget, S. A. (2019). What mentors tell us about acknowledging effort and sustaining academic research mentoring: A qualitative study. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 39(1), 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Margherio, S. M. (2021). Ethical issues related to the undergraduate-graduate-faculty mentoring triad in psychology. Ethics & Behavior, 31(2), 102–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Martello, R., Lynch, C., Somerville, M., Stein, L. A., & Manno, V. P. (2021). Rethinking faculty development and assessment at Olin College: A community-oriented design process. Advances in Engineering Education, 9(3), 10. [Google Scholar]
  61. Mascarenhas, F., Townsend, J., Caballero, P., Yu, Q., & Fidel, P. L., Jr. (2019). Student and faculty perspectives of a faculty-student mentoring programme in a dental school. European Journal of Dental Education, 23(2), 184–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. McCabe, L. L., & McCabe, E. R. B. (2010). How to succeed in academics (2nd ed.). University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  63. McGee, E. O., Naphan-Kingery, D., Miles, M. L., & Joseph, O. (2022). How Black engineering and computing faculty exercise an equity ethic to racially fortify and enrich Black students. The Journal of Higher Education, 93(5), 702–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Melaku, T. M., & Beeman, A. (2023). Black women in white academe: A qualitative analysis of heightened inclusion tax. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 46(6), 1158–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Miller, R. A., & Struve, L. E. (2020). “Heavy lifters of the university”: Non-tenure track faculty teaching required diversity courses. Innovative Higher Education, 45(6), 437–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Misra, J., Lundquist, J. H., Holmes, E., & Agiomavritis, S. (2011). The ivory ceiling of service work. Academe, 97(1), 22–26. [Google Scholar]
  67. Misra, J., Lundquist, J. H., & Templer, A. (2012). Gender, work time, and care responsibilities among faculty. Sociological Forum, 27(2), 300–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mosier, S. L., & Opp, S. M. (2020). Pracademics in network of schools of public policy, affairs, and administration accredited programs: Insights from a survey of program faculty members. Teaching Public Administration, 38(2), 187–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mullen, C. A. (2023). Guiding online students in a crisis: An intervention for mentoring educational leadership doctoral candidates. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 18(3), 510–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Myers, M., & Id-Deen, L. (2023). I need you to survive: Black women resisting White supremacy culture for faculty and student wellbeing. Student Success, 14(3), 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Nevárez, D. M. (2024). Invisible labor, collective grief, and community preservation: A Chicana contingent faculty member teaching through the pandemic. Multicultural Perspectives, 26(2), 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Newman, K., Richter, L. M., Meny, L. M., Arnoldi, J., & Hookstra Danielson, J. (2023). A mixed-methods analysis of the promotion and tenure process for experiential education faculty. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 87(12), 100582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Norander, S., & Zenk, L. (2023). The invisible labor for emerging women leaders: A critical analysis of literature in higher education. Advancing Women in Leadership Journal, 42, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Nordberg, A., Cropps, T. A., Mattingly, S. P., & Pearson, Y. E. (2024). Exploring the lived experiences of African American and Latinx STEM faculty and students in the U.S. International Journal of Bias, Identity and Diversities in Education, 8(1). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Nottingham, S. L., Mazerolle, S. M., Bowman, T. G., & Coleman, K. A. (2018). Alignment of athletic training doctoral education and faculty workload. Athletic Training Education Journal, 13(3), 268–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Nyangau, J. Z. (2018). Motivations of faculty engagement in internationalization: An agenda for future research. FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education, 4(3), 7–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Oberhauser, A. M., & Caretta, M. A. (2019). Mentoring early career women geographers in the neoliberal academy: Dialogue, reflexivity, and ethics of care. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 101(1), 56–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Olson, J. S., & Nayar-Bhalerao, S. (2021). STEM faculty members and their perceptions of mentoring: “I do not want to be a role model”. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 10(1), 67–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. O’Meara, K. (2016). Whose problem is it? Gender differences in faculty thinking about campus service. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 118(8), 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. O’Meara, K., Kuvaeva, A., & Nyunt, G. (2017a). Constrained choices: A view of campus service inequality from annual faculty reports. The Journal of Higher Education, 88(5), 672–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. O’Meara, K., Kuvaeva, A., Nyunt, G., Waugaman, C., & Jackson, R. (2017b). Asked more often: Gender differences in faculty workload in research universities and the work interactions that shape them. American Educational Research Journal, 54(6), 1154–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. O’Meara, K., Lennartz, C. J., Kuvaeva, A., Jaeger, A., & Misra, J. (2019). Department conditions and practices associated with faculty workload satisfaction and perceptions of equity. The Journal of Higher Education, 90(5), 744–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Pabón-Colón, J. N. (2023). Not another essay on care work in academia! Theatre History Studies, 42, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Park, S. M. (1996). Research, teaching, and service: Why shouldn’t women’s work count? The Journal of Higher Education, 67(1), 46–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Perry, R. E., & Parikh, J. R. (2017). Mentorship of junior faculty members in academic radiology. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 14(10), 1341–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Pfeifer, H. L. (2016). How to be a good academic citizen: The role and importance of service in academia. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 27(2), 238–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Pfeiffenberger, J. A., Rhoney, D. H., Cutler, S. J., Oliveira, M. A., Whalen, K. L., Radhakrishnan, R., & Jordan, R. P. (2014). Perceptions of tenure and tenure reform in academic pharmacy. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(4), 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Pollard, R., & Kumar, S. (2021). Mentoring graduate students online: Strategies and challenges. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(2), 267–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Poor, S. S., Scullion, R., Woodward, K., Laurence, D., Christensen, K. M., Clark, J. E., Conley, K., Haidt, R., Hogan, K., Holland, S. P., Howard, J. E., Hua, L. U., Joyce, J. A., Kaiser, N., Laity, C., Lawrence, K., Lin, Y.-C. T., Maiz-Peña, M., Massé, M. A., … Zanichowsky, E. M. (2009). Standing still: The associate professor survey. Profession, 2009(1), 313–350. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25595935 (accessed on 9 February 2026). [CrossRef]
  90. Quinteros, K. N., & Covarrubias, R. (2024). Reimagining university leadership through the everyday resistance of faculty of color. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 17(6), 843–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Rabinowitz, L. G., Grinspan, L. T., Zylberberg, H. M., Dixon, R., David, Y. N., Aroniadis, O. C., Chiang, A., Christie, J., Fayad, N. F., Ha, C., Harris, L. A., Ko, C. W., Kolb, J., Kwah, J., Lee, L., Lieberman, D., Raffals, L. E., Rex, D. K., Shah, S. C., … Greenwald, D. A. (2021). Survey finds gender disparities impact both women mentors and mentees in gastroenterology. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 116(9), 1876–1884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Raymond, B. C., & Kannan, V. R. (2014). A Survey of faculty mentoring programs in AACSB schools of business. Journal of Management Education, 38(6), 818–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Reid, R. A. (2021). Retaining women faculty: The problem of invisible labor. PS: Political Science & Politics, 54(3), 504–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Reybold, L. E. (2005). Surrendering the dream: Early career conflict and faculty dissatisfaction thresholds. Journal of Career Development, 32(2), 107–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Reybold, L. E., & Corda, K. W. (2011). Faculty identity and the “lesser role”: Service to the academy. Journal of the Professoriate, 5(1), 121–148. [Google Scholar]
  96. Rideau, R. (2021). “We’re just not acknowledged”: An examination of the identity taxation of full-time non-tenure-track Women of Color faculty members. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 14(2), 161–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Rinfret, S. R., McCandless, S., & Grewell, C. (2022). Emotional labor & COVID-19: MPA program director perspectives. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 28(3), 251–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Rodrigo, R., & Romberger, J. (2017). Managing digital technologies in writing programs: Writing program technologists & invisible service. Computers and Composition, 44, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Rodríguez, J., Campbell, K., Fogarty, J., & Williams, R. (2014). Underrepresented minority faculty in academic medicine: A systematic review of URM faculty development. Family Medicine, 46(2), 100–104. Available online: http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_migr_fmr-0049 (accessed on 9 February 2026). [PubMed]
  100. Sarabipour, S., Macklin, P., & Niemi, N. M. (2024). Improving academic mentorship practices. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(7), 1228–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Sarabipour, S., Niemi, N. M., Burgess, S. J., Smith, C. T., Bisson Filho, A. W., Ibrahim, A., & Clark, K. (2023). The faculty-to-faculty mentorship experience: A survey on challenges and recommendations for improvements. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 290(2013). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Saunders, P. J. (2016). Journal work and the “public good”: Undocumented academic labor in emerging fields. Small Axe: A Caribbean Journal of Criticism, 20(2), 58–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Sheets, J. K. E., Barnhardt, C. L., Phillips, C. W., & Valdés, P. H. (2018). The impact of faculty work-life factors on faculty service morale. The Journal of Faculty Development, 32(2), 53–66. [Google Scholar]
  104. Smith, E. R., Calderwood, P. E., Storms, S. B., Lopez, P. G., & Colwell, R. P. (2016). Institutionalizing faculty mentoring within a community of practice model. To Improve the Academy, 35(1), 35–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Sood, A., Tigges, B., & Helitzer, D. (2016). Mentoring early-career faculty researchers is important—But first “train the trainer” . Academic Medicine, 91(12), 1598–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Sood, L., Myers, O., & Tigges, B. (2022). Mentoring award: Importance, availability and association with mentoring outcomes. The Chronicle of Mentoring & Coaching, 6(15), 616–623. [Google Scholar]
  107. Strong, M. T., & Punksungka, W. (Maia). (2024). Honor your contract: Finding sensibility in community colleges. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 126(6–7), 118–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Tange, A. K. (2023, March 29). Academic service is intellectual labor: Equity and fairness depend on giving all work its due. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available online: https://archive.ph/bkDKz (accessed on 29 March 2023).
  109. Topp, R., Hershberger, P. E., & Bratt, M. (2017). Answering wicked questions: Dealing with opposing truths as a nursing associate professor. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 39(6), 733–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Trendowski, T. (2023). Delayed promotion to full professor in physical education teacher education. International Journal of Kinesiology in Higher Education, 7(4), 285–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Ueda, N., Kezar, A., Holcombe, E., Vigil, D., & Harper, J. (2024). Emotional labor: Institutional responsibility and strategies to offer emotional support for leaders engaging in diversity, equity, and inclusion work. AERA Open, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Wildermuth, C. de M.-S., Dryburgh, M., & Woodward, L. (2023). Flying solo: Professional isolation and role complexity in solo faculty programs. Studies in Higher Education, 48(1), 189–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Wood, J. L., Hilton, A. A., & Nevarez, C. (2016). Faculty of color and White faculty: An analysis of service in colleges of education in the Arizona public university system. Journal of the Professoriate, 8(1), 85–109. [Google Scholar]
  114. Young, K. A., Marayong, P., & Vu, K. P. L. (2022). Faculty mentor training to change mentoring practices at a diverse R2 university. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 33(4), 105–132. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Results of Applying a Formative and Shared Assessment Protocol in the Preparation of Final Year Projects in Teacher Education
Previous
Beyond Utility: Language Intervention, Identity Dynamics, and Political Attitude Change Among Palestinian High School Students and Pre-Service Teachers in Post-7 October Israel
Next