From Bedside to Classroom: An Autoethnography of the Mentoring Experiences of BIPOC Nurse Faculty from Transition to Tenure and Promotion

Research Questions

This study seeks to answer the following questions:

In this study, expert nurse clinicians are defined as individuals with extensive clinical experience and specialty training who later assumed full-time academic positions—regardless of whether they entered tenure-track, clinical, or teaching-intensive roles. We also recognize that nurse academics hold a range of terminal degrees, including the PhD, EdD, DNP, and DSN/DNSc, each of which shapes academic expectations differently. This study explores how these individuals navigated mentorship—or the absence of it—during their transition to academia and through the processes of promotion and, where applicable, tenure.

This study includes contributions from nursing faculty who identify as Black and South Asian. The majority of participants are Black, and thus the findings primarily center the experiences of Black faculty. While the term “BIPOC” (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) appears in some referenced literature and structural analyses, we are mindful of critiques that such umbrella terms can obscure racial specificity. Therefore, we use “Black and South Asian” throughout the manuscript, except when citing sources that employ “BIPOC.” In select instances, we also use “racially underrepresented” to reflect systemic positioning while maintaining precision and avoiding conflation of distinct racialized experiences.

Research Design

Autoethnography is a qualitative research approach that enables researchers to critically reflect on their own experiences as a means of understanding how individual lives are shaped by larger cultural, institutional, and structural forces. Often used in educational research, this method supports deep self-reflection and positional analysis, particularly within spaces like the academy, where issues of power, identity, and belonging are central (Keles, 2022; Starr, 2010). Autoethnography empowers researchers to share their personal narratives while critically analyzing the cultural context in which these experiences are situated. By connecting individual stories with broader cultural contexts, autoethnography provides unique insights into how personal experiences are shaped by and reflect larger social structures.

Autoethnography has drawn criticism for perceived limitations in generalizability, objectivity, and analytical distance (Bochner, 2002; Ellis et al., 2011). Critics argue that it can conflate personal storytelling with scholarship or privilege emotional resonance over theoretical rigor. However, many autoethnographers—especially those rooted in feminist, critical race, and postcolonial traditions—argue that these critiques often reflect a positivist bias that undervalues lived experience, reflexivity, and relational knowledge (Adams et al., 2017). Indeed, the strength of autoethnography lies in its ability to expose cultural logics and institutional power by foregrounding narrative, emotion, and embodied insight.

This study adopts a collaborative autoethnography (CAE) design, where the researchers are participants who narrate, analyze, and theorize about their individual and collective experiences (Ratnapalan & Haldane, 2022). CAE enables the co-construction of meaning across shared cultural contexts, particularly relevant for racially underrepresented faculty whose experiences are often marginalized in dominant research paradigms. Our positionalities as Black and South Asian nurse academics are not limitations but essential lenses through which institutional dynamics, structural barriers, and mentorship practices are interpreted and understood (Chang, 2016; Ellis et al., 2011; Iheduru-Anderson, Alexander, et al., 2024; T. Montgomery et al., 2022).

Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval for this study was granted by University of Houston-Clear Lake Institutional Review Board (IRB Registration #: IRB00002968), under a reliance agreement with the researchers’ respective universities and colleges. Confidentiality was ensured through pseudonyms and the removal of identifying information from all data sources. Gender-neutral pronouns and pseudonyms were used to prevent attributing specific experiences to individuals and to protect the shared narratives’ confidentiality while preserving their authenticity and impact. All participants were already certified or had undergone training in the protection of human subjects.

Autoethnographic research often involves sharing deeply personal experiences, which can leave researchers vulnerable. Given the potential for future career implications, all contributors were encouraged to reflect on their comfort levels and share only the information and experiences they felt appropriate and safe. Each author retained full autonomy over the extent of their disclosure. The intention is not to produce generalizable or transferable results but to present experiences that may resonate with readers in their social or cultural contexts. This approach aligns with the reflective and interpretive nature of autoethnography (Ellis et al., 2011).

Sampling

This collaborative autoethnography included members of the Association of Black Nursing Faculty (ABNF) Research Committee who had transitioned from clinical practice to full-time academic nursing and had either completed or were currently navigating the tenure and promotion process. ABNF was purposefully selected due to its national scope, focus on advancing leadership and scholarship among Black nurse faculty, and the shared interest of its members in examining mentorship experiences in academic nursing.

Participants were recruited through a memo distributed via the ABNF newsletter, email to association members, and word of mouth among members. Inclusion criteria required membership to the ABNF, self-identification as a person of color nursing faculty member with full-time employment in a teaching, research, or administrative academic position. Participants needed to be fluent in written and spoken English and willing to engage fully in the reflective and collaborative research process. Individuals who were not ABNF members, not employed full-time in academia, taught outside a college or university setting, or unable to commit to the process were excluded. The final group represented faculty from multiple institutions across the United States.

Participants in this study represented a range of academic pathways, including tenure-track, clinical, and teaching-intensive roles. While all were engaged in or had completed a promotion and/or tenure process, the criteria and expectations varied significantly based on their institutional appointment. For example, tenure-track nurse scientists were expected to develop independent research programs, while teaching or clinical faculty were primarily evaluated on instructional effectiveness, service, or leadership. These differences shaped not only the types of mentorship required, but also the degree to which institutional mentorship structures met those needs—further underscoring the importance of contextually responsive and role-specific mentoring approaches in supporting racially underrepresented nurse faculty.

Although all members of the association were invited to participate, all individuals who responded and met the inclusion criteria identified as women. While sex and gender were not central analytic lenses in this study, we acknowledge that they may intersect with race in shaping academic experiences. Participants’ narratives primarily focused on racialized exclusion and structural barriers to mentorship and advancement. We recommend future investigation to explicitly explore the intersections of race, sex, and gender in the mentoring trajectories of academic nursing faculty.

Data Collection

Collaborative autoethnography (CAE) is a qualitative research approach that combines multiple researchers’ personal experiences and reflections to explore a shared cultural phenomenon (Chang, 2016; Ellis et al., 2011). Collaborative autoethnography uses researchers’ experiences, emotions, and critical reflections as primary data for inquiry into cultural phenomena and practices. Our data collection process involves written personal narratives and reflections based on guided reflection questions developed collaboratively by the researchers (see Table 1). Narrative data were collected over a 60-day period, from early September 2024 through October 31, 2024. Prior to data collection, each team member was given 2 weeks to contribute potential reflection prompts in a shared digital file. Over the following 4 weeks, the team held two virtual meetings to review, refine, and finalize the six prompts used for narrative reflection. This collaborative process ensured alignment with the study’s research questions and relevance to participants’ lived experiences.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Reflective Journaling Narrative and Reflection Prompts and the Connections to the Research Questions.

Prompt no.	Reflection prompt	Research focus
1	Reflecting on your transition from clinical practice to academia, what were your expectations about mentoring when you first entered academia? How did your initial experiences, including mentorship (or lack thereof), shape your early years in academia? What challenges and opportunities did you encounter?	Captures early-stage transition of Black nurse clinicians (Research Question (RQ) 2).
2	How did mentorship, or the lack thereof, influence your career development in academia (including your teaching, research, and service responsibilities), from your initial transition through the promotion and tenure process? Can you share specific moments where mentorship played a significant role in your growth or challenges?	Explores mentorship’s influence on career development and academic trajectory (RQ1 and RQ2).
3	What unique challenges did you face as a BIPOC nurse in academia when it came to finding or benefiting from mentorship? How did these challenges affect your journey through the promotion and tenure process or your integration into academic life?	Explores race-specific barriers to effective mentorship (RQ1 and RQ2).
4	In what ways has your racial identity as a BIPOC nurse shaped your experiences with mentorship, career advancement, and overall journey in academia?	Highlights the role of racial identity in mentoring dynamics (RQ1 and RQ2).
5	What gaps, if any, did you identify in the mentoring support you received as a BIPOC nurse in academia? How did you navigate these gaps, and what other support systems or resources did you rely on to fill those gaps?	Identifies gaps and survival strategies related to mentorship (RQ1 and RQ2).
6	Reflecting on your entire journey as a BIPOC nurse in academia, from transitioning into this role to navigating the promotion and tenure process, what advice would you offer to future BIPOC nurses considering or embarking on a similar path about navigating mentoring relationships?	Offers reflective insight and guidance for future faculty; informs both research questions.

Note. These six prompts provided the structure to gather detailed and reflective responses from the participants that effectively cover both research questions.

Once finalized, the six prompts guided the development of written personal narratives, which participants submitted via a secure shared folder accessible only to the research team. Email reminders were sent during the data collection period to encourage timely submission. These individual written reflections formed the primary dataset for analysis. Following the narrative submission phase, four additional virtual sessions were held for collaborative analysis, peer feedback, and synthesis of themes—building on the dialogic nature of CAE.

The team engaged in collaborative writing sessions to synthesize individual and collective insights, which were documented through shared online documents. This comprehensive approach to data collection in CAE enabled us to capture rich data that reflected individual experiences and collective meaning-making processes.

Rigor and Trustworthiness

This study was grounded in the relational and interpretive standards of collaborative autoethnography rather than traditional positivist criteria. Trustworthiness was supported through sustained reflexivity, narrative transparency, and dialogic validation (Bochner, 2002; Ellis et al., 2011). Each co-researcher maintained reflexive memos throughout the research process, documenting evolving insights, emotions, and critical reflections. These memos and all interpretations were explicitly anchored in the narrative data submitted in response to the shared prompts developed by the team. Regular group meetings provided space to collectively engage with these narratives, fostering ethical self-awareness and enabling consensus-building. Interpretations were developed through iterative dialogue and refined within a community of shared experience, enhancing the credibility and resonance of the findings.

In keeping with the commitments of critical and interpretive autoethnography (Adams et al., 2017), our approach legitimizes personal narrative and reflexive collaboration as valid forms of inquiry. Rather than seeking objectivity, we aim to expose institutional practices through embodied experience and shared meaning-making. Our process aligns with feminist and critical traditions in which rigor is expressed through relational accountability, transparency, and the political purpose of amplifying voices navigating systemic marginalization.

Data Analysis

A thematic analysis of personal narratives were completed to identify common themes and patterns in mentoring experiences was according to Braun and Clarke’s (2012) approach. The research team engaged in biweekly group discussions via video conferencing during the data collection and initial coding. These discussions allowed co-researchers to share their reflections, explore commonalities and differences in their experiences, and collaboratively analyze emerging themes. Data analysis in this collaborative autoethnography study entailed an iterative and collaborative process involving all research team members. The analysis included seven key steps: familiarization, individual coding, collaborative coding, thematic analysis, collaborative interpretation, reflexivity and journaling, and collaborative writing (see Table 2) (Braun & Clarke, 2012). The research team prioritized open communication, reflexivity, and consensus-building throughout the data analysis (Chang et al., 2014). After initial coding, the research team met weekly to discuss progress, address any challenges, and ensure that all participants had an equal voice in creating the final themes and finalizing the data analysis. The goal of engaging in this collaborative and iterative analysis process was to generate a rich, nuanced, and trustworthy understanding of mentoring experiences during the transition to nursing academia and the tenure and promotion process, grounded in the shared experiences and interpretations of the research team.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Summary of the Data Analysis Steps.

Data analysis step	Description
Familiarization	Each research participant was encouraged to review all journal entries to become familiar with the data. To ensure confidentiality, the entries were anonymized by assigning a second set of pseudonyms before sharing.
Individual coding	Each research participant independently reviewed the reflective journals and collaborative writing pieces to engage in open coding, identifying initial themes, patterns, and significant moments within the data. Each team member was assigned at least one transcript to code over a 6-week period, from the first week of November through mid-December 2024. Three team members with advanced experience in qualitative analysis provided guidance and support throughout this phase to ensure consistency and methodological rigor.
Collaborative coding	After the submission of individually coded transcripts, the designated theme leader and three additional team members reviewed and refined the codes in preparation for the first group meeting in early January 2025. Beginning in the third week of January, the research team met weekly to discuss individual coding results and collaboratively organize and consolidate the codes. While not all team members could attend every meeting due to scheduling conflicts, each session consistently included 6 to 7 members. Absent members had access to the shared coding document and were encouraged to contribute asynchronously through comments and suggestions. Through discussion and consensus-building, the team refined the initial codes, identified emerging patterns, and developed a shared interpretive understanding of the data.
Thematic analysis	Building on the collaborative coding phase, the research team conducted a thematic analysis to identify overarching themes and recurring patterns across the data. This process involved grouping related codes, examining relationships among themes, and collaboratively interpreting the significance of those connections. Key examples and participant quotes were selected to illustrate each theme and ensure that the analysis remained grounded in the lived experiences of the contributors.
Collaborative interpretation	The research team worked together to interpret the identified themes and patterns by drawing on their shared experiences and engaging with the extant literature. This phase involved in-depth discussions about the significance of the findings, their alignment with the research questions, and their broader implications for nursing academia. Team members provided critiques and feedback on emerging interpretations, and alternative perspectives were openly discussed and resolved through consensus. This collective approach ensured that the analysis reflected both individual insights and a shared understanding of the data.
Reflexivity and journaling	Throughout the analysis process, participants were encouraged to focus closely on the submitted reflective narratives as the primary data source. Individual reflexive journaling supported this engagement by allowing team members to document their evolving interpretations, emotional responses, and positional reflections in relation to the narratives. During group meetings, discussions often included comparison of shared or contrasting experiences among team members, which helped to illuminate how individual perspectives informed and enriched the interpretation of the submitted data. These dialogic reflections contributed meaningfully to the development of thematic insights and the collective meaning-making process.
Collaborative writing and dissemination	This final phase of the analysis involved collaborative writing of the research findings. All participants actively contributed to drafting, reviewing, and revising the manuscript to ensure that the final report reflected a shared understanding and interpretation of the submitted narratives. Writing responsibilities were distributed equitably, with each team member offering input on the articulation of themes, integration of literature, and framing of implications. In alignment with the principles of collaborative autoethnography, the team also collectively determined the choice of journal for disseminating the findings to ensure the work reached an audience aligned with its purpose and significance.

Demographics

Participants in this study identified as either Black or South Asian. Of the ten participants, nine identified as Black and one as South Asian. Given this composition, the findings primarily reflect the experiences of Black faculty. Where appropriate, we also use the term racially underrepresented to describe broader patterns of exclusion and structural inequity in academic nursing contexts. All participants in this study hold terminal degrees (PhD, EdD, or DNP). Their years of nursing practice ranged from 20 to 42 years, and their academic experience spanned 2 to 35 years. Four participants held non-tenure-track positions, while six were on the tenure track. Four of the tenure-track group had achieved tenure, and two had not received tenure with promotion yet but had met critical progression steps. Faculty ranks included assistant, associate, and full professors; two participants did not specify their academic rank. All participants had either undergone or were preparing for the tenure and promotion process, with those who had completed the process doing so within the last decade. The participants represented public and private institutions of varying sizes across multiple U.S. regions, most of which were predominantly white institutions with poor faculty member racial diversity. Although participants’ academic experience ranged from 2 to 35 years, all participants reflected in detail on their transition into academia. The majority described the first 5 years as a particularly formative and challenging period, offering substantial insight into addressing the first research question.

Thematic Findings and Mentorship Cycle

Through collaborative thematic analysis, nine distinct themes were identified from the narrative reflections of Black and South Asian nursing faculty. These themes reflect diverse, nuanced experiences of mentorship and institutional culture. Although collaborative autoethnography is rooted in interpretive paradigms that privilege depth, context, and meaning over measurement or generalizability (Ratnapalan & Haldane, 2022), we report the recurrence of themes across narratives as a heuristic device to underscore shared institutional patterns. These frequencies (see Figure 1) are not intended as indicators of importance or objective truth but as one layer of reflexive analysis reflecting the collective dimensions of our lived experiences. We emphasize that themes mentioned less frequently may be no less meaningful, often capturing deeply personal or context-specific insights related to vulnerability, intersectionality, or institutional nuance. The figure that follows is therefore offered not as a ranking, but as a complementary lens within a broader, narrative-centered inquiry. Figure 1 offers a visual representation of these patterns, providing insight into the institutional dynamics that shaped our mentoring journeys.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Frequency of themes in mentoring narratives.

To provide coherence and analytic depth, we present these nine themes within a conceptual structure we identify as the mentorship cycle. As illustrated in Figure 2, the mentorship cycle is composed of three interrelated domains: (1) institutional failures and structural barriers, (2) emotional and reactive responses to those barriers, and (3) the eventual emergence of personal growth and advocacy. While each theme is presented individually in the sections that follow, this broader structure guided our interpretive synthesis and discussion. The cyclical nature of these experiences underscores the persistence of systemic exclusion in academic nursing and the burden placed on racially underrepresented faculty to adapt, resist, and ultimately mentor others despite institutional neglect.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

The mentorship cycle in Black and South Asian Nurse Academia.

Theme 1: Lack of Structured Mentorship in Academia

As the initial stage in the mentorship cycle (Figure 2), this theme highlights a foundational institutional failure: the absence of structured, meaningful mentorship during the critical transition from clinical practice to academia. Participants expected clear guidance and culturally responsive support, yet most were met with silence, confusion, or disorganized mentorship systems.

Elena recalled, “I expected someone to hold my hands and show me the way around the dynamics of nursing education. Unfortunately, that did not happen. I was thrown into what I call ‘fire’ on day one.” Others, like Pearl, came in with no prior exposure to academic mentorship: “I didn’t really have much expectation about mentoring because I didn’t know what mentoring was. That wasn’t even something that was in my vocabulary.”

Even when mentors were formally assigned, the relationships were often perfunctory, absent, or even harmful. Imari recalled, “My mentor never responded to my emails or calls—I realized I was on my own.” Similarly, Anuli recounted that her mentor weaponized a personal disclosure to undermine her credibility. Such breaches of trust are especially damaging in academia, where meaningful support is essential for professional growth.

The absence of institutionalized mentorship systems created conditions where racially underrepresented faculty had to self-navigate opaque academic structures and policies without guidance. As Rose noted, “Mentorship was not automatically offered. I would go into annual reviews not feeling confident because I did not understand how to present my work for consideration.” These early disappointments in mentorship laid the groundwork for broader disillusionment with institutional support and initiated a cycle of mistrust. From an SCCT perspective (Lent et al., 1994), these absent or ineffective supports represent contextual barriers that diminish early-career faculty’s confidence in navigating academia and lower their expectations of institutional investment in their growth.

Theme 2: Mistrust and Negative Mentorship Experiences

Building on the absence of meaningful mentorship, this theme captures the emotional and professional fallout that followed: growing mistrust in assigned mentors and institutional support systems. As the mentorship cycle progressed (Figure 2), faculty began to internalize their experiences with mentorship neglect or harm as evidence of deeper systemic exclusion. Some narratives recounted direct harm by mentors. Anuli shared, “I was paired up with someone that I later found was using my vulnerabilities to build evidence against me, showing that I was unfit for the role.” For others, mentors were absent, ineffective, or poorly matched. Kessie observed, “My mentor for research and scholarship was the opposite of my teaching mentor. She was not a good fit for me.” Olive recalled, “I was assigned two mentors. . . Neither of them ever reached out or offered real support.”

These ineffective relationships left many participants to fend for themselves in emotionally taxing environments. Rosa explained, “I expected mentorship to feel like guidance and protection, but instead, I felt abandoned.” Naomi echoed this sense of isolation and pointed out that exclusion sometimes came from colleagues who shared her racial identity: “They were part of certain groups within academia and wouldn’t include me.”

This breakdown in trust marked a turning point in the cycle, pushing participants to disengage from institutional mentorship programs and turn instead toward peer support, self-advocacy, or external networks. Rather than serving as sources of empowerment, institutional mentorship systems became sites of alienation and harm. Consistent with SCCT, the erosion of trust in these mentorship experiences negatively shaped participants’ self-efficacy and outcome expectations, reinforcing a sense of isolation that impeded career advancement.

Theme 3: Seeking External Mentorship for Survival

Following the absence or inadequacy of structured institutional support, participants sought mentorship beyond their academic institutions as a strategy for survival. This theme reflects the reactive phase of the mentorship cycle, where Black and South Asian faculty mobilized external resources to fill the void left by ineffective or harmful institutional systems.

Participants turned to professional organizations, peer networks, former academic mentors, and informal communities for the guidance they could not access internally. These external sources were described as affirming, reliable, and vital to participants’ professional identity formation. Anuli recalled: “I navigated the gaps by leaning on my network for support until I could find some mentors within my institution.”

Professional organizations such as the Association of Black Nursing Faculty (ABNF) and leadership development programs provided not only knowledge but also psychological safety. Naomi emphasized: “The most excellent support I had when I did my leadership program was from outside organizations.” However, while these external sources of mentorship offered affirmation and practical advice, they could not replace insider knowledge of institutional processes, especially related to promotion and tenure. Charlie stated: “I was getting amazing mentorship from outside groups, but no one internally helped me understand my university’s promotion process.”

From an SCCT perspective, these narratives highlight how contextual barriers—such as inaccessible mentorship, racialized institutional cultures, and exclusion from critical knowledge networks—lower outcome expectations and increase the burden on individuals to develop compensatory self-efficacy. Participants leveraged external networks to sustain their careers, but this self-reliance underscores a systemic failure: institutions benefit from their labor while outsourcing their development.

Theme 4: Barriers to Tenure and Promotion

This theme captures the systemic misalignments, gatekeeping, and inequitable expectations participants faced in navigating tenure and promotion. While promotion and tenure are standard benchmarks of academic success, participants described processes that were opaque, shifting, and structurally biased. As a midpoint in the mentorship cycle, these experiences demonstrate how inadequate mentorship—particularly the absence of institutional guidance—left faculty vulnerable to misinterpretation, unrealistic expectations, and exclusion from critical advancement opportunities.

Across narratives, participants emphasized a lack of clear criteria, inconsistent messaging, and missing mentorship around portfolio preparation. Laila reflected: “No one sat me down and reviewed the promotion and tenure guidelines with me.” Others found that important information about acceptable publication types, service expectations, or institutional politics was only discovered years into their roles. Rosa recalled: “I found out five years into my position that I could use non-data-based publications to meet scholarship requirements.”

Participants on clinical or teaching tracks were often further marginalized in promotion processes. Charlie, enrolled in a PhD program, shared: “I was not invited to meetings discussing research, even though I was doing research and in a PhD program.” In several cases, faculty were evaluated by committees with little to no understanding of nursing scholarship or practice. Olive explained: “The committee evaluating my tenure package had no nurses and no understanding of what nursing research entails.”

SCCT offers a lens to understand these dynamics: outcome expectations—the belief that certain actions will lead to desired results—were disrupted by institutional inconsistency and neglect. Participants’ self-efficacy, though resilient, was continually tested against unclear standards and shifting goalposts. Without trusted mentors to interpret institutional culture, many described expending significant emotional and cognitive labor just to “decode the rules.”

These structural barriers were not incidental—they were deeply embedded in how institutions evaluated faculty contributions, often devaluing practice-based scholarship or justice-oriented teaching. The cumulative effect was demoralizing and, for some, career-limiting, reinforcing the reactive loop of self-navigation and external support described in earlier themes.

Theme 5: Emotional and Psychological Toll

This theme captures the cumulative emotional consequences of persistent institutional neglect, racialized exclusion, and inconsistent mentoring support. Situated in the “reactive response” domain of the mentorship cycle (Figure 2), these narratives reflect how participants internalized institutional failures, often manifesting in stress, burnout, anxiety, and diminished self-worth. Far from being peripheral, these psychological impacts shaped participants’ capacity to persist, engage, and believe in the value of their work.

Participants described profound invisibility, chronic stress, and emotional dissonance—especially when institutional diversity rhetoric clashed with their daily realities. Elena recalled, “I cried going to work, at work, and coming home from work.” Olive likened academia to “the pit of hell,” explaining that she was “navigating a system that did not want to see me succeed.” Together, these accounts underscore the deep psychological toll of incongruent institutional commitments.

These emotional reactions stemmed not only from interpersonal slights or difficult workloads, but from the sustained tension of having to perform, adapt, and protect themselves in environments where racialized faculty often received less support and recognition. Imani reflected: “I often felt, and still feel, that I am viewed only as a worker bee, despite all the achievements I have made.” The weight of these experiences was intensified by isolation and lack of community. Rosa explained: “I felt so alone, and my anxiety was through the roof.”

Within the SCCT framework, these emotional and psychological burdens can be understood as erosion of self-efficacy—a key construct in the theory. Without contextual support or affirming feedback, participants questioned whether their efforts would yield the intended outcomes, especially around tenure and career progression. The absence of validation from institutional mentors heightened their vulnerability, and in some cases, led to withdrawal from research, hesitation to pursue advancement, or emotional disengagement.

Despite these challenges, most participants remained committed to the profession and their students, but the emotional labor required to do so came at a high personal cost. These accounts emphasize that emotional distress in academia is not merely a personal challenge, it is an institutional byproduct of systemic neglect.

Theme 6: Impact of Racial Identity on Career Progression

As part of the emotional and reactive responses to institutional exclusion identified in the mentorship cycle (Figure 2), this theme explores how participants’ racialized identities shaped their experiences with mentorship, inclusion, and advancement. Participants’ racial identity was inextricably linked to how they were mentored, evaluated, and included—or excluded—from critical career-building opportunities. This theme reflects the systemic ways that Black and South Asian faculty were denied legitimacy and access due to racialized perceptions embedded in academic culture. Across narratives, participants recounted differential treatment, information gatekeeping, and exclusion from informal decision-making networks, all of which constrained their ability to advance.

Anuli reflected on how identity influenced the availability and quality of mentorship: “I believe my Blackness and being 20 years junior in age played a significant role in my lack/poor mentorship.” The absence of racially concordant mentors was a recurring concern. Elena explained: “I was the last one to hear what was happening in my program, especially regarding resources and opportunities.” Promotions, participants noted, were often delayed or denied in ways that mirrored systemic bias. Aretha stated: “Watching people with less education and experience get promoted over me was disheartening.”

Olive’s reflection underscored structural exclusion: “I quickly realized no Black faculty had attained promotion to Associate Professor and tenure at my university.” Participants also described emotional alienation and social exclusion in daily academic life. Naomi shared: “I would be left alone when others went for lunch in small groups. I was the last one to be selected for any position or responsibilities.”

This pervasive exclusion shaped participants’ self-efficacy, trust in mentorship systems, and ultimately, their professional mobility. Yet for many, these injustices catalyzed a sense of purpose—to disrupt the very systems that marginalized them.

Theme 7: Resilience, Agency, and Self-Advocacy

As part of the emotional and reactive responses to institutional exclusion identified in the mentorship cycle (Figure 2), this theme captures how participants cultivated resilience and self-advocacy in the absence of adequate mentorship and institutional support. Despite exclusion, ambiguous promotion criteria, and, at times, exploitative mentoring experiences, participants described learning to navigate academia independently—often through trial, error, and necessity.

Kessie stated, “I learned to advocate for myself and to seek out resources proactively.” Imani shared, “I applied for, and was accepted into, fellowships that focused on increasing diversity in healthcare leadership.” These actions were not merely personal triumphs but acts of strategic resistance to systems that had failed them. As Olive put it, “I quickly learned that the cavalry of mentorship was not coming. I had to figure things out myself.” Rosa described the emotional toll: “I had to work harder and smarter. However, when you don’t know what to focus on, this mentality can drain you.”

Participants reframed institutional neglect as an impetus for growth. Kessie reflected, “Each obstacle taught me resilience and adaptability, which are crucial skills in academia.” Still, this self-sufficiency came at a cost—often increasing workload, emotional burnout, and the burden of “figuring it out” alone. The resilience they displayed was both a survival strategy and a symptom of structural failure.

Theme 8: Mentorship as a Responsibility to Others

As the mentorship cycle advances into its final phase—personal growth and advocacy—participants described a deep sense of obligation to mentor junior colleagues, particularly those from racially underrepresented backgrounds. This theme reflects the transformational moment where the emotional labor and institutional neglect experienced by Black and South Asian faculty catalyze a form of agency rooted in cultural responsibility and intergenerational care. Mentorship, for many, was no longer a formal role but a moral imperative shaped by lived struggle. As Naomi explained, “I make sure my mentees are not left alone. I reach out to them and remind them that I am there.” Others, like Charlie, described mentoring “the way I wish I had been mentored,” underscoring how participants reimagined and redefined mentorship outside of institutional structures.

This sense of responsibility was enacted despite the lack of institutional recognition. Participants described these efforts as a form of resistance—building community, affirming identity, and protecting others from the harm they themselves had experienced. However, this invisible labor was emotionally taxing and structurally unsupported, revealing the paradox of performing equity work within institutions that failed to institutionalize equity. As Olive noted, “I now mentor two nursing faculty of color to make sure they don’t experience what I did.” These practices of care and counter-mentorship complete the mentorship cycle while simultaneously illuminating its institutional failures.

Theme 9: Institutional Neglect and Systemic Barriers

As the final phase of the mentorship cycle (Figure 2), this theme captures the structural indifference and persistent exclusion that participants encountered—even after navigating personal and professional challenges. Despite acts of resilience, peer support, and assuming mentorship responsibilities for others, participants consistently described their institutions as unwilling or unable to implement sustained, equity-focused mentorship programs. Rather than addressing systemic gaps, institutions often reinforced them—failing to learn from faculty experiences or institutionalize supportive practices. Participants noted symbolic initiatives devoid of meaningful follow-through, promotion processes shaped by disciplinary misalignment, and mentorship programs that existed “only for show.” These omissions created a loop of harm, where new Black and South Asian faculty arrived hopeful but were disillusioned, often forced to navigate their careers alone or eventually leave.

These findings reflect the environmental barriers described in Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent et al., 1994), where institutional neglect and misaligned support structures diminish outcome expectations and perpetuate disparities in professional advancement. Participants described their universities as structurally uninterested in formalizing or sustaining meaningful mentorship systems for racially underrepresented faculty. Olive expressed concern over disciplinary misalignment during promotion review: “My assigned tenure committee had no idea about nursing research, yet they were the ones evaluating my work.” Rosa added, “If mentorship had been provided, I would have been better prepared for tenure. Instead, I had to piece things together myself.”

Attempts to formalize mentorship programs were often ignored. Laila shared, “We started a faculty mentoring committee, but the university never made it official.” Fahari offered a stark reflection: “We are always fixing what the system refuses to address.” Participants described exclusion from career-building structures as a norm. Elena explained, “The university claims to have a mentorship program, but it’s just for show.” Olive noted, “Many of the Black faculty in my university had no mentorship, and as a result, they didn’t know how to mentor others.”

This structural exclusion resulted in cyclical harm—new Black and South Asian faculty entered academia hopeful, only to be disillusioned by a lack of support. They, in turn, either left or had to learn through hardship, often at a personal cost, perpetuating the same conditions for others. Those who remain work to change the system from within by mentoring others.

Synthesis of the Mentorship Cycle

Together, these themes reveal a mentorship cycle shaped by systemic neglect, racialized exclusion, and institutional inaction. Faculty often entered academia expecting support, only to face disorganized or exploitative mentorship. Mistrust grew, prompting them to seek external guidance and develop survival strategies independently. These findings align with Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT), which emphasizes how self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and contextual supports or barriers shape career development (Lent et al., 1994). Participants’ narratives illustrated SCCT’s core concepts—particularly how institutional barriers (e.g., lack of mentorship, misaligned promotion criteria) diminished outcome expectations, while external networks and peer relationships often served as compensatory supports. Moments of resilience and self-advocacy reflect ongoing efforts to maintain professional self-efficacy despite limited structural reinforcement.

Over time, participants cultivated resilience and assumed mentoring roles for others—work that, while essential, remained invisible within institutional recognition systems. The cycle completed itself when institutions failed to learn from these experiences or embed solutions into policy and practice. This pattern is illustrated in the mentorship cycle (see Figure 2). The mentorship cycle is further outlined in a linear format in Table 3.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Summary of the Mentorship Cycle.

Stage in the cycle	Description	Impact on faculty
Lack of structured mentorship	New faculty expected structured mentorship but received little to no guidance.	Faculty members feel lost and unsupported in navigating academia.
Negative mentorship experiences	Unhelpful, disengaged, or exploitative mentors create distrust in the system.	Disillusionment with the mentorship process leads to distrust.
Seeking external mentorship	Faculty turned to external organizations and peer mentors to find support.	External mentorship provides survival strategies but lacks institutional insights.
Barriers to tenure and promotion	Without internal mentorship, faculty struggle with unclear promotion and tenure criteria.	Tenure and promotion challenges delay career progression and recognition.
Emotional and psychological toll	Stress, burnout, and imposter syndrome develop due to a lack of support and guidance.	Emotional exhaustion affects well-being and job satisfaction.
Racial identity challenges	Racial identity further complicates access to mentorship and career advancement.	Bias and exclusion limit access to professional growth and leadership roles.
Resilience and self-advocacy	Faculty build self-advocacy skills and develop personal strategies for survival.	Increased workload but greater autonomy in career development.
Mentorship as a responsibility	Those who struggled become mentors to ensure future faculty receive better guidance.	Informal mentorship improves support networks but places a burden on faculty.
Institutional neglect and systemic barriers	Institutions fail to formalize mentoring systems, perpetuating the cycle of exclusion.	Future faculty face the same struggles, repeating the cycle.

Note. This table outlines the progression of mentorship challenges and institutional barriers as experienced by Black and South Asian nursing faculty.

The mentorship cycle depicted by a schematic diagram is representative of drivers that fall into three categories. Barriers to a successful mentoring relationship, Conversely drivers of personal growth and resilience that occur despite the context in which the dyad of mentorship is occurring. The balancing of these is driven by the third aspect: personal responses. Although depicted as a linear diagram it is not a linear progression, and most importantly, when it reaches the state of institutional neglect and systemic barriers, that completes a vicious cycle that leads to another beginning of the cycle of the conundrum.

This autoethnographic evidence underscores that mentorship is not a personal luxury or informal act of kindness. For Black and South Asian nurse faculty, it is a lifeline—a critical component of academic survival and advancement. Without intentional and equitable reform, mentorship will remain a personal burden rather than an institutional commitment, and the cycle of exclusion will continue unbroken.

Implications for Nursing Education

The mentorship cycle described in this study is not a series of isolated events but a structural pattern rooted in institutional practices. Without structured, intentional mentorship, Black and South Asian nursing faculty face persistent barriers to tenure, promotion, and emotional well-being. Although many participants demonstrated resilience and self-advocacy, meaningful progress requires institutional reforms that prioritize equity in mentorship access, transparent promotion processes, and leadership representation.

While the literature on race-concordant mentorship is mixed, participants in this study frequently described how shared racial or cultural identity with a mentor fostered psychological safety, reduced cultural mistrust, and enhanced the sense of being understood within predominantly white institutions. These accounts do not suggest that race-concordance is universally effective, but rather illustrate its situational value in contexts where structural exclusion and racial isolation are prevalent.

Costa and Smith (2023) argue that mentorship must be multilayered—addressing scholarly guidance, identity development, emotional support, and spirituality. This study supports that call, illustrating the need for flexible, culturally responsive mentoring frameworks grounded in the realities of racially underrepresented faculty. Institutions must also reimagine promotion pathways for clinical and teaching faculty, particularly those from racially minoritized backgrounds. Faculty on these tracks frequently face diminished access to mentorship and systemic devaluation of their work—conditions that, when coupled with racialized exclusion, deepen inequities in career advancement (Iheduru-Anderson et al., 2024).

These findings also align with Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT), which emphasizes the interaction between personal agency and environmental conditions in shaping career development. Participants’ efforts to sustain self-efficacy in unsupportive institutional contexts highlight the critical importance of environments that bolster—rather than erode—confidence, outcome expectations, and professional identity.

Increasing the presence of faculty of color can expand the mentorship pool and diversify the academic pipeline for future nurse educators (Brooks et al., 2022). Addressing the micro-inequities experienced by underrepresented faculty can foster an academic culture that values diverse perspectives and supports inclusive definitions of academic success (Bleich et al., 2015). Hiring and training practices grounded in evidence-based diversity models should be standard in academic nursing. In addition, partnerships with minority-serving institutions can strengthen faculty representation and enable structural change by positioning racially diverse faculty to shape policy, champion inclusion, and advance cultural responsiveness across nursing education (Jefferies et al., 2019).

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

This autoethnographic study provides deep, context-rich insights into the mentoring experiences of Black and South Asian nurse academics through a narrative lens. Given that these experiences are based on a select group of ten participants, these findings are not meant to be generalized. Notably, the use of reflective narrative as data has been shown to enhance meaning-making and reader engagement by making complex issues more accessible and memorable (Mar et al., 2021). These narratives offer powerful reflections on personal and professional journeys and are particularly valuable for understanding the lived experiences of Black and South Asian nursing faculty navigating tenure and academic advancement.

However, this study primarily includes faculty who remained in academia and ultimately achieved career milestones. As such, it does not capture the experiences of those who may have left academic nursing due to exclusion, inadequate mentorship, or stalled advancement. This limitation underscores the need for future research that specifically includes faculty who exited the profession, were denied tenure or promotion, or experienced extended delays in advancement. Understanding their trajectories would provide critical insight into the systemic barriers that remain invisible in success-based samples.

Future studies should also expand on these findings by incorporating larger, more diverse participant samples and conducting institutional case studies to explore how mentorship structures vary across settings. Longitudinal studies examining the impact of formalized, equity-centered mentorship programs on faculty outcomes would further validate and build on this work.