Abstract
Black and South Asian nurse faculty transitioning from clinical practice to academia face persistent barriers, including racialized exclusion, institutional neglect, and unclear tenure and promotion expectations. Despite the importance of mentorship, many report insufficient formal support, turning instead to external networks and self-advocacy to navigate academic life. This autoethnographic study explores the mentoring experiences of Black and South Asian nurse faculty in U.S. higher education, from transition through the promotion and tenure process. Inductive thematic analysis of reflective journal narratives, interpreted through the lens of Social Cognitive Career Theory, led to the development of themes spanning a nine-stage mentorship cycle. Findings highlight the lack of structured mentorship and unclear tenure expectations as primary challenges. Additional themes included mistrust in assigned mentors, emotional and psychological burdens, and the impact of racial identity on career progression. Participants frequently turned to peer networks and professional organizations to fill mentorship gaps and, over time, assumed mentorship roles themselves. This study underscores the need for culturally responsive, equity-centered mentorship programs and transparent advancement pathways. Institutions must commit to inclusive leadership development and sustained support to ensure the success and retention of Black and South Asian faculty in nursing academia.
Keywords
Introduction
The underrepresentation of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) nurses in academia is a persistent concern, particularly given the call to diversify the profession to better reflect the populations it serves (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2021). While the racial and ethnic diversity of the overall nursing workforce has grown in recent years, faculty and academic leadership positions remain disproportionately occupied by White individuals. The National League for Nursing (NLN, 2023) annual survey of Schools of Nursing for 2023 revealed only 22.1% of full-time nursing faculty in the United States identified as members of underrepresented racial or ethnic groups (Mazinga, 2024). Of these, 11% were Black, 4.8% Asian, 4.6% Hispanic, 0.4% American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1.3% multiracial (Mazinga, 2024).
This lack of representation limits the diversity of perspectives within the nursing educational system, and it negatively impacts the recruitment, retention, and success of BIPOC students and faculty (American Association of Colleges of Nursing [AACN], 2024). The persistent underrepresentation of BIPOC nurses in academia highlights a critical need to increase faculty diversity across academic institutions (Hamilton & Haozous, 2017). Addressing this gap is particularly urgent, given the ongoing nursing faculty shortage (AACN, 2024). Efforts to diversify the academic workforce are a priority. These efforts must include intentional strategies to transition expert clinicians, especially those from racially and ethnically underrepresented backgrounds, into academic roles while supporting the clinical workforce strategically through backfill. Anecdotally, relying on newly trained theoretical academicians does not meet the demand.
Mentorship is a key factor in faculty development, retention, and advancement. While recent studies have begun to explore these experiences using collaborative autoethnographic methods (Heidari et al., 2024), qualitative research specifically focused on racially underrepresented nurse faculty remains limited. The NLN (2006) underscores mentorship as essential to building academic careers. For BIPOC faculty, mentorship can offer professional guidance and emotional support in navigating institutional culture, microaggressions, and role transitions (Iheduru-Anderson & Shingles, 2023; Johnson et al., 2023). Specifically, same-race mentorship has been associated in the literature with culturally responsive role modeling and psychosocial support for faculty of color (Davis et al., 2022; Kelch-Oliver et al., 2013; Tillman, 2001). However, scholars also acknowledge that the effectiveness of mentorship is shaped by multiple relational and institutional factors, and not solely by racial concordance.
The transition from clinical settings to academia involves significant shifts in responsibilities and identity (Bertrand Jones et al., 2015; Gularte-Rinaldo et al., 2023). Racially underrepresented nurses often face additional challenges during this transition, including limited access to mentorship, isolation, and a lack of clarity around expectations for promotion and tenure (Iheduru-Anderson, 2020; Iheduru-Anderson, Moore, & Okoro, 2022; Iheduru-Anderson, Okoro, & Moore, 2022; Zambrana et al., 2015). While some organizational efforts have supported mentorship programs (Huybrecht et al., 2011; Kanaskie, 2006), few have focused on the specific needs of BIPOC nurses working in academia (Heidari et al., 2024; Savard et al., 2024; Zambrana et al., 2023). Further, South Asian nurses often face statistical invisibility due to the aggregation of Asian subgroups in national data (Mazinga, 2024). Cultural attitudes within South Asian communities may also discourage academic career pursuits (Darr et al., 2008). These nurses encounter institutional invisibility, community stigma, and systemic bias, limiting access to leadership and mentorship.
While this study is situated within the U.S. higher education context, the nation is not alone in confronting issues of faculty underrepresentation, inequitable mentorship, and systemic barriers to advancement in academic nursing. Institutions around the world face similar struggles with the underrepresentation and inequitable advancement of racially and ethnically minoritized healthcare workers. For example, scholars in countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, have documented systemic barriers to diversity in nursing, medical education, and the broader healthcare workforce, including racialized organizational cultures, resistance to diversity initiatives, and exclusionary hiring practices (Jefferies et al., 2019; Johnstone & Kanitsaki, 2008; Saddler et al., 2021; Woodhead et al., 2021). By centering the lived experiences of Black and South Asian nurse faculty, this study contributes to a growing international discourse on educational equity, inclusive mentorship, and structural transformation in health professions education.
This autoethnographic study explores the mentoring experiences of Black and South Asian nurses—primarily Black nurse educators—employed in U.S. academia. By examining these experiences through a personal and cultural lens, this study seeks to provide insight on inclusive mentorship practices and, secondly, to elucidate support pathways to promotion and tenure for underrepresented faculty in nursing education.
In this study, mentoring is broadly defined as a developmental relationship that supports career, psychosocial, and professional growth within academic settings (National League for Nursing [NLN], 2006). This includes both formal and informal arrangements and encompasses traditional dyadic mentoring, assigned institutional mentors, and community- or peer-based networks that participants engaged with over time. While formal, institutionally sanctioned mentoring programs were discussed, many participants described navigating multiple and nontraditional mentoring relationships, including those outside their institutions, reflecting a need to adapt when culturally congruent or structurally embedded support was lacking.
Research Questions
This study seeks to answer the following questions:
What is the mentoring experience of expert Black and South Asian nurse clinicians during the first 5 years of their transition from clinical practice to full-time academic roles in U.S. higher education?
What is the mentoring experience of Black and South Asian nurse faculty who have undergone the promotion and/or tenure process in U.S. higher education in the past decade?
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.
Literature Review
The persistent underrepresentation of Black nurse faculty in academic leadership remains a well-documented concern in the literature (Iheduru-Anderson, Moore, & Okoro, 2022; Travers et al., 2024). While the diversity of the nursing workforce has gradually increased, this progress has not extended meaningfully to faculty and leadership positions. Black nurses navigating academic roles frequently report experiences of racism, marginalization, and exclusion from professional networks and institutional support systems—often shaped by the paradox of invisibility and hypervisibility that constrains advancement and recognition (Brockett-Walker & Moore, 2025; Iheduru-Anderson, 2020; Iheduru-Anderson, Moore, & Okoro, 2022; Iheduru-Anderson, Waite, & Murray, 2024). These systemic barriers have been shown across disciplines to impede the advancement of faculty of color and are echoed in nursing through emerging qualitative evidence, including this study.
Researchers indicate that mentorship is critical for faculty development, particularly for racially underrepresented nurse educators (Brockett-Walker & Moore, 2025; Costa & Smith, 2023; Iheduru-Anderson, Okoro, & Moore, 2022; Iheduru-Anderson & Shingles, 2023). Mentoring relationships offer more than professional guidance; they support identity development, increase job satisfaction, and reduce feelings of isolation (Busby & Draucker, 2024; Chun et al., 2012; Hagler & Rhodes, 2018; Iheduru-Anderson, 2025). Mentoring is consistently linked to positive outcomes in career, education, psychosocial health, and social connectedness (Eby et al., 2013; Nick et al., 2012). For faculty from underrepresented backgrounds, mentorship can be transformative. For example, mentorship may serve as a buffer against the structural and interpersonal challenges that often define one’s academic experience (Iheduru-Anderson, 2025). It serves as a vehicle for navigating unwritten norms around promotion, research productivity, and leadership.
The transition from clinical practice to academia presents a distinct set of challenges that are magnified by racial, gender, and cultural bias (Bayuo et al., 2023; Iheduru-Anderson & Wahi, 2018). Faculty of color often enter academic spaces without clear expectations or roadmaps to success (Johnson et al., 2023). This role ambiguity, compounded by institutional politics and limited access to mentorship, creates an environment where underrepresented faculty are left to navigate complex systems alone. Bayuo et al. (2023) emphasize the need for structured, culturally responsive support programs to facilitate smoother transitions and promote retention.
Despite the known benefits of mentorship, Black nurse faculty frequently report being excluded from formal mentoring opportunities or receiving inadequate guidance. In many cases, they are burdened with invisible labor including mentoring students of color, serving on diversity committees, and taking on roles during times of institutional crisis—while these contributions are often undervalued or unrecognized in promotion and tenure evaluations (Arnold et al., 2021; Brockett-Walker & Moore, 2025; González, 2022; Witherspoon Arnold et al., 2016). This added workload contributes to burnout and distracts from scholarly productivity, further hindering career progression (White-Lewis et al., 2022).
Institutional bias further complicates the advancement of BIPOC faculty. Many face harmful assumptions that they were hired to fulfill diversity quotas, a narrative that undermines their expertise and professional legitimacy (Ro et al., 2021). Additionally, biased evaluations, lack of transparency in advancement processes, and limited access to influential networks hinder their success (Diggs et al., 2009; Iheduru-Anderson & Shingles, 2023). For many Black faculty, the intersection of racial and gender bias is further intensified by financial obstacles, including educational debt, with Black women reporting some of the highest levels of institutional inequity (Bara Stolzenberg et al., 2019; McKinsey & Company & LeanIn.Org, 2023).
The absence of same-race mentors and culturally relevant support structures contribute to slower promotion rates and higher attrition among faculty of color (White-Lewis et al., 2022; Zambrana et al., 2015). This underrepresentation limits career advancement and reduces the visibility of BIPOC role models within nursing education. A more diverse faculty has the potential to shape inclusive learning environments, inform culturally responsive pedagogy, and offer mentorship to the next generation of nurses (Iheduru-Anderson, Okoro, & Moore, 2022).
Although mentorship is widely recognized as essential to the success of underrepresented faculty (Costa & Smith, 2023; Iheduru-Anderson, 2020), few studies have explored the experiences of Black and South Asian nurses as they transition into academia and move through the tenure and promotion process. This autoethnographic study addresses that gap by centering the voices of Black and South Asian—primarily Black nurse academics and examining the structural and relational forces that shape their academic trajectories. Doing so contributes essential insight into how mentorship—or its absence—affects retention, advancement, and well-being in nursing education.
Theoretical Framework
Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT), developed by Robert W. Lent, Steven D. Brown, and Gail Hackett, builds on Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory to offer a comprehensive framework for understanding how individuals choose, develop, and adjust their careers (Lent & Brown, 1996, 2019; Lent et al., 1994). SCCT emphasizes the dynamic interaction of personal factors (e.g., race, gender, health), environmental influences (e.g., support systems, barriers), and behavioral elements (e.g., interests, goals, actions) in shaping career-related decisions and outcomes (Lent et al., 1994, 2000).
Key components of SCCT include self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, and personal goals. Self-efficacy relates to one’s belief in their ability to succeed, shaped by experiences, social feedback, and emotional states. Outcome expectations involve beliefs about the results of specific behaviors, while personal goals reflect intentions to pursue certain actions (Lent et al., 2002).
This theory offers a relevant lens for exploring the mentoring experiences of Black and South Asian nurses in U.S. academia, particularly as they transition into faculty roles and navigate tenure and promotion. SCCT’s emphasis on self-efficacy highlights how mentorship can build confidence and shape career paths. Its consideration of environmental factors—like access to support, mentors, or role models—helps illuminate how such conditions can enable or hinder academic advancement. Using SCCT as a framework supports a deeper understanding of how these influences shape the career trajectories of Black and South Asian nursing faculty.
Method
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.
Reflective Journaling Narrative and Reflection Prompts and the Connections to the 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.
Summary of the Data Analysis Steps.
Findings
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.
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.
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.
Summary of the Mentorship 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.
Discussion
While our findings share similarities with recent studies on mentoring among underrepresented and novice faculty (e.g., Busby et al., 2023; Costa & Smith, 2023; Iheduru-Anderson & Shingles, 2023; Ro et al., 2021), this study advances the discourse through its use of collaborative autoethnography. By centering first-person narratives and shared reflexivity among Black and South Asian nurse academics, our findings illuminate not only institutional patterns, but also the emotional, cultural, and political dimensions of mentoring as experienced by those navigating systemic exclusion firsthand. This method offers deeper insight into the mentorship cycle as a lived, recursive process, revealing institutional neglect and resilience as interdependent phenomena.
Importantly, the experiences of Black and South Asian faculty in nursing academia cannot be meaningfully examined without accounting for race. Their narratives are shaped not just by professional role or institutional status, but by the racialized dynamics that structure access, mentorship, evaluation, and advancement. Attempts to analyze these experiences through a “race-neutral” lens risk erasing the very factors that define their trajectory. Race is not an incidental factor—it is a central axis of institutional organization and cultural perception that must be directly addressed in mentorship design, leadership development, and academic policy reform.
As outlined earlier in the mentorship cycle synthesis and depicted in Table 3, the findings demonstrate how systemic neglect and institutional inaction shape faculty mentoring trajectories. Rather than restating the synthesis here, we build on it by interpreting these dynamics through the lens of Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent et al., 1994) and highlight implications for academic nursing.
Black and South Asian nurse academics reported entering higher education without access to structured, culturally responsive mentorship. This absence creates substantial barriers to successful transition, retention, and progression through the academic ranks. Consistent with previous studies (Brockett-Walker & Moore, 2025; Iheduru-Anderson, Okoro, & Moore, 2022; Johnson et al., 2023; White-Lewis et al., 2022; Zambrana et al., 2017), the current findings reinforce that mentorship for racially underrepresented faculty is frequently inadequate, performative, or altogether absent. As shown in Figure 1, the most reported challenges included lack of internal mentorship and overall structured mentorship as well as racial bias in promotion decisions, creating unclear tenure expectations. Each of these challenges have been documented in the broader literature on academic inequities (Diggs et al., 2009; Hassouneh, 2013; Lutz et al., 2013).
While many participants sought support from external networks, these efforts were often compensatory responses to institutional failures rather than elements of a purposeful mentoring design. This finding aligns with B. L. Montgomery et al. (2014) and Zambrana et al. (2015), who argue that traditional mentoring models focus on assimilation into dominant academic norms rather than honoring cultural identity or experiences. As a result, Black and South Asian faculty may not only be unsupported but also expected to conform to success models that overlook the unique strengths and systemic challenges associated with their backgrounds. This perspective presents an existential threat to the Black and South Asian faculty, and thus, they seek external protective buffers to temper this distress. These findings emphasize the need for mentorship frameworks that validate racial identity, acknowledge inequities, and foster resilience—particularly for faculty navigating the tenure and promotion process.
One of the most salient themes in this study was mistrust in assigned mentorships, which were frequently experienced as exploitative, unresponsive, or insincere. This echoes findings from Iheduru-Anderson and Shingles (2023), who reported that Black nurse faculty are often matched with mentors who are uninterested, culturally misaligned, or unable to provide meaningful guidance. Participants in this study described mentorship as a procedural obligation rather than a developmental relationship, furthering their sense of marginalization. These mentorship failures withheld critical institutional knowledge and sometimes actively worked against mentees’ progress. These outcomes echo critiques by Hamilton and Haozous (2017), who argue that traditional mentorship often serves as a gatekeeping mechanism in academia.
Costa and Smith (2023) support this interpretation, noting that effective mentorship facilitates academic preparedness and personal and professional well-being. Participants in this study described how structured, affirming mentorship improved confidence in teaching, research, and leadership (Costa & Smith, 2023). In contrast, lack of mentorship resulted in lost opportunities and professional dissatisfaction—findings mirrored in this study. Similarly, Arnold et al. (2021) described how Black academics pay a faculty tax that includes being overworked, epistemic exclusion, and devaluation of scholarly contributions. These structural conditions contribute to a form of mentorship failure that is not merely an oversight, but an active reinforcement of institutional inequities.
While many of the mentorship challenges described in this study are endemic to nursing academia more broadly (Reising et al.,2022), such as the marginalization of faculty on clinical or teaching tracks—participants’ experiences reveal that these challenges are racialized in practice. Black and South Asian faculty not only encountered the hierarchical devaluation of non-research tracks but also had to navigate additional barriers of exclusion, tokenization, and limited advocacy in these roles. This intersectional burden magnifies structural inequities and underscores the need for race-conscious mentorship and promotion policies that explicitly include teaching and clinical excellence as valid and valued contributions.
These insights also speak to a broader issue of institutional neglect in academic nursing. Participants did not perceive mentorship as a consistent institutional value, but rather as a sporadic or absent practice. They were often left to navigate the expectations of teaching, service, and scholarship without formal guidance or advocacy. This is consistent with Bayuo et al. (2023), who note that transitioning from clinical practice to academia is especially challenging for migrant African nurses due to a lack of culturally attuned onboarding and responsive support structures. Similar findings was reported by Reising et al. (2022). Without mentorship, these faculty face increased risks of burnout, slow career advancement, and early attrition. Adequate representation of nurse educators from underrepresented populations in higher education is critical in ensuring that the nursing workforce is well-positioned to improve health outcomes in communities that are disproportionately burdened with chronic diseases (Ganek et al., 2023).
Notably, while much of the existing literature highlights the benefits of mentorship (Costa & Smith, 2023; Iheduru-Anderson, Alexander, et al., 2024; Johnson et al., 2023; Tillman, 2001), this study contributes a deeper understanding of the emotional and psychological toll of mentorship failure. Participants reported feelings of distress, impostor syndrome, and isolation—findings that echo Arnold et al. (2021), who describe the invisible labor and cumulative trauma experienced by marginalized faculty in unsupportive environments. For many, the absence of mentorship was not just a missed opportunity but a contributor to professional disillusionment and personal hardship.
In response to these institutional deficits, participants demonstrated resilience and agency by seeking mentorship through external networks and culturally congruent professional organizations. This reflects prior findings on the value of affinity-based mentoring (Mkandawire-Valhmu et al., 2010), while also highlighting the limitations of relying solely on external support. Participants acknowledged that while community-based mentorship provided emotional validation and practical advice, it could not substitute for institutional access to tenure pathways, internal funding opportunities, or strategic collaborations. These narratives support Zambrana et al. (2015) in asserting that mentoring must be structurally embedded to address the systemic barriers that faculty of color face.
Faculty need mentorship that is not only socially affirming but structurally embedded—with access to academic capital, equitable workloads, and transparent advancement criteria. Without intentional design, cultural responsiveness, and institutional accountability, mentoring will continue to reproduce existing inequities rather than dismantle them.
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.
Conclusion
This study provides an autoethnographic exploration of the mentoring experiences of Black and South Asian nurse academics, offering deeply personal insights into how racial identity, academic roles, and institutional culture intersect. Mentorship emerged as both a potential site of empowerment and a mechanism of exclusion, often shaped by systems that devalue justice-oriented scholarship and cultural difference.
Through the lens of Social Cognitive Career Theory, the findings illustrate how institutional neglect and inequitable mentorship structures erode self-efficacy and career progression, forcing faculty to rely on personal resilience and external networks to persist. These patterns underscore the urgent need for mentorship practices that are not only culturally responsive but structurally embedded and equity-centered.
Transforming academic nursing requires intentional strategies to dismantle exclusionary practices, diversify leadership, and sustain inclusive mentorship ecosystems. Without these reforms, the marginalization of racially underrepresented faculty will persist, undermining both individual well-being and the broader goals of nursing education. Inclusive mentorship is not optional—it is a professional, ethical, and academic imperative for building a just and equitable academic nursing future.
Footnotes
ORCID iDs
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.