Black Experiences Matter: Reflections of Black Faculty Experiences With Black Administrators

ABSTRACT

Experiences of Black social work faculty with Black administrators is understudied. This mixed-methods study used a phenomenological approach to explore the experiences of Black social work faculty and staff (N = 55; Mage = 44.26, SD = 12.07) currently or previously supervised by a Black administrator. The main findings were that participants had more autonomy and positive interactions, formal or informal visible supports, and support and understanding from their administrators. Several respondents identified more affective perceptions and feelings rather than actual behaviors to describe negative experiences. Future research should expand the instrument to include more characteristics of administrators, the context of the respondent, and collect information from Black administrators on how they view their roles when working with Black faculty.

A critical part of the human experience is being able to identify with someone. This is the basis for many faculty mentoring programs—identifying someone that can foster development while improving career development and productivity (Fountain & Newcomer, 2018). In social work education, there are many strategies that are used for upward mobility, such as coaching, networking, role-modeling, and a provision of skills (Simon et al., 2008). There has been some discussion about the differences in social work education in preparing faculty for leadership roles, with gender and race being key determinants of how successful is mentorship (Simon et al., 2008). This is an interesting and nuanced issue because, when examining the journey and experience of Black administrators in higher education, research is scarce (Jackson, 2018; NCES, 2018).

The College and University Professional Association for Human Resources reported that 7% of higher-education administrative positions, such as department heads, deans, and associate deans, were held by Black staff persons (Seltzer, 2017). While the percentages of racial minority and Black faculty and administrators have increased over time, there is still not enough representation to keep pace proportionate to the number of racial and ethnic minority students. With underrepresentation of Black faculty and staff in higher education, and the even smaller number of Black administrators, little is known about the experiences of Black faculty when they are supervised by Black administrators.

Leadership experiences

With the expansive growth of social work programs in the United States, coupled with many seasoned administrators retiring, there is a need to ensure well-prepared, social justice–oriented, and equity-minded leaders that are equipped to lead programs (Zodikoff & Pardasani, 2020). A key area of focus for the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), the national accrediting body, is the development of competent social work professionals and leaders, which is necessary to carry out the vision and mission of the organization (CSWE, 2016). To achieve this, CSWE launched several leadership and training initiatives that were designed to help fill impending gaps that are on the horizon due to retirements (CSWE, 2010; Fisher, 2009; Holosko, 2009).

For Black administrators within social work education, there is also a need for mentoring, support, and streamlined goal setting to encourage competent leadership development among this community of academicians (Tillman, 2001, 2018; Zambrana et al., 2015). Opportunities for training and development are vital to their success and growth (Vakalahi et al., 2007). In addition, seminal literature by McDaniel and Balgopal (1978) purported the need for recruitment and training of Black faculty who transition into leadership roles within social work education while also staying true to their cultural grounding and rooted in their commitment to social justice. The phrase “representation matters” echoes across media outlets, as there has been an increase in academic discourse that representation increases familiar examples to underrepresented groups. Social justice and human rights are strongly valued in the social work profession; therefore, it prompted the authors of this study to investigate the experiences of Black faculty and staff in social work education who had an administrator who also self-identified as a Black person. A growing focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education stimulates interest in identifying the intraracial experiences of Black faculty and staff members.

From where did Black administration come?

The presence of Black administrators in academic institutions has been a topic of discussion for decades. The “separate but equal” doctrine created a landscape for racial inequality in education and perpetuated White dominance, White priority, and White importance. After the elimination of segregation, specifically Brown v. the Board of Education, there was a surge in postsecondary enrollments of racial/ethnic minority groups, namely African Americans. During this time, although student enrollment demographics were changing, faculty presence was not changing as rapidly. This change was even slower for administrators.

Dating back to the 1970s, Black administrators were sought after to offset charges of institutional racism (Hurtado, 1992). As institutions increased efforts to recruit more Black students, they were also compelled to hire more Black staff to address the increased need for racial matching. Therefore, Black administrators served two main purposes: to manage Black students and provide a buffer for White faculty and administrators. Due to social distress from liberation and civil rights movements of the 1960s and national guilt over the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1968, universities quickly mobilized to recruit and confer degrees to Black students while also granting titles and administrative responsibilities related to diversity (Poussaint, 1974). For example, position titles, such as “vice president for minority affairs” rapidly appeared, with a heavy focus on community relations versus academics (Poussaint, 1974, p. 8-14). During these times, some Black faculty retreated from these types of job offers and titles for reasons such as tokenism, being regarded as a symbolic affirmative action, and microaggressions. The increased presence of Black and Brown adult learners and faculty also brought mainstream attention to inherently discriminatory institutional practices.

The importance of reviewing the history of Black leadership in higher education is to provide context that, by default, the institution of higher learning was informed by a Eurocentric worldview. This means that the practices and policies were not developed with Black administrators, or Black faculty, in mind. It became the tasks of diverse faculty and antiracist White faculty to create pathways for Black faculty to navigate within the institution’s boundaries. Some of these tasks included creating additional and alternative programs to support Black and Brown faculty and amending processes to remove barriers and reduce the effect of institutional discrimination.

Higher education also shapes social identities, giving them labels, weight, and meaning (Noguera, 2017). As a principal agent and conduit of knowledge, universities are deeply rooted in Western, Eurocentric culture (Kohli, 2008). Eurocentric culture in the academy has been naturalized as the standard perspective, which inherently shapes identity (Milner, 2012). However, Euroentrism lacks the ability to be expansive and encompass cultural awareness as a principal agent of knowledge (Gildersleeve et al., 2011; Grant & Simmons, 2008). As an example, history is assumed to be European history, which reduces other cultures and histories that are not in close proximity to Whiteness (e.g., Heleta, 2016; Sehoole, 2006). Eurocentrism is so pervasive and embedded in everyday life that it goes unnoticed (Graveline, 1998; Martin, 1994). It has been written and discussed that all things that are advancing and good are defined and measured in European terms, which promote Eurocentric ways and worldviews (Cohen & Cohen, 2015; Daniel, 2019; Martin, 1994). This holds true in educational settings as well. There is a transformation needed to look at the experiences of Black faculty because a Eurocentric perspective is not expansive for the experiences of this group.

While research has explored differences in Black and White leadership experiences in higher education related to wage gaps, specific discipline, geographic location, and lower-authoritative leadership positions (i.e., Davis & Maldonaldo, 2015; Li & Koedel, 2017; Wolfe & Freeman, 2013), studies on instituting diversity in leadership have polarized results from being beneficial to detrimental (Wolfe & Freeman, 2013). In consideration of an intentional administrator pipeline, an area influenced by the presence of Black administrators is their peers; specifically, Black faculty and staff. As aforementioned, seeing oneself in a position of power serves multiple, complex purposes. As the demographic of this country increases in its domains of diversity it is important to reflect on how future Black leaders are experiencing current Black leaders.

Black faculty and administrators have most commonly been examined by (a) grouping them together, or (b) comparing one to the other. For example, one study focused on mid-senior-level Black staff and how race influenced their experiences at predominantly White institutions (PWI; Holmes, 2003). Another study examined the equity gap between Black faculty and Black administrators and found that those who were tenured or high ranking experienced more inequity than their counterparts (Whitford, 2020). Additionally, Black leadership research inquiries have largely taken place in business studies, are gender-based, with a heavy focus on women, or focus on a form of disparity (Social Sciences Feminist Network Research Interest Group, 2017). While it is common knowledge that universities play a major role in students’ identity development (Ortiz & Santos, 2010; Ramoupi, 2012; Verhoeven et al., 2019), the academy also influences the identities of faculty and administrators (Poussaint, 1974; Trautwein, 2018). The leadership identity of current Black faculty and staff will be shaped by their experience and affect their status as future Black administrators. However, there is a dearth of information about this in the literature.

The academy tends to negatively reinforce many of the detrimental ideals that contribute to the subjugation of Black faculty and staff. It was found that Black faculty in science and arts who adopt more decolonized Afrocentric views, contrary to Western epistemologies, were met with opposition from both students and administrators (Heleta, 2016; Ramoupi, 2012). An Afrocentric paradigm is helpful, as it allows us to bring attention to the different experiences of Black faculty and their interactions with Black administrators. Collective consciousness and interdependence are key features of an Afrocentric worldview (Fairfax, 2017; Note, 2006; Schiele, 1996; Whitehead, 2018). This worldview emphasizes sharing, cooperation, interdependence, and social responsibility. Individual identity is viewed as a fluid and interconnected way of uniquely expressing the collective group ethos (Schiele, 1996; Whitehead, 2018). In sum, being equipped to challenge knowledge-based oppression that appears in higher education through management models may facilitate the decolonization of academic spaces for Black faculty, staff, and students.

Critical theories associated with an Afrocentric worldview can help us better understand the experiences of Black faculty and assess for power imbalances and the influence of dominant ideologies. As grounding for this study, the authors use the work of Dr. James Jackson, a social psychologist, to substantiate the use of Afrocentric paradigms and theories as sole theoretical underpinnings. The late Dr. Jackson changed how social scientists looked at Black life in the United States. He pioneered the National Survey of Black Americans, establishing that, prior to this undertaking, Black people were only studied in comparison to White people (Jackson et al., 2004). Until that point, the juxtaposition of African Americans to European Americans had been the gold standard for studying Black life. Leaving a legacy at the University of Michigan, his research marked a bold paradigm shift in understanding African Americans, and their contributions, are worthy of study in and of themselves.

The influence of worldviews on perception

Negotiating a healthy professional identity can be a taxing process for Black faculty (Bronner et al., 2015). There is a notion of epistemic violence that describes this occurrence and brings to light the need to have professionals possess knowledge about the sociocultural history of Africans and how that relates to Black academics (Matthew, 2016; Zeleza, 2009).

The challenges experienced by Black faculty in higher education are closely connected to social justice and human rights issues. The aforementioned institutional and social hierarchies structured in higher education create vulnerabilities and disadvantages for Black faculty related to promotion and tenure, as well as foster negative stereotypes and other indignities based on social location (Johnson & Thomas, 2012; Louis et al., 2016; Rockquemore & Laszloffy, 2008; Warren-Gordon & Mayes, 2017). Given the history of Black leadership in higher education, which was created out of necessity to respond to the social climate of the time where White leadership had not prepared for Black presence, and the persistence of exemplars of racism within higher education today, this grew an interest to investigate how Black faculty have experienced administrators who are also Black.

Present study

The purpose of this mixed methods study was to explore the experiences of Black faculty and staff in social work departments that are currently or have previously been supervised by a Black administrator. Specific aims of this study were:

Aim 1: Explore the experiences of Black social work faculty in relation to having Black administrators.

Aim 2: Describe Black social work faculty and staff’s perceptions of administrators, positive experiences, negative experiences, and different types of support received.

Although previous research has captured some experiences of Black faculty, less attention has been paid to Black social work faculty. Given the nature of social work as a profession that values diversity and inclusion and challenges social injustice, it would be of great benefit to understand the experience of Black educators and scholars in the field of social work. Hence, the guiding question for this study was: What are the experiences for Black faculty and staff in academic institutions who have had Black administrators? Researchers have found that Black faculty face persistent challenges under Eurocentric hegemony and merit-based assessments in higher education. These experiences are deleterious to emotional well-being, physical health, and professional advancement (e.g., tenure and promotion) of Black faculty (Arnold et al., 2016). Thus, we investigated if there were protective or risk factors that could explain the experiences of Black faculty supervised by Black administrators.

Method

This mixed methods study examined the experiences of Black faculty. The qualitative section of this study used a phenomenological approach to investigate the experiences of Black social work faculty and staff who are or were supervised by Black administrators using survey methodology. The quantitative section used an anonymous survey comprising 29 total items: 13 demographic questions and 16 questions about the conditions of the department and institution and current and past perceptions of their administrator. The survey was piloted with several Black faculty in the Southeast for revision, input, and content validity. Quantitative data were analyzed using univariate statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed using both open and closed coding methodologies and triangulation (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). Researchers incorporated grounded theory open coding to identify emerging themes in the narrative data (Angen, 2000; Denzin, 1978; Denzin & Lincoln, 2008; Patton, 1999). Categories were generated through the emic process with which experiences can be understood and captured from the individual’s point of view. Researchers independently coded the narrative data. Major themes from the narratives were identified, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Sample characteristics.

Attribute	(N = 55)
Age in years (n = 51)
Range: 28–79
Mean=44.26
SD: 12.07
Gender (n = 57)
Female	46 (81)
Male	11 (19)
Sexual orientation (n = 54)
Heterosexual	51 (95)
Same gender	3 (5)
Race/ethnicity other than African American (n = 57)
Latino	8 (14)
American Indian/Alaska Native	2 (3.5)
White	3 (5.2)
Caribbean Black	1 (1.7)
Marital status (n = 57)
Coupled (married/domestic partnership/cohabitating)	31 (54.3)
Uncoupled (divorced/separated)	6 (10.5)
Widowed	2 (3.5)
Never been married	16 (29)
Income (n = 54)
<49,999	3 (5.6)
50K to 74,999K	24 (44.4)
75K to 99,999K	16 (29.6)
Over 100K	11 (20.4)
Education (n = 54)
Bachelor of Social Work/Bachelor’s of Art in Social Work /Bachelor of Science in Social Work	2 (3.7)
Master of Social Work/Master of Science in Social Work	15 (27.8)
PhD in Social Work/Doctor of Social Work	24 (44.4)
Other master’s degree	3 (5.6)
Other doctorate	7 (13.0)
Region (n = 55)
Midwest	7 (12.7)
West	2 (3.6)
South	20 (36.4)
Northeast	26 (47.3)
Area (n = 55)
Urban	22 (40.0)
Rural	30 (54.5)
Suburban	3 (5.5)
Born in the United States (n = 55)
Yes	52 (96.3)
No	2 (3.7)
Importance of religion (n = 55)
Extremely important	26 (47.3)
Very important	17 (30.9)
Somewhat	11 (20.0)
Not so important	1 (1.8)
Ability/disability status (n = 55)
Did not identify with a disability	43 (79.6)
Sensory impairment	4 (7.4)
Learning disability	1 (1.9)
Mobility impairment	1 (1.9)
Mental health disorder	2 (3.7)
Other	3 (5.6)
Veteran status (n = 55)
Yes	3 (5.5)
No	52 (94.5)

Note. There are different sample sizes based on the questions. They are included in parentheses.

Once consensus was reached on the survey, the primary investigator presented the revised survey to the Research Ethics Committee for final approval as an addendum. In the survey, the purpose of the research was explained, the institutions involved in the study, and how privacy would be assured. Participants consented electronically. Participants were also able to download and print a copy of the consent form for their records. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee before the final version was released.

Data were collected for 30 days (April–May 2019) through Survey Monkey. Upon completion of the survey, participants could submit their e-mail via a separate link to enter a drawing for one of four $25 gift cards as an incentive. Participants open to a follow-up interview were also provided a separate link embedded at the end of the survey, which directed them to a separate site to add their e-mail address or phone number for purposes of follow-up.

Sample

Purposive and snowball sampling were used to identify potential participants. Both investigators distributed a flier on social media (e.g., a Facebook page for Black social work faculty and staff) and targeted electronic mailing lists and professional contacts to identify participants. Inclusion criteria for all participants were aged 18 and older; self-identification as Black, African American, or of African descent; current appointment at an institution of higher education in a social work unit (e.g., lecturers, clinical faculty, research faculty, assistant professor, associate professor, professor); and had or currently has an administrator who identifies as Black or of African descent. A total of 55 participants were included in the study.

Analysis

After the data collection period, responses were analyzed using a modified Tesch method (Tesch, 1990). Units of text were open coded until conceptual categories emerged, followed by axial and selective coding to identify major themes relevant to the aims of the study (Malterud, 2001). Each theme was color coded. The first author shared major themes per each question with the second author as part of an audit trail to establish confirmability. The second author randomly selected units of texts from each question and developed a coding schema to independently code the data. Investigator triangulation was used to provide multiple observations and reach consensus with the process (Denzin, 1978; Patton, 1999). Triangulation is important to check perception, understand the data, and to discuss discrepancies if disagreement occurs (Angen, 2000). A separate coding form was used by the third author to compare the codes and categories. Discussions were held to compare areas of disagreement and enhance credibility.

Findings/results

Participants

Of the 55 people who participated in the survey, ages ranged from 28 to 79, with an average age of 44.26 (SD = 12.07). Most participants were also female (n = 46, 81%). Additional sample characteristics can be found in Table 1.

Participants from both schools of social work (n = 31, 57.4%) and departments of social work (n = 23, 42.6%) were represented. The most common rank was assistant professor (n = 21, 38.1%), with full professor having the lowest number (n = 3, 5.5%). Over half of the participants (n = 28, 50.9%) had worked in academia for more than six years. Almost half of the participants (n = 24, 44.4%) earned incomes between $50,000 to $74,999, followed by those who earned $75,000 to $99,999 (n = 16, 29.6%), over $100,000 (n = 11, 20.4%), and less than $49,999 (n = 3, 5.6%) (see Table 2 , for more information).

Table 2. Academic categories.

Attribute
	n (%)
Unit description (n = 55)
Department of Social Work	23 (42.6)
School of Social Work	31 (57.4)
Rank (n = 55)
Adjunct faculty	4 (7.3)
Lecturer	5 (9.1)
Assistant professor	21 (38.1)
Associate professor	11 (20.0)
Full professor	3 (5.5)
Other	11 (20.0)
Worked in academia (n = 55)
Less than 1 year	1 (1.8)
1–2 years	10 (18.2)
2–4 years	8 (14.5)
4–6 years	8 (14.5)
More than 6 years	28 (50.9)

Primary department or unit

Participants were asked to rate both their department/unit and institution on the following: (a) if they would recommend them as a supportive environment for faculty and staff of color, (b) if they felt there should be more recruitment of faculty and staff of color, and (c) if they felt there were enough programs to promote the success of faculty and staff of color. Using single-choice responses that were scaled from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), participants largely agreed that their institutions should recruit more faculty and staff of color, and that their institutions did not provide adequate programs to support the success of faculty and staff of color. When asked if they would recommend their institution as a supportive environment, responses were almost split across neutral (n = 21) and agree/strongly agree (n = 22). Participants also indicated that their department/unit should recruit more faculty and staff of color (agree, n = 7; strongly agree, n = 27). When asked if their department/unit provided adequate programs for faculty and staff of color, responses for strongly disagree (n = 13), disagree (n = 11), and neutral (n = 18) outweighed agree (n = 4) and strongly agree (n = 3). More detail can be found in Table 3 .

Table 3. Scaled items.

	1	2	3	4	5
Question Items	SD	D	N	A	SA
I would recommend my institution as a supportive environment for faculty and staff of color. (n = 51)	4	4	21	15	7
My institution should recruit more faculty and staff of color. (n = 50)	2	1	6	11	30
My institution provides adequate programs and services to promote the success of faculty and staff of color. (n = 51)	12	15	18	3	3
My department should recruit more faculty and staff of color. (n = 50)	5	2	9	7	27
My department provides adequate programs and services to promote the success of faculty and staff of color. (n = 49)	13	11	18	4	3

Note. For scale, 1 = strongly disagree (SD); 2 = disagree (D); 3 = neutral (N); 4 = agree (A); 5 = strongly agree (SA).

Black administrators

Participants assessed their administrators, past or present, across eight dimensions. These items addressed the first research question, What were the experiences of Black social work faculty in relation to having Black administrators? Overall, nearly half or more faculty/staff reported that they agreed or strongly agreed to having more autonomy and positive interactions, with about one-fourth having more negative interactions. Participant responses included the following:

• A little over half (58.4%) reported that administrators did not mind “looking bad,” compared to 25.0% who said that administrators never admit fault.

• A little over half (58.9%) felt more like partners with administrators, compared to 26.5% who said that administrators did not acknowledge their good work.

• Over half (61.8%) reported that administrators encouraged boundaries, compared to 23.5% reporting that boundaries were not being honored (61.8%).

• A little over half (57.6%) reported that criticism was more constructive than harsh, compared to 24.3% reporting the use of harsh put-downs.

• Just under half (48.4%) reported that expectations were realistically scaled, compared to the 21.2% reporting that there was an unrealistic expectation to do more.

• Over half (67.7%) reported that administrators accepted suggestions or ideas, compared to 23.5% reporting an unwillingness to collaborate.

• Over half (61.8%) reported that administrators could socialize while being supportive, compared to 17.7% reporting that they depended on them for emotional support.

• A little over half (55.9%) reported that administrators made faculty feel that they were investing in them, compared to 29.4% reporting being made to feel they were a problem.

Table 4 highlights the results of participants’ assessment of their administrators .

Table 4. Assessment of Black administrators.

Question Items (# of Responses, %) [Scale Rating] Choices of Responses
They’re always right. (n=36)
(5, 13.9%) [1]	(4, 11.1%) [2]	(6, 16.7%) [3]	(11, 30.6%) [4]	(10, 27.8%) [5]
“They never admit fault”		“… can admit to their mistakes… don’t mind occasionally ‘looking bad’”
They take credit for your work. (n=34)
(5, 14.7%) [1]	(4, 11.8%) [2]	(5, 14.7%) [3]	(9, 26.5%) [4]	(11, 32.4%) [5]
“…do not acknowledge good work publicly		” “… make employees feel like partners”
They expect you to be available 24–7. (n=34)
(5, 14.7%) [1]	(3, 8.8%) [2]	(5, 14.7%) [3]	(9, 26.5%) [4]	(12, 35.3%) [5]
“They do not honor boundaries”		“They encourage and support boundaries”
Their criticism is just mean. (n=33)
(3, 9.1%) [1]	(5, 15.2%) [2]	(6, 18.2%) [3]	(7, 21.2%) [4]	(12, 36.4%) [5]
“They use harsh put-downs”		“They use constructive criticism”
They have unrealistic expectations. (n=33)
(3, 9.1%) [1]	(4, 12.1%) [2]	(8, 24.2%) [3]	(8, 24.2%) [4]	(8, 24.2%) [5]
“They expect you to do more than is humanly possible”		“They adjust to your scale of expectations”
They don’t accept suggestions or ideas. (n=34)
(6, 17.6%) [1]	(2, 5.9%) [2]	(3, 8.8%) [3]	(9, 26.5%) [4]	(14, 41.2%) [5]
“They are not willing to collaborate”		“They encourage suggestions and ideas”
They don’t know where to draw the line between friend and manager. (n=34)
(4, 11.8%) [1]	(2, 5.9%) [2]	(7, 20.6%) [3]	(11, 32.4%) [4]	(10, 29.4%) [5]
“They depend on you for emotional support”		“They are able to socialize and let you pick their brain”
You just can’t with them anymore. (n=34)
(2, 5.9%) [1]	(8, 23.5%) [2]	(5, 14.7%) [3]	(9, 26.5%) [4]	(10, 29.4%) [5]
“Something in your gut says something is off”		“… you feel they’ve invested in you, showing trust of you before it’s earned”

Note. Scale: Lower scores (1 and 2) indicate more negative interactions, whereas higher scores (4 and 5) indicate more autonomy and positive interactions. Higher scores are ideal.

Positive aspects and supports

Participants responded to items about positive aspects of experiencing a Black administrator and formal or informal supports. The items addressed the second research question, What were Black social work faculty and staff’s perceptions of administrators, positive experiences, different types of support received, and negative experiences?

Most positive aspects

Table 5 highlights the six major themes that were identified by faculty/staff as the most positive aspects of experiencing a Black administrator: no positive experiences, supportive, understanding, feelings about the administrator, how they were made to feel, and actions that were made on their behalf by administrators .

Table 5. Most positive aspect of experiencing an administrator who is faculty/staff of color (n = 23).

Major Theme	Text Examples
No positives
Actions taken on my behalf	Looked after me Advocate on my behalf More fair treatment Uses her leadership Shared decision making Willing Being given opportunities
Supportive
Understanding	Understands/acknowledges the challenges Connection No explanations needed about experiences about frustration with the majority (White administrators/staff/students)
Feelings about the administrator	Encouraging Warm and welcoming
How faculty/staff were made to feel	I can trust them with my interests I can trust them to not talk bad about me Safety Diversity is supported by the institution No need to assimilate Easier

No positives

Two participants indicated no positive aspects of experiencing a Black administrator. One participant stated, “I haven’t had that experience.” Another stated, “I actually can’t.”

Supportive

Participants reported that administrators made them feel supported or were more supportive. One participant stated that a positive aspect was support for their research and during the tenure process.

Understanding

Understanding was the most frequent response for this question. Understanding, connection, shared experiences, being in rhythm, and understanding challenges were common reports. A couple of participants stated, “[T]hey get it.” Additional responses included that there were no explanations needed and there was an ability to relate to the administrator.

Feelings about administrators

As a positive aspect, faculty/staff indicated that they had positive feelings about the administrators. Examples included feeling warm and welcomed, encouraged, made to feel comfortable, and administrators were culturally competent. A few participants reported:

• “Feeling support and being given the opportunities to participate in projects or even to lead projects.”

• “In my experience, having an administrator who is a person of color is warm and welcoming.”

• “They get it—they anticipate your experiences and try to support and clear a path for you.”

• “The fact that they ‘get it’ without me having to explain or justify or defend my experiences being a Black woman in the academy.”

Faculty/staff feelings

Faculty/staff indicated that they did not feel the need to assimilate, and there was a sense of belonging, security, and trust. One participant responded, “[M]ore is expected of you, and that is caring about your development.”

Actions made by administrators

There were several actions that faculty/staff reported administrators had taken on their behalf, such as being given opportunities, clearing a path for them, using their (administrator’s) leadership, shared decision making, and advocated on faculty/staff’s behalf.

Types of visible support

Table 6 highlights the three major themes that were identified as types of visible support: no support, formal, and informal.

Table 6. Type of visible support received, formal or informal (n = 22).

Major Theme	Text Examples
No support	There are cliques Very little None
Formal	Professional development opportunities Collaboration opportunities Promotion to administration Removing barriers Increasing presence Provided resources
Informal	Checked in Nuggets of wisdom Supported my decisions He knew Kind Respected boundaries Verbal encouragement

No support

Several responses (n = 6) indicated that there was very little support, no support, or there were cliques. For example, one participant reported, “I haven’t had the experience.” Additional responses included none and N/A [not applicable].

Formal support

Formal supports were specific actions, people, programs, or offices within the university system. Mechanisms for support included opportunities for professional or curriculum development, conference attendance, reduced teaching loads, collaboration, and verbal encouragement. Other examples of support were funds for research, letters of support, and the provost office. One participant stated, “[R]epresenting me in my physical absence” was a demonstration of support. Another participant stated that the administrator “support [ed me] in the presence of White faculty, putting themselves at risk.” Another participant stated, “I feel that I can trust them not to speak ill of me when I am not present and to advocate for me even when I’m not in the room.” Other actions of formal support included administrators putting their (faculty/staff) name forward, celebrating their achievements on social media, including them in activities, and protecting their time.

Informal support

Informal supports included verbal and emotional interactions. For example, several participants stated that they were “checked on,” given insight or nuggets of wisdom, looked out for, taught, or encouraged. Other responses included that the administrator was a gatekeeper who exhibited a willingness to support and was invested in the development and growth of the faculty member.

• “I appreciate having someone who can connect and empathize with my experience of teaching while Black.”

• “ … you get that feeling of comfort that they understand the struggles you have in an academic environment.”

• “ … shared experiences that provide a safe space to be authentic.”

Negative or frustrating experiences

Participant responded to questions about their experience with a Black administrator as negative or frustrating. Table 7 highlights the five themes that were identified as ways that the experience of having a Black administrator was perceived to be negative or frustrating: no support, effect on progress, bad behavior or lacking leadership behaviors, institutional/structural, and feelings.

Table 7. Ways the experience has been negative or frustrating (n = 20).

Major Theme	Text Examples
No support	No true support No resources for faculty development Needs more support
Effect on progress	High workload Lack of opportunities Chair is demeaning, competitive, unrealistic workloads, steals ideas and presents them as their own Misguided in decision making
Bad/negative behavior; lacking leadership-like behaviors	Negative Admin is very disorganized No investment Treated other poorly Can they be trusted?
Institutional/structural	Limited power at a predominantly White institution Lack of Black presence Having to address privilege more I feel the need to make certain points
Feelings	Frustrating A disappointing experience

No support

A few participants indicated that there was no true support, no resources for faculty development, and more support was needed. Participants reported the following:

• “Misguided in decision making.”

• “Treated others poorly and was not truly invested in me as a faculty member/colleague.”

Effect on progress

Faculty/staff stated that they were misguided in decision making, micromanaged, or had zero support from the administrator. Several reported higher workloads, being unaware of opportunities, or felt pressure. One participant reported, “Limited power in PWI.” Another participant stated that there was a “feeling pressure to perform in ways, pressure to do more” energy present at their institution. Other remarks were that the administrator did not like an individual and not having a thought partner, which made the experience negative or frustrating.

Bad behavior

There was an array of descriptions that reflected either bad behavior or poor leadership skills. Several statements about the treatment of faculty/staff surfaced. Several times, being treated poorly or differently came up. For example, one participant stated that they were “treated differently, less than people with less seniority.” Other comments were about the actions of the administrator. For example, participants stated that “[t]he chair runs the show,” “[n]egative in all ways,” “a control freak who couldn’t control me.” Other comments were that the administrator was disorganized, unwilling to do things differently, and had unbalanced expectations of faculty time. One participant stated that White women would interact with them differently, acting as an authority figure when they were not the manager or direct supervisor, using “a terse tone, with masculine energy.” Another participant reported, “The chair has stolen ideas from other faculty members and presented them as her own. Such a disappointing experience.”

Institutional/structural

Responses ranged from having a low number of Black faculty as being disappointing to high staff turnover. Other participants stated that there was limited power at a PWI, no merit pay, lack of funding, and decision making holds up the process. Quotations about institutional/structural barriers included:

• “One of the biggest things that happen with black faculty is blocked opportunity. This is done by selective passing on of information and opportunities.”

• “ … the lack of black faculty across the university is dismal and disappointing.”

Additionally, participants reported that alternative, bad messages were sent to White faculty, the small presence of Black faculty made it difficult because it meant change for some colleagues, the presence of social justice issues, and racial battle fatigue and feeling the need to make certain points.

Feelings

A few participants (n = 3) reported that having a Black administrator was a frustrating and disappointing experience. A participant stated, “I feel the need to make certain points or take certain stands to establish a standard for respect and acknowledgment of Black female faculty.”

A couple of uncoded responses included observations that the administrator did more to prove herself and by her not having support as a negative experience. Another participant stated that having a Black administrator was not common in their experience in higher education, “[Y]et a real thing in the realm of elementary education, secondary education, higher education, professional circles, and elsewhere in society.”

Discussion

The purpose of this mixed methods study was to explore the experiences of Black faculty/staff in schools and departments/units of social work who also had a Black administrator. Themes across three open-ended questions related to experience (i.e., positive, types of supports, frustrating or negative) linked to Black faculty/staff’s perceptions of treatment and resources in higher education. Of those who reported a positive experience, five out of six themes related to feelings and emotions as interpreted by the faculty or staff. Only one theme identified behaviors or actions that contributed to them having a positive experience. For this reason, grounding interpretation of the results in the context of an Afrocentric paradigm is helpful, as it allows us to bring attention to the different experiences of Black faculty and their interactions with Black administrators. Collective consciousness and interdependence are key features of an Afrocentric worldview (Fairfax, 2017; Note, 2006; Schiele, 1996; Whitehead, 2018). This worldview emphasizes sharing, cooperation, interdependence, and social responsibility. Individual identity is viewed as a fluid and interconnected way of uniquely expressing the collective group ethos (Schiele, 1996; Whitehead, 2018).

Across the themes, there were several individuals who reported that they did not have positive experiences, that there were very little supports, and that the lack of supports made the experience frustrating or negative. Only further exploration, by way of interviews, can help us to fully understand the nature of those responses. In comparison, faculty described positive and fulfilling interactions with their administrator.

One could argue that Black faculty assess relationships or their positive experiences with relationships as a marker of satisfaction or collective consciousness. Therefore, positive experiences are rooted in intrinsic transactions that are created by sharing and cooperating. Relationships and respect are highly valued and needed because humans are predisposed to attachment. According to Sen (2000), social connectedness is intrinsically important as people value inclusion. Exclusive environments or the inability to interact with others who are similarly situated can lead to relational deprivations, in this case professionally.

Although studies have examined patterns of social connectedness and psychosocial well-being among African Americans (e.g., Rose et al., 2019), there lacks a body of literature that examines this same connectedness among African American professionals. For instance, Rose et al. (2019) found that African American adolescents with a well-connected profile reported higher satisfaction, self-esteem, mastery, coping, and lower perceived stress and depressive symptoms than those unconnected or with minimal connection profiles. One can only wonder what findings, relative to social connectedness, might reveal if profiles of Black faculty were also examined. Social workers’ ethical principle on the importance of human relationships echoes the need for connection and indicates how critical relationships are for restoration and enhancing the well-being of individuals and communities (National Association of Social Workers, 2020). In the spirit of community and collectivism, there is also a need to ensure positive experiences between Black faculty/staff and their Black administrators. These positive connections can ensure a constant pipeline of scholars having favorable experiences within their institutions. These favorable experiences can also serve as pipelines that contribute to mentoring the next generation of Black leaders in social work education.

In the current study, participants reported receiving either formal or informal visible supports. Formal supports included various forms of departmental/unit and university resources, which required some form of an application process for allocation. The informal supports replicate sentiments from the positive experiences because emotive connection was identified and valued. The power and influence of relationships in informal social networks are important factors for organizational advancement and promotion (Antonucci et al., 2017; Bennett, 2017; Greenhaus et al., 1990). Future considerations in this area should explore how Black faculty construct categorical meanings for formal and informal supports. Some preliminary considerations include proximity and perception, such as, does proximity to the identified support influence the categorical designation of formal or informal or what are the perceptions of supports that exist within the institution in comparison to supports that are external to the institution? Gaining deeper understanding about the types of formal and informal supports that Black faculty perceive as valuable can greatly benefit institutional advancement and inclusion initiatives. Most importantly, information about supports valued by Black faculty can challenge the structural and cultural aspects of higher education that perpetuate and sustain a dominant Eurocentric narrative.

A second finding was that participants reported more emotional and affective perceptions rather than actual behaviors to describe negative experiences. This is consistent with one of the main Afrocentric core beliefs about emotions as a valid source of knowledge (Schiele, 1996; Whitehead, 2018). The Afrocentric paradigm operates with the assumption that rationality and emotionality cannot be separated. Under this assumption, people filter their experiences through both their rational and emotional minds to generate meaning. Of great interest to the authors were the responses that indicated there were no positives, no visible supports, and an absence of anything that promoted their professional development and retainment in the academy. There is not much investigation around help-seeking patterns of Black faculty in social work education. This is an area that must be researched to support and sustain Black faculty in the academy. In looking at other helping professions, such as healthcare, evidence shows us that minority populations often seek out help from minority healthcare providers who consider their own culture, customs, and beliefs (Tucker & Winsor, 2013). Similarly, within higher education, Black students have often sought out the support and mentorship of Black faculty (Griffin, 2013).

This reiterates the need for Black faculty presence in colleges and universities; however, faculty also require proper mentorship and support, whether formal or informal. Although, it is not widely known or understood how Black faculty seek out mentorship and support. Lack of mentorship support or having unfavorable experiences with administrators can be detrimental to a faculty member’s ability to do well at their institution.

A last finding was participants who reported negative or frustrating experiences with Black administrators. These participants described different behaviors and feelings associated with those experiences. To understand these experiences, the authors visited critical race theory, as it espouses how White supremacy has been sustained and maintained to suppress non-White people (Kelly et al., 2017). The following themes mirrored a dominant narrative captured by critical race theory frameworks: there was no or unequal support or resources, faculty/staff were not liked, and faculty/staff were treated unfairly or more harshly. Given that academia was developed and has been sustained by a Eurocentric frame, future research might consider investigating whether there is a difference in Black faculty experiences with administrative behaviors and interactions aligned with a Eurocentric versus Afrocentric worldview. For example, is the perpetuation of Eurocentric worldview tenants, such as independence, competition, and emotion suppression, by Black social work administrators viewed by Black faculty as culturally and professionally misaligned, and therefore causing negative feelings among faculty (Mbembe, 2015; Schiele, 1996; Whitehead, 2018)?

The need for culturally aligned values cannot be overstated. In 2015, University of Missouri at Columbia students protested the underrepresentation of Black faculty and requested that more faculty of color were hired. This case is a good example of how underresourced higher education institutions are regarding faculty who reflect their student population. It has been suggested that Black faculty face similar challenges that Black students have described (McGee & Kazembe, 2016; Nettles, 1990; Winfield, 2015). Faculty also desire to have and feel connected to administrators, colleagues, and mentors who resemble their own culture and worldview (Denson et al., 2017; Edwards et al., 2011; Edwards &Ross, 2018; Madyun et al., 2013).

A major limitation of this study was the instrumentation. Due to the lack of literature in this area, there was not a review or comparison of existing instruments, which is an important step in the development process. When our team began to investigate these experiences, the research domain was understudied. Our exploration was phenomenologically informed from this initial qualitative work. As a result of this study, our team better understands some domains of experiences with Black administrators from Black faculty, like complexities of the larger institution or support that the administrators have received, and how that influences those experiences. As researchers, we also carried an awareness of ways that we influenced the measurement through instrument development (Briller et al., 2012). Last, we strove to be mindful of what it would be like for Black faculty to consider the questions and answer them, as this could be a difficult topic.

Additionally, there were questions that we did not ask that should be explored. The type of institution (i.e., PWI, Historically Black College or University, private, etc.) should be identified, as that provides institutional context and could explain the variation in responses. Given the themes from this study, the instrument could provide categories that would yield new quantitative items for the instrument to facilitate a different analysis of experiences. Obtaining descriptive information about the administrator would also benefit future analysis and investigation, such as gender, rank, title, and length of time the faculty member knew them, to name a few. Last, some work with Black administrators reflecting on their interactions with Black faculty is also warranted, as it will provide insight into what is being done that faculty may not recognize at the time. Needless to say, this work is new and growing, and both faculty and administration voices are needed to understand these experiences. This will highlight areas for improvement in mentorship and training for administrators, as well as highlight and celebrate exemplar cases.

Conclusion

There is a need to reverse the negative trends that underrepresented scientists and educators experience with Black and non-Black administrators. Social work, as a profession that values social justice and human relationships, can be a harbinger for promoting diversity, inclusivity, and antiracism efforts. Nevertheless, it can feel counterintuitive for Black faculty/staff to experience Black administrators who align with Western, Eurocentric behaviors and interactions and do not encourage cultural, social, and self-identity. More efforts are needed to increase and amplify the positive interactions and behaviors that draw in Black faculty and staff. This is especially important for Black faculty/staff who are under the leadership of administrators who look like them. Piercy et al. (2005) suggested that retention of Black faculty/staff requires committed and sustained mentorship between colleagues, such as Black women supporting each other, a supportive and collegial community, leadership opportunities, participation in program planning, supportive administration to hear complaints, and retention programs. The absence of support can have adverse effects on Black faculty’s full engagement in departmental responsibilities, including the students they serve.

In addition, there are Black administrators meeting the needs of Black faculty and staff in a variety of ways that transcend institutional requirements. Black administrators often go beyond their scopes of work to ensure faculty feel supported and confident to engage their duties. Therefore, future studies should expand this body of work to emphasize the concept of informal and formal mentoring networks. More research in this area will have implications on Black faculty/staff committed to advancing social work education and preparing practitioners to competently address issues of social justice.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Laneshia R. Conner

Laneshia R. Conner is assistant professor at the University of Kentucky. Yarneccia Dyson is associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. V. Nikki Jones is assistant professor at Middle Tennessee State University. Vanessa Drew is assistant professor at Elon University.