Exploring and Navigating Power Dynamics: A Case Study of Systemic Barriers to Inclusion and Equity for Black Women in Social Work Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Institutional Power Dynamics review

The theme discussed in this manuscript is topical and relevant for the journal. I can imagine that the text reflects the experiences and feelings of many more subjects than the one writing this article. However, I would say that this manuscript is rather an ´essay´ than an ´article´. As a scientific article it falls short on evidence. Experiences and feelings are mentioned but not described in depth. In the introduction, the author claims to give an in-depth exploration. She does not live up to that claim. This makes it difficult to follow the argument and agree with it. Maintaining the auto-ethnographic evidence, the manuscript could be strengthened by avoiding far-fetched claims and complying with the conventional structure of an article. I would propose the following:

Introduction and the value of the study can be combined to one section stating the social problem, starting with personal experiences (descriptive, short), explaining with references how widely this exists, and which terms and concepts could be used as tools to analyse the problem. Then, stating the research question for this article. I assume the second last paragraph of the introduction on ‘the structural and institutional factors shaping …’ can be viewed as a lead or research question for this article.

Methodology can start reiterating the research question and explain hoe CRT and narrative analysis were used to analyse personal experiences and to identify six themes

Findings: What is written under this heading now are conclusions rather than findings. I would delete this section as the reader would want to get familiar with the findings before concluding. Under findings the six themes could be discussed. But, beware, not to jump to conclusions. In the methodology section, the author characterises the self-narrative as describing and analysing personal experiences. And that is exactly what I would expect under findings: first describing, than analysing. Then, the reader can feel what the Subject felt. I experienced that on page 7 which contains a description of the course evaluation process and shows the problems and seeming prejudices in managerial interactions. I would reconsider the names of the themes making them more descriptive than analytical, then describe what happened with one or two examples and then tentatively conclude allocating an analytical concept. As the author seems to acknowledge later on, only tentative conclusions are possible based on the evidence she has. Also, do not write recommendations in the findings.

Discussion: Starting with reflection on the findings, and the concepts tentatively found to be appropriate, the author can now unpack about the systematic barriers to … etc. Based on that, acknowledging limitations, she could finish with recommendations, putting them all together, including the one on further research.

Conclusion: Referring to the research question, summarise what has been found and how it has been labelled, refrain from far-fetched claims, maintain the modesty of a professional researcher.

The whole story goes from the problem (‘look what has happened to me’), to wondering how this can be understood, to displaying potential tools (concepts) to understand this, to experimenting with the use of these tools/concepts, to confirming that they help to understand and also to find ways to overcome the problem. Writing in a reflective, pondering way does not make the story less powerful. To the contrary, it will win more readers to seriously consider the usefulness of the concepts.

More detailed suggestions:

Page 1

Abstract: I would speak of an ‘autobiographical’ account instead of a ‘biographical’ account

I did not read about the ‘ethical foundations of social work’, these could added in the introduction and then used in the discussion for comparison

Introduction

Last paragraph promising recommendations could better come at the end of the introduction following the research question.

 

Page 2

Line 3: I would speak of a first-hand qualitative exploration of  … ‘a Black women in an academic environment’

About halfway the page: ‘in-depth exploration’, I expect that the author can do justice to this claim

A bit down: Findings ‘point’, not ‘points’.

Integrate the paragraph on the values of the study into the introduction. First sentence of the section is obvious. No need to mention that it is appropriate to review existing research.

 

Page 3

Delete brackets around Ali and Weekes to make the sentence run.

Ixer et al does not appear in the references list

Ethical dilemmas need explanation.

Multiple references should come in alphabetical order

Claiming that this case study offers an evidence-based analysis remains to be seen. You can state this, but then state it as a promise for the conclusion.

 

Page 4

Findings: I would take out the paragraph coming under that heading.

Did Taylor et al write about the Subject? Confusing sentence!

 

Page 5

Line 4: some words seem to be missing

Explain or illustrate resistance encountered

Multiple references should come in alphabetical order

Last sentence of first paragraph: educators adapting to norms rather than challenging them, that is not always wrong, is it? Explain.

Under toxic team dynamics: first sentence is very suggestive, try to build an argument by starting descriptive. Last sentence: how do you know how the other viewed the attempts? Describe, show!

 

Page 6

Save recommendations for later

Internalised oppression: be careful, do start with theory, describe/show first, then label.

‘They failed to understand’, how do you know? On what basis do you conclude that?

 

Page 7

Good description of the course revision process

Bottom: ‘a veil of dishonesty’ is quite a claim, what makes you conclude that?

Disability: perhaps mention earlier on, falls from the air here.

 

Page 8

About halfway: ‘unsupportive’, there seems to be a word missing

Start discussion by reflecting on findings, then connecting to theory (see before)

 

Page 9

Multiple references should come in alphabetical order (2x)

Text bolded by accident?

Hwang has a redundant bracket

 

Page 10

David and Tappan do appear in the reference list

Again a redundant bracket

Cluster recommendations

 

Page 11

I did not come across reference 1 in the text. Maybe, I overlooked it.

 

Wishing the author success in revising the text.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1 - Institutional Power Dynamics review

Thank you for pointing this out, at the point of review. Please note the below:

1. Agree- I acknowledge and have made changes as requested:

Introduction and the value of the study can be combined to one section stating the social problem, starting with personal experiences (descriptive, short), explaining with references how widely this exists, and which terms and concepts could be used as tools to analyse the problem. Then, stating the research question for this article. I assume the second last paragraph of the introduction on ‘the structural and institutional factors shaping …’ can be viewed as a lead or research question for this article.

I have revised - This can be found on page 2

2. Agree- I acknowledge and have made changes as requested:

Then, stating the research question for this article. I assume the second last paragraph of the introduction on ‘the structural and institutional factors shaping …’ can be viewed as a lead or research question for this article.

I have revised by combining the two - This can be found on page 3

 

3. Agree- I acknowledge and have made changes as requested:

Methodology can start reiterating the research question and explain hoe CRT and narrative analysis were used to analyse personal experiences and to identify six themes

I have revised by combining the two - This can be found on page 3

 

4. Agree- I acknowledge and have made changes as requested:

Findings: What is written under this heading now are conclusions rather than findings. I would delete this section as the reader would want to get familiar with the findings before concluding. Under findings the six themes could be discussed. But, beware, not to jump to conclusions. In the methodology section, the author characterises the self-narrative as describing and analysing personal experiences. And that is exactly what I would expect under findings: first describing, than analysing. Then, the reader can feel what the Subject felt. I experienced that on page 7 which contains a description of the course evaluation process and shows the problems and seeming prejudices in managerial interactions. I would reconsider the names of the themes making them more descriptive than analytical, then describe what happened with one or two examples and then tentatively conclude allocating an analytical concept. As the author seems to acknowledge later on, only tentative conclusions are possible based on the evidence she has. Also, do not write recommendations in the findings.

I have revised  - This can be seen on Page 4 – 10 have been reduced to three (and accordingly renamed) and restructured. I have removed references to conclusions in this section and have put more emphasis on describing and analysing. Finally, I have not put recommendations in the findings.

 

5. Agree- I acknowledge and have made changes as requested:

 

Discussion: Starting with reflection on the findings, and the concepts tentatively found to be appropriate, the author can now unpack about the systematic barriers to … etc. Based on that, acknowledging limitations, she could finish with recommendations, putting them all together, including the one on further research.

I have revised  Please see Page 10 recommendations have been removed from the Discussion section. Page 12 conclusion has the recommendations

Page 14 final paragraph addresses the studies limitations

 

6. Agree- I acknowledge and have made changes as requested:

Conclusion: Referring to the research question, summarise what has been found and how it has been labelled, refrain from far-fetched claims, maintain the modesty of a professional researcher.

I have revised – Please see Pages 10-12 Discussion section seeks to give more specific insight based on my lived experience.

 

7. Agree- I acknowledge and have made changes as requested:

The whole story goes from the problem (‘look what has happened to me’), to wondering how this can be understood, to displaying potential tools (concepts) to understand this, to experimenting with the use of these tools/concepts, to confirming that they help to understand and also to find ways to overcome the problem. Writing in a reflective, pondering way does not make the story less powerful. To the contrary, it will win more readers to seriously consider the usefulness of the concepts.

I have revised - Throughout the document by writing in the first person, and al stating my know subjectivity (page 3 final paragraph)

 

8. Agree- I acknowledge and have made changes as requested:

More detailed suggestions:

Page 1

Abstract: I would speak of an ‘autobiographical’ account instead of a ‘biographical’ account

I did not read about the ‘ethical foundations of social work’, these could added in the introduction and then used in the discussion for comparison

I have revised – please see Page 1 line 2, also the entire abstract has been rewritten (line 12)

 

9. Agree- I acknowledge and have made changes as requested:

Introduction

Last paragraph promising recommendations could better come at the end of the introduction following the research question.

 I have revised – please see Page 2 line 31-33, Page 3 line 9-12, includes the research question

 

10. Agree- I acknowledge and have made changes as requested:

Page 2

Line 3: I would speak of a first-hand qualitative exploration of  … ‘a Black women in an academic environment’

About halfway the page: ‘in-depth exploration’, I expect that the author can do justice to this claim

A bit down: Findings ‘point’, not ‘points’.

Integrate the paragraph on the values of the study into the introduction. First sentence of the section is obvious. No need to mention that it is appropriate to review existing research.

 I the rewrite I have addressed all these points e.g Page 3 for lines from the bottom

 

11. Agree- I acknowledge and have made changes as requested:

Page 3

Delete brackets around Ali and Weekes to make the sentence run.

Ixer et al does not appear in the references list

Ethical dilemmas need explanation.

Multiple references should come in alphabetical order

Claiming that this case study offers an evidence-based analysis remains to be seen. You can state this, but then state it as a promise for the conclusion.

 I have amended the entire reference list seed Pages 15 & 17. Also, on Page 15 Ixer has been added and Page 10 line 1 - 7  emphasises issue of ethical dilemmas

 

12. Agree- I acknowledge and have made changes as requested:

Page 4

Findings: I would take out the paragraph coming under that heading.

Did Taylor et al write about the Subject? Confusing sentence!

 I have rewritten – please see Page 3 last line reworded to address issue relating to Taylor et al

 

13. Agree- I acknowledge and have made changes as requested:

Page 5

Line 4: some words seem to be missing

Explain or illustrate resistance encountered

Multiple references should come in alphabetical order

Last sentence of first paragraph: educators adapting to norms rather than challenging them, that is not always wrong, is it? Explain.

Under toxic team dynamics: first sentence is very suggestive, try to build an argument by starting descriptive. Last sentence: how do you know how the other viewed the attempts? Describe, show!

 I have addressed in the revision/rewrite throughout the document.

 

14. Noted – Whilst I in no way want to appear difficult, especially as I agree and acknowledge all your other points. I have not fully addressed this point as this was not what I was taught. Nonetheless I have sought to make some changes, as you required.

Page 6

Save recommendations for later

Internalised oppression: be careful, do start with theory, describe/show first, then label.

‘They failed to understand’, how do you know? On what basis do you conclude that?

 I have rewritten to try to make points clearer

 

15. Agree- I acknowledge and have made changes as requested:

Page 7

Good description of the course revision process

Bottom: ‘a veil of dishonesty’ is quite a claim, what makes you conclude that?

Disability: perhaps mention earlier on, falls from the air here.

I have revised the point to make clearer – please see 9 lines from the bottom of Page 7 and Page 8 line 1

 

 

16. Agree- I acknowledge and have made changes as requested:

Page 8

About halfway: ‘unsupportive’, there seems to be a word missing

Start discussion by reflecting on findings, then connecting to theory (see before)

I have removed

 

17. Agree- I acknowledge and have made changes as requested:

Page 9

Multiple references should come in alphabetical order (2x)

Text bolded by accident?

Hwang has a redundant bracket

I have revised- please see Pages 14 - 18

 

18. Agree-Thanks for pointing this out

Page 10

David and Tappan do appear in the reference list

Again a redundant bracket

Cluster recommendations

 I have added- please see References to Page 15 & 17

 

19. Agree-Thanks for pointing this out

Page 11

I did not come across reference 1 in the text. Maybe, I overlooked it.

I have removed- please see Reference from Page 14

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article examines the author's experiences working in a Social Work program, using those experiences to identify the systemic barriers to inclusion and equity. The paper makes a very necessary intervention into the topic as it seeks provide evidence for the kinds ongoing organizational and systemic patterns that amplify inequality. 

I believe paper needs significant revision before it can be published and have the kind of effect I believe the author wants to have.

My first concern is methodological.  It is great that the paper uses qualitative methodology. That is not my concern. Rather, it seems like the paper blurs the lines between a first-person case study and a narrative or content analysis. This paper seems like it draws on the storytelling and voice scholarship strands of critical race theory. In fact, I suspect this paper is really trying to do for Social Work programs what Patricia Williams did to law schools in her masterpiece, The Alchemy of Race and Rights. The second half of the paper, however, reads like the author interviewed a number of scholars who work in Social Work programs and is reporting the common themes in their accounts (which she didn't do). The net result is that sections 5, 6, 7, and 10 are much too vague and overgeneralized to give the reader a real sense of what the author experienced. Sections 8 and 9 offer more background and detail and get closer to the kind of specificity that Williams did her work and some of the other early CRT scholars did in their fictions or allegories.  Another potential analogues might be the testimonio tradition in Latin America. It seems like this paper needs to make a choice if it truly wants to be autobiographical, talk in the first person, and reveal the details of these scenes. Or the author could do more of a traditional narrative analysis by interviewing others in similar or analogous positions.

My second concern is that the list of themes is quite long for such a short paper. Simply put, it is hard to say something meaningful or even describe fully the six issues laid out on page 4. My very tentative suggestion would be to consider focusing on 1-3 of these points, not all 6.  I am rooting for a thick description of one or two of these issues to help scholars and the public see how these issues play out, capturing the motives and subtle cues of the perpetrators and how those interactions are experienced.

Related to my second concern is the work that is being done by the short paragraph on page 10 before the conclusion. It briefly suggests a few potential interventions but does not really point to the scholarship in this area or how these specific experiences would or could be addressed by those practices.  I personally find Lily Zheng's DEI Deconstructed very helpful on these kinds of issues, but the author may have other scholar or studies that help them. There has been a lot of work done by DEI (and related acronym) practitioners and it seems like this paper could be stronger by linking the case study to the practices these experts recommend.

On a smaller note, there was some random seeming bold, italics, and font-size issues on the version of the paper I received. Those would need to be changed.

Author Response

Top of Form

Reviewer 2 - Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article examines the author's experiences working in a Social Work program, using those experiences to identify the systemic barriers to inclusion and equity. The paper makes a very necessary intervention into the topic as it seeks provide evidence for the kinds ongoing organizational and systemic patterns that amplify inequality. 

I believe paper needs significant revision before it can be published and have the kind of effect I believe the author wants to have.

1. Agree- I acknowledge and have made changes as requested:

My first concern is methodological.  It is great that the paper uses qualitative methodology. That is not my concern. Rather, it seems like the paper blurs the lines between a first-person case study and a narrative or content analysis. This paper seems like it draws on the storytelling and voice scholarship strands of critical race theory. In fact, I suspect this paper is really trying to do for Social Work programs what Patricia Williams did to law schools in her masterpiece, The Alchemy of Race and Rights. 

I have revised - Throughout the document by writing in the first person, and al stating my know subjectivity (page 3 final paragraph)

I was not previously familiar with Williams’ work, but the process of revision has led me to be more specific in the description of experiences, and enhanced theoretical framing. Please see Page 1 6 lines from the bottom Page 3 line 7, page 5 13 lines from the bottom, page 6 5 lines from the bottom, page 9 13 lines from the bottom. Page 11 lines  11 for references to her text/work.

 

2. Agree- I acknowledge and have made changes as requested:

The second half of the paper, however, reads like the author interviewed a number of scholars who work in Social Work programs and is reporting the common themes in their accounts (which she didn't do). The net result is that sections 5, 6, 7, and 10 are much too vague and overgeneralized to give the reader a real sense of what the author experienced. Sections 8 and 9 offer more background and detail and get closer to the kind of specificity that Williams did her work and some of the other early CRT scholars did in their fictions or allegories.

As noted above I was not previously familiar with Williams’ work, but the process of revision has led me to be more specific in the description of experiences, and enhanced theoretical framing. Please see Page 1 6 lines from the bottom Page 3 line 7, page 5 13 lines from the bottom, page 6 5 lines from the bottom, page 9 13 lines from the bottom. Page 11 lines  11 for references to her text/work.

 

3. I note the comments about additional reading, which has not been undertaken in relation to the Latin authors due to the 10 day time constraints of making the amendments, alongside work commitments.

  Another potential analogues might be the testimonio tradition in Latin America. It seems like this paper needs to make a choice if it truly wants to be autobiographical, talk in the first person, and reveal the details of these scenes. Or the author could do more of a traditional narrative analysis by interviewing others in similar or analogous positions.

The rewriting of the entire paper and the reference to Williams in the revise I believe addresses the concerns of the reviewer’s concerns. Please note that the paper was also meant to be a single/autoethnologogy. Please see page 2, 2 lines from the bottom and  page 3 the last three lines

 

 

4. Agree- I acknowledge and have made changes as requested:

My second concern is that the list of themes is quite long for such a short paper. Simply put, it is hard to say something meaningful or even describe fully the six issues laid out on page 4. My very tentative suggestion would be to consider focusing on 1-3 of these points, not all 6.  I am rooting for a thick description of one or two of these issues to help scholars and the public see how these issues play out, capturing the motives and subtle cues of the perpetrators and how those interactions are experienced.

I have revised  - This can be seen on Page 4 – 10 have been reduced to three (and accordingly renamed) and restructured

5. Agree- I acknowledge and have made changes as requested:

Related to my second concern is the work that is being done by the short paragraph on page 10 before the conclusion. It briefly suggests a few potential interventions but does not really point to the scholarship in this area or how these specific experiences would or could be addressed by those practices.  I personally find Lily Zheng's DEI Deconstructed very helpful on these kinds of issues, but the author may have other scholar or studies that help them. There has been a lot of work done by DEI (and related acronym) practitioners and it seems like this paper could be stronger by linking the case study to the practices these experts recommend.

I have added on Page last paragraph before the conclusion and  last paragraph of page 14 there is a summary of Zheng’s work that is relevant to this paper. I am based in the UK, so have no knowledge or experiences of  positive, tangible benefits of EDI/DEI. Nonetheless from my university I library was able to access Zheng; I was not familiar with her work but have added her findings hopefully what I have added is meaningful to this paper.

6. Duly noted

On a smaller note, there was some random seeming bold, italics, and font-size issues on the version of the paper I received. Those would need to be changed.

I have gone through the entire document and hopefully have addressed this fully.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a highly topical and pressing issue that I have frequently encountered in the context of social work education. The combination of an autoethnographic perspective with critical theory is well-conceived and contributes meaningfully to current debates on inclusion and justice within the university setting.

The use of an autoethnographic case study is appropriate, albeit a qualitative design that is sometimes viewed critically. The integration of Critical Race Theory, intersectionality, and literature on Academic Contrapower Harassment (ACPH) is particularly commendable. The author’s reflection on personal experience goes well beyond mere description, gaining analytical depth through systematic interpretation. The alignment with Spry’s conceptual framework and the case study by Zawadzki & Jensen is both relevant and effective. Nevertheless, the theoretical framing could benefit from a more explicit methodological reflection. Why was this specific form of autoethnography chosen? Would a collaborative research approach have been better suited to address these sensitive topics? And what role does the author’s own positionality as a researcher play—especially in terms of potential retraumatization or ethical considerations?

The manuscript is thematically well-structured and addresses key areas of tension, including racism in academic leadership, toxic workplace dynamics, ACPH, and institutional shortcomings. While each section is coherent in itself, the transitions between them are occasionally lacking, which at times creates the impression of a loosely connected series of themes rather than an integrated argument. Strengthening the narrative flow with clearer transitions or reflective interlinking would enhance the manuscript’s cohesion.

The text is, for the most part, clearly and accessibly written. The combination of narrative intensity and analytical distance is largely successful. However, certain terms such as “marginalization,” “oppression,” and “harassment” are repeated frequently and would benefit from greater linguistic variation to preserve their rhetorical impact. Some sentences are overly complex or include informal expressions—such as “when they were clearly in the wrong”—that would be better replaced with more precise, objective language consistent with academic standards. The balance between emotional narrative and analytical depth should be further refined, particularly in the section dealing with internal team conflicts.

The literature base is thematically appropriate and demonstrates familiarity with key debates in higher education, anti-racism, and social work education. That said, there are several issues with the reference list that require attention. For instance, the DOI for Spry (2001) is incorrect or incomplete, several cited sources are not peer-reviewed (e.g., blogs or journalistic articles), and some DOIs are broken or contain typographical errors. I strongly recommend a thorough review and standardization of the reference list in line with a consistent citation style.

In sum, this manuscript offers a significant, courageous, and timely contribution that has the potential to make an impact both within academia and in wider professional and policy contexts. The issues addressed—ACPH, structural racism, and institutional neglect—are highly relevant not only to social work education but also to international discourse on higher education reform. I recommend revision prior to publication, with particular attention to linguistic clarity, methodological elaboration, and correction of the reference list. With these improvements, the article would merit publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 3 - Institutional Power Dynamics review

 

The article addresses a highly topical and pressing issue that I have frequently encountered in the context of social work education. The combination of an autoethnographic perspective with critical theory is well-conceived and contributes meaningfully to current debates on inclusion and justice within the university setting.

The use of an autoethnographic case study is appropriate, albeit a qualitative design that is sometimes viewed critically. The integration of Critical Race Theory, intersectionality, and literature on Academic Contrapower Harassment (ACPH) is particularly commendable. The author’s reflection on personal experience goes well beyond mere description, gaining analytical depth through systematic interpretation. The alignment with Spry’s conceptual framework and the case study by Zawadzki & Jensen is both relevant and effective.

Thank you for pointing this out, at the point of review. Please note the below:

 

1. Agree- I acknowledge and have made changes as requested:

Nevertheless, the theoretical framing could benefit from a more explicit methodological reflection. Why was this specific form of autoethnography chosen? Would a collaborative research approach have been better suited to address these sensitive topics? And what role does the author’s own positionality as a researcher play—especially in terms of potential retraumatization or ethical considerations?

I have revised - Throughout the document by writing in the first person, and al stating my know subjectivity (page 3 final paragraph)

I was not previously familiar with Williams’ work, but the process of revision has led me to be more specific in the description of experiences, and enhanced theoretical framing. Please see Page 1 6 lines from the bottom Page 3 line 7, page 5 13 lines from the bottom, page 6 5 lines from the bottom, page 9 13 lines from the bottom. Page 11 lines  11 for references to her text/work.

 

2. Agree- I acknowledge and have made changes as requested:

The manuscript is thematically well-structured and addresses key areas of tension, including racism in academic leadership, toxic workplace dynamics, ACPH, and institutional shortcomings. While each section is coherent in itself, the transitions between them are occasionally lacking, which at times creates the impression of a loosely connected series of themes rather than an integrated argument. Strengthening the narrative flow with clearer transitions or reflective interlinking would enhance the manuscript’s cohesion.

I have revised  - This can be seen on Page 2, 4 – 10 have been reduced to three (and accordingly renamed) and restructured

 

3. Noted – Whilst I in no way want to appear difficult, especially as I agree and acknowledge all your other points.

The text is, for the most part, clearly and accessibly written. The combination of narrative intensity and analytical distance is largely successful. However, certain terms such as “marginalization,” “oppression,” and “harassment” are repeated frequently and would benefit from greater linguistic variation to preserve their rhetorical impact. Some sentences are overly complex or include informal expressions—such as “when they were clearly in the wrong”—that would be better replaced with more precise, objective language consistent with academic standards. The balance between emotional narrative and analytical depth should be further refined, particularly in the section dealing with internal team conflicts.

I have not fully addressed this point as this was not what I was taught. Reference Pheterson, G. (1986). http://www.jstor.org/stable/3174362. All reference relate to the concept of ‘internalised oppression’ which is an official term for what was experienced by my team. Namely, people subconsciously accept and believe negative stereotypes about Black people. The teams make up was as follows:

White x 1 =  16.67%

Asian x 1= 16.67%

Black (Total x 4 = 66.67% ( This was broken down as follows African-born x 3 (50.00%) and myself Caribbean descent x 1 (16.67%)

 

4. Duly noted

The literature base is thematically appropriate and demonstrates familiarity with key debates in higher education, anti-racism, and social work education. That said, there are several issues with the reference list that require attention. For instance, the DOI for Spry (2001) is incorrect or incomplete, several cited sources are not peer-reviewed (e.g., blogs or journalistic articles), and some DOIs are broken or contain typographical errors. I strongly recommend a thorough review and standardization of the reference list in line with a consistent citation style.

I have gone through the entire document and hopefully have addressed this fully. I have amended - please see Pages 14 – 18

 

In sum, this manuscript offers a significant, courageous, and timely contribution that has the potential to make an impact both within academia and in wider professional and policy contexts. The issues addressed—ACPH, structural racism, and institutional neglect—are highly relevant not only to social work education but also to international discourse on higher education reform. I recommend revision prior to publication, with particular attention to linguistic clarity, methodological elaboration, and correction of the reference list. With these improvements, the article would merit publication.

Thank-you for your positive words of encouragement!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for revising the text. I saw the structure has been revised and also the narrative. I still have some comments and would strongly suggest a second reviewer to give recommendations on this text. My comments:

 

1. Structure: Chapter 1 contains an introduction which is meant to lead up to the research question, I assume. In the track changes, the end to chapter 1 and start of chapter 2 on methodology blurred (there is no chapter 2). I can see the intention, but the result is confusing. Please, revise.
2. Findings have been rewritten, but I would still recommend: describe what happened and only analyse afterwards to make the text more convincing.
3. Discussion relates to theory, but should do this in a more modest way. You cannot start by stating that this qualitative autoethnographic research ‘highlights how deeply embedded …’ A statement like that needs more substantiation.
4. Conclusion has a good tone and is generally okay.
5. I have no time to check the references this time and I trust that the journal checks the spelling.

Author Response

Response to R1:

 

Thanks for revising the text. I saw the structure has been revised and also the narrative. I still have some comments and would strongly suggest a second reviewer to give recommendations on this text. My comments:

1. Structure: Chapter 1 contains an introduction which is meant to lead up to the research question, I assume. In the track changes, the end to chapter 1 and start of chapter 2 on methodology blurred (there is no chapter 2). I can see the intention, but the result is confusing. Please, revise.

I note R1 comment, I am assuming the reference to Chapters 1 and 2, is referring to Sections 1.0 and 2.0, as such I have restructured paragraphs on pages 2 and 3 highlighted in yellow.

 

2. Findings have been rewritten, but I would still recommend describe what happened and only analyse afterwards to make the text more convincing.

I note your feedback. While I respectfully disagree with the recommendation to separate the description of events from the analysis, I would like to explain my reasoning. In this autoethnographic study, I intentionally integrated the analysis within the findings to provide a more immediate and reflective account of my experiences. This approach allows me to offer both a rich narrative and an interpretation of events as they unfold, which aligns with the style of writing I’ve chosen for this paper.

Given the reflective and personal nature of the study, I believe that intertwining narrative and analysis helps to highlight the complexities and nuances of the lived experience, making the findings more compelling and insightful.

 

3. Discussion relates to theory, but should do this in a more modest way. You cannot start by stating that this qualitative autoethnographic research ‘highlights how deeply embedded …’ A statement like that needs more substantiation.

I note R1 comment and have removed the word ‘deeply’ and as such I have highlighted in yellow and struck through the word.

 

4. Conclusion has a good tone and is generally okay.

Nothing to add as R1’s statement does not indicate that any amendments are required. ‘okay’

 

5. I have no time to check the references this time and I trust that the journal checks the spelling.

Nothing to add as R1’s statement does not indicate that any amendment is required, however, as I indicated following the first review, I have amended the entire reference list see Pages 15 & 17.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I commend the author for making such major revisions in such a short period. I am impressed! The revisions constitute a significant improvement. By shifting the article into a critical auto-ethnography and focusing it around three themes, the piece is better able to vividly depict the experiences and effects of ongoing structural racism and inequality in university systems. Linking this paper to the work of Patricia Williams put the entire piece on a stronger academic footing within the history of critical race theory scholarship. Together, these stories how putatively fair and neutral procedures for handling student complaints and faculty grievances can actually serve to dismiss harassment concerns and deepen the isolation and alienation of faculty of color. In this newly revised form, the article provides a template for other scholars of color to report their experiences and provide a benchmark for future change regarding DEI outcomes.

Zheng also mentions the importance of organisations being representative, accountable, and trustworthy when it comes to DEI and for their many stakeholders. This piece highlights the issues arise when organisations fail to achieve these three traits. This article also provides the kind of evidence, personal narratives, to make a judgment about how well an organization is doing on these items.

Author Response

No comment as Reviewer 2 has not made any request for changes

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author refuses to split description and analysis. That  makes her run to conclusions sometimes overgeneralising her own personal experiences. 

Author Response

I have been going back and forth with the journal about my manuscript as I do not agree with the first reviewer to make further changes, in round 3 having made the changes requested by all three reviewers at round two.

In view of being informed on 16.6.25, by the Assistant editor that my manuscript has been sent to the editor, I am happy for the editor to provide a decision as to whether my article will be published by the journal.