Fighting on Two Fronts: Dual Combat Strain Among Black Doctoral Students Who Serve as Higher Education Professionals

Abstract

As diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in higher education face increasing scrutiny and political backlash, institutions across the United States are reexamining, reframing, and in many cases, dismantling long-standing commitments to equity work. This collaborative autoethnographic study explores the lived experiences of four Black educators, three actively pursuing doctoral degrees while serving as student affairs administrators and one faculty member who holds administrative responsibilities. Drawing on role theory, we introduce the concept Dual Combat Strain, a compounded and inseparable form of role strain that emerges when both academic and professional identities are simultaneously contested, surveilled, and constrained. The findings highlight the tensions, strategies, and forms of resistance that these educators employ to persist, advocate, mentor, and build coalitions within an increasingly volatile higher education landscape. By naming and framing Dual Combat Strain, this study extends role strain theory and applies it to the interconnected academic and professional realities of educators and offers actionable insights to support educators committed to equity based work.

1. Introduction

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in higher education have recently emerged as a trending issue that has been met with polarizing and provocative stances. For example, in 2024, the University of North Carolina (UNC) System repealed and replaced its long-lasting policy on DEI for its sixteen campuses. The UNC System Board stated, “the operative language of the Policy, taken together, directs campus administrations to abstain from the political and social fray. This is the driving principle of institutional neutrality” (University of North Carolina System, 2024, p. 1). Like the UNC system, many institutions in the United States have framed the repeal of DEI initiatives in elusive terminology that ultimately serves the goal of reshaping programming, policies, and positions that impact marginalized and underserved communities.

As early as the 1970s the federal law influenced higher education by prohibiting gender discrimination in admissions, financial aid, sports, faculty employment, and other major components of the university experience (Lieberwitz et al., 2016). Data collected after these legislative acts were enacted proved their impact in the late 1970s. Among the findings was college degree attainment increased among Students of Color and women’s enrollment, with graduate schools ballooned by an average of 18.7 percent (Ford et al., 2023; Rim, 2021), which led to the creation of many identity-based offices and units on college campuses. For example, the City College of San Francisco (CCSF) created the first Department of Gay and Lesbian Studies in 1988 (Minton, 1993) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 added incentives for institutions to reassess curricula, infrastructure, and scaffolded systems for students, faculty, and staff, who self-identified as having a visible or non-visible disability (Abram, 2003).

More recently, Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003 and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in 2012 are both landmark legislative policies that impacted higher education in a substantial way. Unlike cases before it, Grutter v. Bollinger allowed institutions to consider race or ethnicity, but it did not require it during the process of admissions (Garces, 2012) and DACA allows undocumented individuals who have entered the country as minors a pathway to stability, as students are able to use their temporarily legal status to attend school with a lesser degree of fear of deportation (Przymus & Malin, 2023). In conjunction with the murder of George Floyd and a host of other Black and Brown people, many institutions took strategic steps to ensure their infrastructure accomplished the goals set forth by their mission statement or revised plans to be more inclusive.

Changes included new bias training, campus policing reforms, and other social justice initiatives that were unique to each institution (Bocko et al., 2022). Nevertheless, progress was short-lived as anti-DEI legislation began to be introduced in state legislatures across the country, starting in 2023 with Florida and Texas (Alonso, 2024). Over the next year, Alabama, Iowa, and Utah will enact legislation impacting DEI offices at public universities, showing that many of these challenges will remain a part of higher education discourse. Despite this discourse and challenges, college students are still enrolling in college, attaining advanced degrees, and holding dual identities as both students and higher education administrators. As such, this paper seeks to dive into what this means for educators who have dual identities navigating the shifting higher education and DEI landscape. The article seeks to answer the following questions:

• How do Black doctoral students who serve as student affairs administrators experience the dual demands of their academic and professional roles in an era of anti-DEI policies?
• What institutional and workplace experiences shape the lived realities of Black doctoral students and professionals who engage with DEI initiatives during political backlash?

2. Literature Review

To truly understand the experiences of Black educators and students while navigating the shifting DEI nationwide dynamics, this literature explored existing literature to uncover the connections on these topics. The literature review is organized into three critical sections to better understand how administrators, who hold the identity of students, experienced the shifting challenges with DEI. These three frames include: challenges of Anti-DEI movements in contemporary times, the dual identity of being both a doctoral student and a student affairs administrator, and Black doctoral student experiences in higher education.

2.1. Challenges of Anti-DEI Movements: A Summary of Recent Legislative Efforts and Institutional Restrictions Targeting DEI Work

According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, since 2023, over 40 bills have been introduced in 22 states, aiming to restrict or eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives at public colleges and universities. These bills propose measures including prohibiting the use of state funds for DEI offices, banning mandatory diversity training, and eliminating diversity statements in hiring processes (Aaron et al., 2025; McGowan et al., 2025). Many of these challenges have direct impacts on campus racial climates (Briscoe, 2022, 2023; S. Harper & Patrón, 2025; Hurtado & Carter, 1997). Additionally, this new shifting political climate, also called “anti-DEI climate”, reflects a deliberate effort to curtail discussions around critical race theory (CRT) and LGBTQ+ advocacy under the guise of promoting freedom of thought. Alonso (2024) observed that these legislative efforts often leverage the rhetoric of “preserving freedom.” This framing paradoxically curbed freedom of expression in academic spaces. This legal framing, which pits DEI against traditional American values, has become a key strategy for advancing these restrictions, making it challenging for higher education institutions to advocate for inclusivity.

In 2024, Alabama, Iowa, and Utah banned DEI offices at public universities, while Idaho, Indiana, and Kansas prohibited colleges from requiring diversity statements in hiring and admissions (Alonso, 2024; S. L. Smith & Gasman, 2025). Additionally, the University of North Carolina (UNC) System eliminated 59 DEI-related positions and restructured an additional 131 jobs to comply with new policies (Quinn, 2024). These legislative and institutional actions reflect a broader challenge against DEI, with significant implications for educational equity nationwide, as higher education faculty, staff, and students remain in the trenches of this political warfare, with interest convergence (Bell, 1980) remaining a battleground for college administrators and institutions.

Additionally, legislation targeting DEI has left many institutions scrambling to comply, often at the expense of marginalized students and faculty (Ahmed, 2012; D. G. Smith, 2024). Institutions have responded by scaling back DEI programming or reframing their work under neutral terms to avoid potential conflicts with restrictive policies. Quinn (2024) notes that these institutional responses often lead to a loss of nuance, as institutions prioritize performative compliance over meaningful equity work. For marginalized groups, this shift reduces the visibility and efficacy of DEI practices, exacerbating existing inequities. These actions undermine the trust between institutions and their stakeholders, particularly students and faculty from underrepresented communities (Jackson, 2025; Smith, 2025), which calls for a radical shift to understand the importance of humanity (Lange & Lee, 2024). Institutions that once served as champions for diversity are now seen as complicit in perpetuating exclusionary practices, fostering a sense of disillusionment among their communities.

2.2. Navigating Dual Identities as Administrators and Doctoral Students

In conjunction with many of these issues facing DEI for administrators who are also doctoral students, several scholars have studied the experiences of doctoral students holding full-time roles on college campuses. For example, Clouder and team (Clouder et al., 2019), who studied the experiences of university staff who were pursuing doctoral education at the same institution, found that their experiences were unique, as the ability to access tools and processes was easier due to their staff status. However, the participants from Clouder and colleagues’ (Clouder et al., 2019) study were left to feel like an afterthought and were largely ignored as a result, leading to increasing levels of stress as many of the participants were part-time students while managing part-time enrollment. In conjunction with this finding, Opsomer et al. (2021) and Zahl (2015) found that part-time students struggled with forming connections with peers, which adds additional stress to navigating the doctoral journey. While doctoral student experiences are often framed as differently than faculty roles and responsibilities, many graduate students are socialized into the academy and learning rules and expectations from their faculty mentors (Palmer et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2025). However, Bhopal (2022) discovered that linguistic policing of their identity is a critical part of their dual identity, as faculty often hold more than one role. Many of these challenges for Black doctoral students are often interconnected to issues of race, racism, and racial battle fatigue (Burt et al., 2019; Ford, 2025; Grier-Reed, 2010; Rollock, 2023; D. G. Smith, 2024).

According to Soysa and Wilcomb (2013), college can be an opportunity for discovery and a time of endless possibilities coupled with increased levels of stress and decreased levels of well-being. These increased stress levels and decreased levels of well-being can be attributed to competing academic, social, personal, and professional responsibilities (Neely et al., 2009). Similarly, doctoral students experience increased levels of stress resulting from an attempt to balance and navigate academic and work demands (Bonifas & Napoli, 2013). Each of these factors can contribute to heightened stress and diminished well-being. The combination of both has an even more significant impact on working doctoral students. Not surprisingly, these higher levels of stress negatively impact graduation rates (Greeson et al., 2014). Additionally, the stress caused by these dual roles leads to doctoral students experiencing mental health challenges and developing mood disorders at higher rates than the general population (Evans et al., 2018).

Work-school conflict and work-school enrichment present alternatives to how working can impact the student experience. Work-school conflict asserts that work will negatively interfere with a student’s ability to meet academic demands and responsibilities (Markel & Frone, 1998). In contrast, work-school enrichment states that work will enhance the student’s ability to meet the educational demands required (Powell & Greenhaus, 2006). Identifying work-school conflict can be critical since it has been shown to be indicative of students’ well-being (Park & Sprung, 2013). For example, Park and Sprung (2013) indicate that work-school conflict is an accurate predictor of student psychological health and can lead to adverse emotions towards the university. According to McNall and Michel (2017), work-school conflict ultimately results in compromised psychological health and higher rates of burnout, which has been documented as an issue facing doctoral students (Hunter & Devine, 2016), faculty (Ford, 2023; Gorski, 2019), and higher education administrators (Gorski, 2019).

2.3. Black Doctoral Students in Higher Education

This situation is even more stressful for Black individuals who work while attending graduate school. In addition to the complexities presented by the strain of balancing work life and academic obligations, Black doctoral students also have racial stressors that negatively impact their experience and success (Grier-Reed, 2010; Ingram, 2013). According to Karkouti (2016), Black students often face a hostile and alienating environment (Karkouti, 2016). Even with political victories such as the Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court decision to create equal opportunities, Black students have been erroneously considered intellectually inferior to their White counterparts (S. R. Harper et al., 2009). Regrettably, the quest for equitable academic access and success falls short. According to Hussar and team (Hussar et al., 2020), 12% of all graduate students and 5.6% of all doctoral students were Black in 2020. Black students who matriculate have experienced institutional racism that negatively impacts their graduate school experience (M. Q. Patton, 2015). Research indicates that Black doctoral students commonly experience racial microaggressions (Burt et al., 2019; Ford et al., 2024) and a lack of belonging (Ingram, 2013) within their campus communities. Additionally, Black graduate students who serve as student affairs administrators supporting working in DEI spaces and uplifting efforts are positioned in an increasingly volatile situation where the work they committed to as professionals (Small, 2011), and the research they conduct as doctoral students are under heightened scrutiny as they are impacted by racial microaggressions in their journeys (Arday et al., 2022; Ingram, 2013).

Pierce (1970) defined racial microaggressions as: brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults to the target person or group (p. 273).

Racial microaggressions can include receiving poor service, being treated with a lack of respect, people responding to your presence in fear, others expecting you to be intellectually inferior, and being labeled as dishonest because of your racial identity (Pérez Huber & Solorzano, 2015). Moreover, Yosso and team (2009) asserted that microaggressions can present themselves in multiple ways, including insults because of race, racial jokes, and institutional racism, and can be classified in three separate categories: microassaults, microinvalidations, and microinsults (Sue et al., 2007). According to Yosso and team (Yosso et al., 2009), microassaults are “verbal or nonverbal attacks meant to hurt the intended victim by name-calling, avoidant behaviors, or purposeful discriminatory actions” (p. 274). While microinvalidations “are characterized by communications that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person of color” (Yosso et al., 2009, p. 274). Lastly, microinsults express “rudeness and insensitivity and demeans a person’s racial heritage or identity” (Yosso et al., 2009, p. 274). These microaggressions intensify the emotional and professional strain of people of color (Sue et al., 2007), which are further complicated by those who hold dual roles as doctoral students and practitioners navigating the changing DEI climate.

Miles et al. (2020) indicated that Black doctoral students have reported racial microaggressions, which are consistent with the findings of (Ingram, 2013), who found that this often leads to racial battle fatigue (Ford, 2025) and how it can be challenging for Black people to navigate constantly changing educational environments. Their collective findings add to Shavers and Moore (2019) discovered that Black doctoral students reported never fitting in and feeling like outsiders who did not belong at their respective institutions. Additionally, the level of pressure experienced by Black doctoral students is best described by the tension created by the dual roles that Black graduate students experience, coupled with the racial stressors associated with being a Black graduate student. To understand these complex realities, we aim to explore the experiences of Black doctoral students with dual identities as administrators in higher education.

3. Theoretical Framework

Role theory, which has historically been used to examine how individuals navigate multiple social positions and tensions that come from completing role expectations (Biddle, 1986; Goode, 1960), provides the framework for this study. As a theoretical framework, role theory allowed us to explore how Black doctoral students and higher education professionals negotiate their professional and academic overlapping identities during the anti-DEI era. Additionally, through the use of role theory, we were able to explore how institutional pressures, racialized experiences, and political shifts add strain for individuals who manage these dual identities in higher education.

Role theory has been a part of research discourse for decades as it has multiple components including role strain, role relationships, and role bargains (Biddle, 1986; Fowlkes, 1987; Goode, 1960). While each component is different, they are all interconnected. For example, role theory is often used to define the role of the individual and is often used as a framework to understand how one sees oneself in the context of society. Role relationships are often used to define how an individual’s roles interact; for example, someone is both an educator and a student. Role strain is when the demands of multiple roles conflict with each other, and finally, role bargains are used to negotiate accommodations to alleviate the stress caused by the various roles (Creary & Gordon, 2016; Goode, 1960).

Goode (1960) theorized that institutions and environments are composed of role relationships, are interconnected to social action and social structures which lead to the concept of role strain on the individuals within the institutions that must navigate different environments. Goode (1960) describes role strain as the “experienced difficulty in fulfilling role obligations” (p. 483), within role relationships. More specifically, role relationships are societal norms which are impacted by role bargains or an individual’s agency. Goode (1960) highlights role bargains, which are highlighted as a “continuing process of selection among alternative role behaviors, in which each individual seeks to reduce his role strain” (p. 483). Additionally, these role bargains lead to the obligation of individuals to fulfill their roles. Goode (1960) highlights four role bargains, which are also known as role demands, that create challenges that lead to role strain. These are highlighted as (1) role overload which occurs when expectations exceed the capacity of the individual who must fulfill them (2) role conflict is when there are incompatible expectations (3) role ambiguity occurs when there is a lack of clarity on expectations of the individual and (4) role incompatibility or when the where the expectations of a single role are inherently contradictory.

Additionally, role theory has been applied in anthropology, sociology and a host of other social sciences to understand how individuals make meaning of their interactions within society. Role theory allows researchers to make meaning of how people respond to various situations that help to define who they are or how they see themselves (Fowlkes, 1987). Biddle stated that, “role theory distinguishes individual behaviors, social activities, and the phenomenal process that presumably lie behind them” (p. 12). Furthermore, individuals learn their social positions, and this impacts how they understand and make meaning of their environments. In the context of education, role theory and more specifically, role strain have been used to highlight the experiences of tenure-track faculty (Pascale et al., 2022), research center staff (Boardman & Bozeman, 2007), student experiences (Home, 1997), academic officers (Kebelo, 2012), and university employees (Elliott, 2003). Each of these studies and examples points to the challenges associated with holding various roles in society, and more specifically, on college campuses, and how each has caused role strain on each population. This study expands existing research by showcasing how it impacts Black student affairs administrators who hold the dual identity of being doctoral students. It highlights how these overlapping roles and responsibilities contribute to experiences of role strain.

4. Methodology and Methods

This qualitative research study used collaborative autoethnography (Jones & Osborne-Lampkin, 2013) to answer the following two research questions: How do Black doctoral students who serve as student affairs administrators experience the dual demands of their academic and professional roles in an era of anti-DEI policies? What institutional and workplace experiences shape the lived realities of Black doctoral students and professionals who engage in DEI initiatives during political backlash? Like many other scholars who use this methodological framing (Briscoe et al., 2024; Miller Dyce et al., 2022; T. C. Smith et al., 2024; Whitehead et al., 2025), we examine both our individual and shared personal experiences. These deep reflections shaped the knowledge and space used to collect data, as we looked to understand our realities during the challenges facing DEI.

Autoethnography has multiple different forms, which are often conducted by different types of researchers, time commitments of the participants, and levels of engagement. An autoethnography is highlighted as “an autobiographical genre of writing and research that displays multiple layers of consciousness, connecting the personal to the cultural’’ (Ellis & Bochner, 2000, p. 739). To conduct this study, we utilized full collaborative autoethnography (Chang, 2013) as a form of autoethnography. Unlike other forms of qualitative research, autoethnography allows the participants to have two roles, researcher and participant. Similarly, full collaborative autoethnography as an approach requires all members of a research team to be engaged throughout the process from start to finish. While participation and contributions can vary based on the different steps within the process, full collaboration is based on all members actively engaging and sharing responsibilities throughout the entire process.

We facilitated this process through autoethnographic conversations. Chang and team (2013) define collaborative conversation as “collaborative autoethnographies in which researchers engage in conversations (face to face or e-mail) on an agreed-on topic with the purpose of gaining a deeper understanding of the topic through a self-other analysis”. Building on this concept, the authors of this work, four higher education educators, three also enrolled in their doctoral journey, and one as a full-time faculty member at the same institution, in the same program, took time to engage in collaborative conversations on their experiences and the dual identities of their journey. While the first author is not a doctoral student, his administrative background and role as a mentor and instructor position him to offer an intergenerational perspective and shared experiences with the doctoral students in the study. Our shared experience through collaborative conversations has led us to tell our shared stories in a different way to expand how we think about and see ourselves as educators.

4.1. Data Collection

Prior to conducting our collaborative conversation, Author One met with each of the participants to understand their shared dual realities of competing demands of doctoral education and maintaining daily roles in higher education. These roles left the participants feeling tired, overwhelmed, and looking for new methods to navigate the ongoing challenges facing DEI. Author One, although not a student, encountered similar challenges as a faculty member. We decided to collectively investigate our experiences to deepen our understanding of how the challenges affecting DEI were impacting our journeys as a form of research. We met via Zoom Workplace, a video software, twice for 90 min each, to share our experiences and to further understand the challenges facing each participant. The discussions allowed us the opportunity to see commonalities and differences in our experiences and to participate in further reflection regarding our present roles as educators. Sample questions from our discussion included, how have the recent DEI bans impacted your work? How have the recent DEI bans influenced how you think about research? What would be something you would share with campus administrators based on these societal and institutional shifts? At the conclusion of the collaborative conversations, we sent the Zoom Workplace recording off to a transcription company. The data was transcribed and reviewed by author one for clarity and accuracy.

4.2. Data Analysis

Data collection was a continuous process for the researchers. Led by Author One, the researchers utilized Braun and Clarke’s (2006) theoretical thematic analysis approach, while using role theory to guide both the coding process and interpretation of the data. Braun and Clarke (2006) allowed us as individuals and as a collective research team to use role strain as a lens throughout the coding process. To truly understand the data, we started the process with phase one as outlined by Braun and Clarke. This process afforded us the time to read, reflect, and center the data collected to familiarize ourselves. Due to the level of engagement at phase one, phase two consisted of the process of exploring the data based on the concept of role strain. Phase three was meeting to review coding and discussing discrepancies shortly after completing phases one and two. During phase three, author one also engaged a senior-level student affairs administrator and researcher to review the data collected before finalizing the codes into themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Phases four and five were completed after each researcher revisited the themes as the team reconnected to discuss the finalized list and to agree on the themes extracted from the data process. The final phase, phase six, concluded the process as we wrote the themes of this manuscript. This six-step process allowed us as researchers to truly explore, analyze, and discuss the findings of this work as we seek to understand these experiences (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Each of these six steps was informed and added to the understanding of the data, as role theory was critical to the data analysis process.

4.3. Trustworthiness

All research, despite the different types that are conducted, relies on the honesty of the participants and the researchers (M. Q. Patton, 2015). More specifically, in the context of collaborative autoethnography, community building and trustworthiness are at the forefront of this methodological approach. This is necessary to avoid reaching a quick consensus or affirming each other too soon. This is necessary to stop the compromising of the data. As such, Chang and team (Chang, 2013) recommend that the researchers have a shared understanding as well as share similar contexts. This is necessary to eliminate many of the vulnerabilities that come with this process.

Additionally, as highlighted by Morrow (2005), Author One reached out to two other researchers who engage in both DEI work and are researchers in higher education. This was added to the member checking process as it allowed the researchers to think deeply and differently about the data collected. Due to Author One’s connection with the other researchers, he was able to challenge, ask clarifying questions, and follow up on points that could have been lost in the process. This process was critical for learning, understanding, and community building, as each participant also worked to establish trustworthiness. Finally, as a research team, we engaged in cross-validation with existing literature to complete the triangulation process.

5. Positionality in This Work

We come to this work as scholars, researchers, administrators, and students of education entrenched in the ideas of diversity, equity, and inclusion. With over fifty years of higher education experience, our positionality in this scholarship is that of four educators deeply rooted in advancing and supporting populations at the margins of society. Each of us identifies as an educator with a marginalized identity. Author One self-identifies as a Black man, who uses he and him pronouns, from the southeastern part of the United States. He is currently a faculty member who teaches students in a higher education program and has received all his formal education and work experiences from institutions in the southeastern part of the United States. Author Two self-identifies as a Black man, who uses he series pronouns, from the southeastern part of the United States. Author Two has lived a significant portion of his adulthood in the western United States. He has attended and worked at schools in the southeastern and western United States and currently works as an academic advisor. Author Three self-identifies as a Black femme who uses both she and they pronouns. Born in the western United States, she has spent most of her life in the South, where she has received all her formal education and has worked as an educator within higher education institutions, most recently as an adjunct faculty member and advisor at a small private institution. Author Four self-identifies as a Black man, who uses he series pronouns, from the southeastern part of the United States. He has lived and worked in the southeastern and western parts of the United States. He has worked in public and private K-12 education and higher education settings, and most recently worked in a programmatic-related role at a small public institution. It is important to note that while we are not currently working directly in DEI campus offices, we each have worked in at least one of these spaces in our professional careers.

Each of us, while having different roles and responsibilities, is deeply committed to understanding and advocating for populations who may be directly affected by the shift in policies on DEI as educators and students of higher education. We share our identities and commitments to showcase our focus on this work, but also how we interpreted the collective narratives, patterns of role strain, and how we were able to make meaning of the emotional labor described in this study. While our identities may read as a list, they reflect our distinct social positions and histories as we engage in this research process. Our past experiences and lived realities show how we make sense of role conflict, collective understanding of DEI and our shared emotional labor as both scholars and practitioners. We acknowledge our shared dual realities as components of how we see and understand the academy. These perspectives are essential for us to identify the patterns within our experiences that emerged from our collaborative writing and data analysis process.

6. Findings

In this study, we engaged in a collaborative autoethnography approach to explore the shared experiences of doctoral students who work as higher education administrators on a college campus. Additionally, this project included a faculty member who also holds a dual identity as a campus administrator. The findings of the study reveal that these dual roles are unique challenges for the participants amid DEI challenges in the United States. After collecting and analyzing the data from this study, we identified the following themes: professional academic tensions, institutional barriers, and workplace dynamics. In the following sections, we define, discuss, and share the findings of this scholarship.

6.1. Professional Academic Tensions

The first theme to emerge, Professional Academic Tensions, showcases the complex interplay between participant academic and professional responsibilities. The experiences of Black doctoral students who simultaneously serve as higher education professionals reveal the complex challenges of managing the complexities of dual identities, particularly during the current anti-DEI movement. A common thread throughout the data analysis process was the detailed tension that existed between their professional and academic identities. When asked to describe if the dual identities conflicted or complemented each other, participants described the conflict that arose because of both roles.

For example, Demetrius shared, “So honestly, the part that sucks for me is that a lot of times I don’t feel like I’m able to give everything the level of care of attention that I would like to.” Here, Demetrius is speaking to the compromise they must make in order to satisfy the obligations of both a doctoral student and campus administrator. Demetrius adds,

In addition to that feeling of feeling like I’m going to forget something, I never feel like any one thing is getting that full 100% from me. I feel like there’s been a compromise on things while I’m in this state or in this period of the transition or the journey.

Demetrius comments suggest disappointment in themself for the lack of attention, they can give these dual identities as both a student and a university employee. Demetrius continues,

When you want to do your best in everything that you do, it becomes a challenge when it’s just not possible. It’s not the best that I can do, but it’s the best that I can do right now. And I really don’t like operating like that.

This comment seemed to resonate with everyone as each person was nodding their heads in agreement.

Demetrius was not the only participant who expressed tension carrying out both roles. Andre added, “I would say most of my conflict between my professional life and school has really come in just being able to share what Demetrius was speaking to earlier, that I’m able to devote adequate time to each as my role continues to change, as the things that I oversee continue to change.” Andre explains how the office they worked in has heavily been impacted by the anti-DEI efforts. “I think being in an intercultural affairs department, one of the few that we have left in this university system, it was really impacted by the passing of the new DEI policy”, due to ongoing changes within his department. Andre continues, “And so even just that first year programming that I completed, it has been completely different than what this past year has looked like as we have adjusted to ensure that we are following the policies with fidelity.” Since they assist with student programming, they have not only been tasked with the anti-DEI efforts having an impact on how they conduct their work, but Andre must also explain these differences to students. Thus, making Andre’s professional life more challenging than usual. Ultimately, Andre commented,

It worked out for the most part. And I would say going forward, I must think about as I continue to try to find my way with both school and this professional life or with my professional life and with being a part of this program and being part-time is just ensuring that again, that I’m able to give both the time that they need and deserve.

Derrick, the faculty member and administrator shared,

I have always wrestled with these dual realities, more so as a doctoral student; however, I think with the challenges facing diversity, equity and inclusion, this has become more of a looming fear. I worry deeply about you all as students and as administrators. I wonder about your academic freedom as doctoral students but also understand that it is deeply encapsulated and trenched in your professional work lives.

However, this was not the only source of tension for Andre, they go on to share

I think for that part; I’ve been balance between ensuring that I’m still doing the work and that I’m still able to support students but also ensuring that I’m not putting the university or my role at the university in jeopardy. And I think it’s just been about finding balance, finding the battles that I can fight and just doing my best to move forward in that way.

Here, Andre expressed the pressure they felt from trying to serve students within the changing and more restrictive established parameters. Carmen introduced a new source of tension. Carmen discussed how anti-DEI measures have led to tension in the classroom with some students.

When the election happened, and again, I am in a lot of spaces where I am the only Black person I am sometimes if I’m being very honest, I’ve had a class that I was teaching and there were some white guys in there that were very, very open about their love for the fact that DEI was not going to really be a thing anymore. So having those conversations because now I’m in this space, but then I’m sharing that space with students who are young, who are 17, 18, 19, and they are scared for the world. What does this mean to be Black, to be gay, to be neurodivergent, to have a disability? How do I navigate those things? And then I am learning how to best talk about that, how I can better talk about that, how I can ask questions, how I can teach students to ask questions.

Carmen’s comments left the group shaking their heads, while agreeing with the tensions presented by the team as each grappled with these realities. Carmen’s experiences underscore the intersection of race and professional identity in the classroom, which adds to the challenges of racial battle fatigue (W. A. Smith, 2010). Furthermore, their experience demonstrates how anti-DEI rhetoric reshapes classroom interactions and backlash (Bhopal, 2022), with heightening emotional labor and reinforcing the dual combat pressure described by other participants and is explained by Goode (1960).

6.2. Institutional Barriers

In addition to the professional and academic tensions suffered by the Black doctoral students and higher education professionals, the participants also faced institutional barriers. For example, Demetrius shared that in previous years, his university’s General Counsel had assured him that there was no reason to make any adjustments because of the anti-DEI movement. However, more recently that guidance has started to shift. To explain this shift Demetrius shared,

This year I was appointed the chair for the diversity committee and before the first meeting I was like, okay, Demetrius, I’m going to need you to change the name of the committee. It’s like you can do the same work, but it’s like you’re just always waiting to see what’s next.

Andre expressed, “There’s also been a lot of additional things that they’ve had to do in terms of paperwork in order to be able to have events that they’re just not used to.” These ongoing changes have shifted Andre’s motivation to continue DEI work. Andre shares,

Every single week there is a change to language or the way that we need to do something it feels like every single day, but it’s probably one or two things a week to where it sorts of eroded my belief and trust in our systems goals.

Andre explained that other students have also grown frustrated with the changes as they wrestled with institutional and policy changes, which are amplified by the work of Ahmed (2012), who brings awareness to institutional labor and the strain of their role (Goode, 1960). Andre shares, “And so a lot of the times the response that I’m getting is, well, we’ve done this last year, or we’ve always done this event every year, or it’s always been fine for us to do this thing.” Here, Andre indicates how the recent attacks on DEI have resulted in changes that have not only frustrated him in his roles but also frustrated the students that they serve. While the current circumstances led to mutual frustration from Andre and his students, what Andre described as more frustrating was the uncertainty that DEI faces. Carmen named a different set of challenges. Their reflection on their experience with watching others led them to share, “when we looked at the ways in which Black folks are in this work, how they navigate it and do it.” Camern later added, “and now the landscape is changing and making it harder for it for them and for me.” This point adds to the challenges of how Black staff see themselves in relation to their institutions. Derrick, who saw and understood this one slightly differently, shared his perspective,

To be honest, I am not sure what my barriers are. I am a faculty member, who has some administrative responsibilities and to be honest, I am unsure of what I should be or should not be doing. Not for a lack of knowledge, but more so because I am unsure of what the future holds. My bigger concerns come on the heels of what could be on the horizon. I think there is something to be said about the unknown. Historically, there is often a procedure or something in the past that would allow me to predict what is next or what could happen. I am just unsure.

Derrick’s comments, coupled with those of the other participants, add to the uncertain times that each professional is facing at their respective institutions. This reflection adds to the growing sense of uncertainty among faculty and campus administrators. The confusion of what should or should not be doing reflects what Goode (1960) names role ambiguity, which is a core component of role strain and showed up in the experiences of all participants.

6.3. Workplace Dynamics

While there were institutional barriers that caused challenges for the participants, there were more nuanced difficulties within their individual workplace environments. Carmen shared a specific incident,

Recently, when we were going over what was good and what could be improved upon about this semester, I simply shared that we could diversify the ways we deliver content to students because there are people, there are students who learn in a varying different of manners and we are trying to give a one size fits all. So, I didn’t say let’s diversify our work because of a person’s skin. I said let’s diversify the ways in which we deliver content.

Carmen shared with their co-workers that content should be delivered in various ways to account for all learning styles, yet felt “unseen, unheard, and not acknowledged”. This reflection adds to the challenges with language policing as highlighted by Bhopal (2022), which is when educators must self-censor to avoid political, institutional, and in some cases, racialized backlash. This also adds to the impact of emotional labor and showcases how institutional campus racial climates can chilly and uninviting (Briscoe, 2022, 2023; S. Harper & Patrón, 2025; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Yosso et al., 2009). The frustration was visible on Carmen’s face as they continued talking. Carmen continues sharing,

And they wrote it down on the whiteboard and in a little corner, diversity in a little corner. And then it was like, oh, that’s good to think about. We’ll talk about that next semester. It’s like, well, we’re here now. Were you afraid? Because I used the word diversify, you got scared. And so now we’re not going to have the conversation. And I did not feel that I was using it in a content context where folks would be afraid that I’m speaking about DEI. I’m clearly stating that not everyone can just sit in a classroom and just listen to you talk and there’s no engagement and there’s no ways of delivering things in a different way.

The frustration with the experience resonated with all participants. The simple use of the word diversity caused intense fear among Carmen’s co-workers, so much so that they failed to acknowledge and discuss a legitimate concern about how to best serve their students. Carmen compared that to the setting they experience in class as a doctoral student. Carmen shares,

Folks in my cohort, in my classes, whether we see eye to eye, whether we are on the same page or not, the conversation is there, and I can appreciate that. Let’s have the conversation even if we don’t agree because there’s still growth in that, but to not want to have the conversation to want to run away from it, that is concerning.

Next, Demetrius described how the response to DEI discussions also differed for them depending on the “circle” they were in. Demetrius started by describing the “circle” or environment with their immediate co-workers, “Coworkers say they’re supportive, empathetic, and engaged when it comes to DEI work, but what they say and what we do in practice are two totally different things.” Demetrius opens by describing what feels like hypocrisy with his co-workers, who often talk about how important DEI initiatives are but oftentimes fail to execute anything that resembles equitable service to students. Demetrius continues,

So, this is a space where I feel comfortable being more direct and not letting things go because in these spaces, I’m typically speaking on behalf of students who I think really need something and going round for round with coworkers and or supervisors in that space is I’m 100% comfortable there.” Despite feeling frustrated by the situation within his immediate work environment.

Demetrius was relieved that they felt comfortable addressing those hypocrisies with his co-workers. Demetrius accepted the responsibility of speaking on behalf of students that depended on his office for assistance.

Demetrius felt as though it was his obligation to address the DEI concerns they might have with his co-workers in a straightforward manner. This approach was not the chosen method of interaction when trying to address similar concerns in another “circle.” Demetrius shared that when they had a discussion with college administrators, the concern or question they presented revolved around results. Demetrius states, administrators will ask, “how does it benefit me, my position or the school in general. It’s not even a hey, how can we or we should do this or do that. It’s a lot more of Black and white.” Demetrius describes how interest convergence plays a significant part in the decision-making process for many administrators. Demetrius continues,

It’s a lot more numbers, it’s a lot more if this isn’t benefiting my growth or the college’s growth in general, we can afford, I hate to say it like this, but it’s almost like we can afford to lose a few students along the way. It’s just the way that the system is built. Not everybody’s going to make it.

Demetrius’s comments reflect what Bell (1980) named interest convergence, which they wrestled with due to metrics of institutional gain rather than community impact. These tensions deepen the level of role strain, as both professionals and doctoral students navigate systems of higher education. Ultimately, Demetrius explained that institutions should be set up where students are allowed to address these concerns themselves. Demetrius states,

A lot of what I’m doing is on behalf of students, I also think it’s really important to include students in the process and make sure that if you have a complaint with me, no, it is. It is not going to come the same if I go to an associate vice chancellor and say this, you send them an email, you have your parents send them an email, feel free to copy me on the email and say that you’ve talked to me. But when it comes to programming and things that you think you need as a student, you need to be able to speak on behalf of yourself.

Andre also grouped his description of workplace dynamics into separate “circles.” Describing the first “circle”, Andre stated, “You have the ICA office, which has sort of been distress as we’ve gone through this DEI policy. Our director has left the institution and have an interim director in place.” Andre describes the added pressure resulting from the turnover in the department. Andre continues, “mostly within the office, we’ve just tried to support each other. But I’ll also say the policy not only creates changes in terms of the programming that we’re able to do, but it also affects people’s feelings about the work that they do.” Andre begins to explain how the anti-DEI efforts personally impact his co-workers. Andre shared,

I’ll say that it has caused tension in the office, and it’s created issues that probably wouldn’t have been here, but that’s how things have really gone within the office trying to support each other, but also just knowing that things are tense, and people have different feelings and going about it that way.”

This response was a description of a reality that all participants could identify with. Not only is work not being done, not only is it more challenging to serve students, but a lot of people are worried about whether they will have a job as the assault on DEI continues. The next “circle” Andre describes is

About having conversations and getting groups of people together who coalition build groups that can not only support each other, but that can have conversations around divisive topics. And so that’s sort of been the second group and that group has been supportive, but I’ll be honest and say that I am the only person of color that I can think of on this committee.

Here Andre explains that a lot of times, individuals in this “circle” just ask “how can we offer support?”

More broadly, Andre explains that a lot of people on his campus try to support his office. Andre says,

It has felt like someone has passed away in our department or there’s been a death of something. And I guess it has the death of the way in which we’re able to operate in the DEI space. But I say that because I got a lot of condolences. I’m so sorry to hear that this is going on with you all. Sorry to hear that your jobs are going to change. I would say, especially in the beginning before we knew if we would be let go or not, a lot of it was just about either concern or just wanting to know what’s going on. And so again, a lot of it was apologies.

Andre’s experience and metaphor led to grief and uncertainty many professionals experience as their work becomes politically constrained. Their statement highlights how these realities were also leading to psychological and communal impacts. This final contribution from Andre struck home with all participants. It seemed to describe DEI as something that would be categorized as extinct was saddening. Each of the participants described the unique liminal experiences they have with being a Black doctoral student and higher education professional during this time. But despite having unique experiences, each expressed the importance of working and navigating higher education in their dual identities.

7. Discussion

In this study, we engaged in a collaborative autoethnography approach to explore the experiences of doctoral students who simultaneously work as higher education administrators on a college campus. This approach, which has been utilized by other studies showcased a host of realities in the experiences of the participants (Briscoe et al., 2024; Miller Dyce et al., 2022; T. C. Smith et al., 2024; Whitehead et al., 2025). Black doctoral students who also serve as higher education administrators often face several unique challenges due to these dual identities. While other identities, including race and gender, as indicated by the participants, are often a component of their daily experiences, the participants in this study spoke specifically to how anti-DEI legislation impacted not only their experiences, but their roles as they navigate higher education. The understanding of these experiences is necessary, as the dual roles of scholar and administrator are becoming more prevalent in higher education (Clouder et al., 2019; Opsomer et al., 2021). Utilizing Role Strain Theory as a theoretical framework, we analyzed how these intersecting roles produce tensions that show up in many forms. The findings of this study reveal three central themes: professional academic tensions, institutional barriers, and workplace dynamics, each of which illuminates the complexities of navigating these dual identities.

The professional–academic tensions faced by participants highlight the emotional and cognitive dissonance that arises from balancing the expectations of their doctoral programs with the demands of their administrative roles. As institutions become increasingly hostile to DEI work, these tensions have been exacerbated by shifting policies, additional bureaucratic hurdles, and a growing sense of precarity in DEI-related positions. Participants expressed feelings of frustration and exhaustion, echoing existing literature on role conflict and work-school imbalance (McNall & Michel, 2017; Park & Sprung, 2013). Unlike traditional doctoral students who may focus solely on their studies, these participants were often responsible for mentoring students, advocating for equitable policies, and facilitating campus programming, all while managing their own research and coursework. Additionally, as the faculty member in the study mentioned, there were also the challenges of serving as a mentor and support to students who hold these dual identities. The faculty members’ experiences showcase that this is a much broader challenge facing all parties in higher education, which often leads to a double burden for students and supervisors, which could be perceived as even more challenging for People of Color (Blockett et al., 2016; T. C. Smith et al., 2024). This double burden creates a heightened sense of stress and professional vulnerability, as the political landscape increasingly dictates what kind of work is permissible within university settings. This type of role strain adds an additional layer of complexity. The original theory does not account for the impact of political changes or the direct impact of forces that the individual will encounter. The faculty perspective adds to the role of mentorship and how Black faculty often face challenges around supporting students navigating challenges in their academic work and professional experiences. Additionally, the faculty perspective highlighted the challenges of faculty supporting students, how support looks during these times, and how mentorships are modeled at the same institution, which adds to the overall understanding of how faculty experience role strain, often alongside students who also serve as campus administrators. Consequently, role strain must consider how societal circumstances influence and alter the process by which an individual navigates shifting realities. This form of role strain results in pervasive ambiguity, which may contribute to heightened racialized stress for people of color, racial microaggressions, and the risk of burnout, which adds to existing racialized realities faculty face in academic environments (Gorski, 2019).

Similarly, institutional barriers emerged as a persistent challenge, reflecting broader structural constraints on DEI efforts in higher education. The participants’ experiences align with research on institutional neutrality and the depoliticization of diversity work (Ahmed, 2012; Alonso, 2024; D. G. Smith, 2024), wherein universities, under the guise of political neutrality, actively dismantle the very programs that once provided marginalized students with necessary support. Participants described how DEI offices were being eliminated, rebranded, or subjected to increased administrative oversight, effectively reducing their capacity to serve students in meaningful ways. These findings underscore the growing tension between the ideological commitments of higher education institutions, which often profess values of diversity and inclusion, and the operational realities shaped by legislative constraints.

Additionally, the workplace dynamics described by participants reveal the emotional toll of performing DEI work in increasingly restrictive environments. As Carmen recounted, even the mere mention of the word “diversify” in a pedagogical discussion elicited hesitation and discomfort from colleagues. This reflects a broader trend of linguistic and ideological policing in higher education, where administrators and faculty are discouraged from using language that signals commitment to racial justice (Bhopal, 2022; D. G. Smith, 2024). Participants also noted how their colleagues often expressed performative support for DEI but failed to engage in substantive action. Each of these examples highlights role strain as the participants in this study were not only navigating emotional labor, but also the institutional pressures, while still trying to support students in unpredictable environments. The role strain was further intensified by racial microaggressions (Burt et al., 2019; Sue et al., 2007), which participants encountered in their daily interactions as both students and professionals. These subtle, impactful moments also contributed to their emotional fatigue and professional challenges that each described. These discrepancy between professional values and behaviors reinforces the burden of emotional labor and fatigue placed on Black administrators, who must continually justify and defend the legitimacy of their work (Rollock, 2023). What is significant to note is that each of the participants has worked in different non-DEI roles, including intercultural affairs, advising, and instructional support; only one of the participants served in official DEI offices. However, each championed DEI values in their daily practice, which subjected them to the same scrutiny as those formally in DEI positions.

Another important dimension that emerged from this study is the emotional and cognitive dissonance participants navigated as they balanced their dual identities in the face of anti-DEI backlash. Beyond structural and institutional barriers, the personal stakes of this work were deeply felt by participants who described an ongoing internal struggle: remaining committed to their roles as advocates for equity while also grappling with the limitations of their power within restrictive systems. This tension is consistent with the concept of racial battle fatigue, wherein the mental and emotional energy required to combat systemic racism and uphold equity work leads to physical, emotional, and psychological exhaustion (Burt et al., 2019; Ford, 2023, 2025; Hunter & Devine, 2016; W. A. Smith, 2010). Participants often described feeling caught between their personal and professional values, as well as between their desire to support marginalized students and the institutional expectation to remain neutral in politically charged environments. The moral injury that results from this dissonance, where one’s ethical values conflict with their actions due to external constraints, underscores the long-term costs of DEI work for Black professionals and scholars. Yet, despite this, participants demonstrated a profound commitment to fostering equity even when it meant carrying an outsized emotional burden. This suggests that future initiatives must prioritize emotional support systems and mentorship networks for DEI practitioners, particularly Black administrators, to mitigate the negative psychological impacts of this work.

As scholar-practitioners, we recognize that these tensions mirror the complex realities of navigating academic and administrative roles within politically charged educational spaces. The participants’ experiences reveal a distinct form of strain that extends beyond doctoral student and professional identities. We refer to these interlocked realities as Dual Combat Strain, which we define as a form of compounded role strain that is unique to those navigating academic and professional spaces simultaneously, where both spaces are active battlegrounds, causing sustained and continuous pressure on the individual. Our findings reveal that this strain of holding both identities within the complexities of our racial identities is further intensified by political scrutiny, racialized expectations, and institutional realities surrounding DEI work. Specifically, the participants in the study, navigating these two battlegrounds, added overlapping pressures, introduced blurred boundaries into academic and professional spaces, and caused an ongoing sense of surveillance that shaped their daily lives. We see Dual Combat Strain as an extension of role strain theory (Goode, 1960), and based on the participant narratives, we identified four interconnected dimensions that make up Dual Combat Strain:

• Temporal overload, as an extension of role overload (Goode, 1960), captures how time and institutional demands, both between academic and professional responsibilities, cause the individual to choose or split their attention constantly.
• Institutional ambiguity is a reimagined version of role ambiguity (Goode, 1960), which we define as the constant confusion of shifting policies and systematic uncertainty in both academic and professional contexts.
• Ideological policing, based on the challenges the participants faced as each shared moments of surveillance by others or self-censorship of language to avoid causing institutional backlash because of their dual identities.
• The final dimensions, emotional and moral fatigue, capture the exhaustion and ethical decision-making that challenges of sustaining DEI values in environments that devalue diversity, equity, and inclusion in hostile systems.

These four dimensions are critical parts of how the participants experienced Dual Combat Strain and the evolution of role strain theory (Goode, 1960) by including the racialized, emotional, and political realities of higher education scholar practitioners. Recognizing these four dimensions helps institutions and doctoral programs identify interventions to help them navigate the compounded pressures of Dual Combat Strain.

8. Implications

The concept of Dual Combat Strain leaves several implications for policy, institutions, and doctoral education. As anti-DEI policies continue to shape institutional priorities, it is essential to consider how Black doctoral students, faculty, and administrators can be better supported. Institutions must go beyond superficial commitments to diversity and instead implement structural protections that ensure DEI practitioners are not left vulnerable to political and administrative rollbacks. Furthermore, future research should explore how these dual-role challenges manifest across different institutional types (e.g., Historically Black Colleges and Universities vs. Predominantly White Institutions), as well as how other marginalized identity groups experience role strain in similar contexts. By expanding this line of inquiry, scholars and practitioners alike can develop more robust frameworks for equity and advocacy in higher education. Ultimately, the lived experiences of the participants in this study illustrate that while anti-DEI policies create significant barriers, the commitment to justice and transformation remains deeply embedded in the work of Black educators.

Additionally, this research affirms that DEI is not just a policy initiative; it is an enduring practice of resistance, care, and institutional transformation. The lived experiences of Black doctoral students and faculty who also serve as higher education professionals illustrate the immense challenges of sustaining DEI work in an era of legislative and institutional pushback. As universities recalibrate their policies to align with state mandates, these individuals are caught between institutional rhetoric and structural realities, often forced to perform the labor of equity and inclusion while navigating environments that actively dismantle such efforts. The tension between their academic pursuits and professional responsibilities is not just an issue of workload or competing demands, but rather an existential challenge to the validity and longevity of equity work in higher education.

This study also advances the understanding of the tensions of being a doctoral student and professional navigating political turbulence, chilly campus climates, and anti-DEI legislation based on the findings of the study. Additionally, Dual Combat Strain, as the compounded pressures that arise when academic (i.e., student, faculty member, educator) and professional (i.e., administrator, staff member) identities are interconnected, inseparable, and both amplified. In a politically charged, anti-DEI climate, both the classroom and work environment can cause conflict, amplify pressure, and limit the ability to fully engage in both roles. More research must be conducted to understand how dual identities should be seen as one distinct identity, not two, as many professionals are often doctoral students on the same campus in which they are employed.

9. Conclusions

In conclusion, future research should continue to explore the dual identities of student affairs and higher education professionals who are also doctoral students, with particular attention paid to how policies, advisor relationships, and program structures can mitigate these tensions. By naming and framing Dual Combat Strain, our findings show how compounded role strain, institutional barriers, and workplace dynamics intertwine to create an unsustainable environment where Black scholars and administrators must continually justify their presence, scholarship, and advocacy. Recognizing and responding to Dual Combat Strain is critical for creating environments where doctoral students who hold the identity of a campus administrator can thrive professionally and academically. Ultimately, acknowledging these realities allows institutions to better support doctoral students but also protect the future of equity work in higher education.