“A Duoethnographic Study of Transformative Experiences of International Faculty in a Predominantly White Institution in the Midwest”

Abstract

This duoethnographic study explores the transformative learning journeys of three international faculty at a Midwestern Predominantly White Institution (PWI) in the United States. Grounded in Mezirow’s transformative learning theory, the research analyzed how experiences of cultural adaptation and identity negotiation catalyzed professional and personal transformation. Our findings reveal transformation occurred through interconnected engagement across three academic domains: (1) teaching as a site of critical reflection and pedagogical agency; (2) research as identity work and scholarly agency; and (3) service as a pathway to advocacy and institutional belonging. The duoethnographic process fostered collaborative meaning-making, enabling us to reframe our cultural identities as sources of professional strength. We conclude that international faculty serve as vital agents who co-create transformative learning environments within the institution. The study offers a conceptual framework for understanding this integrative process and provides recommendations for institutional policy and faculty development supporting identity-affirming growth.

Keywords

international faculty transformative learning duoethnography Predominantly White Institution (PWI)faculty identity

Introduction

Higher education as a global enterprise is inherently about transformation in knowledge creation, equity, and social change. International faculty are central to this work, bringing diverse perspectives, cultural ways of knowing, and lived experiences that enrich institutional practices and broaden student learning (Kim et al., 2011). U.S. universities, supported by higher education policy makers and accrediting bodies, increasingly emphasize diversity, equity, and inclusion as core to their mission (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2015). Within this context, international faculty of color serve as vital contributors to institutional goals of global engagement and inclusive excellence. Their presence reflects universities’ commitments to diversity while also highlighting the ways faculty navigate adaptation, identity negotiation, and professional transformation in new academic settings.

Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs) across the country, including our own, are actively working to create environments where all faculty can thrive. For international faculty of color, this means navigating complex dynamics such as adapting to different cultural and linguistic expectations, balancing diverse professional responsibilities, and building collegial networks in new contexts (Altbach & Yudkevich, 2017; Nkabinde, 2010). These experiences offer opportunities for growth, both for institutions seeking to deepen their commitments to equity and for faculty who engage these experiences as part of their professional identity development.

Transformative education provides a particularly fitting lens for understanding this process. It emphasizes critical self-reflection, dialogue, and the reimagining of practices that foster inclusion and equity (Cranton & Taylor, 2012; Mezirow, 1978, 1991, 2000). While transformative learning has often been studied in the context of students (Kheang, 2019, 2022, 2025, 2026; Damianakis et al., 2019; Hassi et al., 2015; Namaste, 2017), little research directly explores how international faculty of color engage in transformative processes within their professional lives. Existing scholarship tends to treat international faculty as a homogenous group, overlooking the intersectional experiences of Black, Latino, and Asian scholars and the ways they co-create spaces of transformation within their institutions (Delgado & Sun, 2021; Jones et al., 2013; Lee & Janda, 2006; Lin et al., 2009; Marvasti, 2005).

This study is grounded in Mezirow’s (1978, 1991, 2000) transformative learning theory. Extending the theory beyond student development, we apply it to international faculty of color in a PWI context, arguing that teaching, research, and service represent distinct yet interconnected sites of transformative learning.

Because faculty experiences influence both individual growth and institutional climate, it is important to understand not only what international faculty do to succeed but also who they are becoming as educators, scholars, and mentors (Kim et al., 2011). By examining our own experiences as international faculty of color at a Midwestern PWI, we highlight how identity transformation unfolds through teaching, research, and service. In doing so, we contribute to the literature on transformative education while also offering insights that affirm our institution’s mission and demonstrate the value of international faculty contributions to academic excellence and inclusive practice.

Literature Review

Transformative Learning Theory and Its Evolution

Mezirow’s (1978, 1990, 1991) theory of transformative learning remains one of the most influential frameworks in adult and higher education. We selected Mezirow’s perspective transformation as our primary theoretical lens because it provides a clear, stage-based model for understanding how disorienting dilemmas trigger critical reflection, dialogue, and ultimately shifts in worldview, a process that closely mirrors the professional and identity negotiations experienced by international faculty in a PWI. He described transformative learning as a process of perspective transformation, which involves a structural shift in the way individuals see themselves and their relationships to the world. This transformation begins with a disorienting dilemma that prompts critical reflection, followed by an interrogation of one’s assumptions, dialogue with others, exploration of new roles, and ultimately, the adoption of new perspectives or behaviors.

Over time, scholars have enriched Mezirow’s (1990, 1991) cognitive model by emphasizing relational, affective, and embodied dimensions. Mezirow himself continued to refine the theory (Mezirow, 2000), further elaborating on the role of critical reflection and dialogue in adult learning. Cranton and Taylor (2012, 2016) highlighted the educator’s role in fostering authentic, critically reflective environments. Taylor and Cranton and Taylor (2012) pointed to the importance of trust and safety in learning. Dirkx (2006) advanced the emotional and imaginative aspects of transformation. These developments shifted the theory toward a more holistic, context-sensitive framework, a shift that informs our analysis of international faculty’s lived experiences.

Transformative Learning in Higher Education and the Focus on Faculty

Having outlined the theoretical evolution of transformative learning, we now turn to its application within higher education. In this context, transformative learning has often been applied to students, focusing on their identity development, professional growth, and civic engagement (Kheang, 2022). Far less attention has been given to faculty themselves as learners and as professionals undergoing transformation. Yet, just as students encounter disorienting dilemmas, faculty also navigate transformative experiences in relation to teaching, research, service, and professional identity development. Kasworm and Bowles (2012) noted that while higher education is a primary site for transformative learning, the focus has remained largely on students, leaving faculty’s own transformative journeys underexplored. This article builds on the transformative learning tradition by turning the lens inward, examining how international faculty of color engage transformative processes in their own careers.

While transformative learning theory has been productively applied to student experiences, its application to faculty, particularly international faculty of color, remains underdeveloped. This study addresses that gap by using Mezirow’s framework to examine how international faculty navigate disorienting dilemmas, engage in critical self-reflection, and enact new perspectives through their academic roles. In doing so, we not only apply transformative learning theory to a new population but also expand its conceptual boundaries to include the professional domains of teaching, research, and service as key arenas for transformative change. This study builds on the transformative learning tradition by turning the lens inward to examine how international faculty of color engage transformative processes in their own careers.

International Faculty and Transformation in Higher Education

International faculty are uniquely situated within this framework of transformation. By definition, they cross cultural, linguistic, and disciplinary boundaries, bringing with them diverse epistemologies, methodologies, and pedagogical practices (Kim et al., 2011). At U.S. universities, their contributions enrich student learning, broaden research agendas, and deepen institutional commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2015).

At the same time, scholarship documents the complexity of their professional journeys, including navigating linguistic differences, adapting to new institutional norms, and negotiating appropriate professional recognition and racialized expectations (Gravois, 2005; Lee & Janda, 2006; Settles et al., 2019). While existing studies aptly document barriers, they often stop short of examining how these challenges become catalysts for professional reinvention. Our study builds on this foundation by exploring how such barriers are actively negotiated and transformed into sources of pedagogical and scholarly agency. From a transformative learning perspective, these experiences can be seen as disorienting dilemmas that open pathways to growth.

Recent work by Fabbri and Romano (2022) on transformative teaching highlights how educators’ critical reflection and pedagogical redesign can serve as mechanisms for professional identity transformation, a process that resonates with the experiences of international faculty navigating cross-cultural teaching environments. By engaging in critical reflection, dialogue with colleagues, and reframing professional practices, international faculty embody transformative learning in action. They also facilitate transformation for others by modeling resilience, intercultural competence, and inclusive pedagogical practices. In this way, international faculty are not only learners but also catalysts of institutional transformation.

Gaps and Opportunities in the Literature

Much of the existing scholarship adopts a deficit-oriented lens, focusing on barriers rather than transformative agency (Kim et al., 2011; Lee & Janda, 2006). Moreover, transformative learning theory has been largely confined to student populations. As Kasworm and Bowles (2012) noted, faculty themselves are often overlooked as adult learners navigating professional transformations. Similarly, Fabbri and Romano (2022) on transformative teaching does not explicitly address the unique positionality of international faculty in PWIs. This study addresses these gaps by critically applying transformative learning theory to the lived experiences of international faculty, shifting the discourse from adaptation to transformation.

Intersectionality and Faculty Identity

An intersectional framework of race and sex (Crenshaw, 1989) provides a valuable lens for understanding the multidimensional identities of international faculty of color. As the authors of this study, Somanita (an Asian scholar), Regina (a Latina scholar), and Michael (a Black scholar), the intersections of race, nationality, gender, language, and professional role shape both opportunities and challenges across their academic and professional journeys. These layered positionalities influence how each of us experiences teaching, research, and service within a Midwestern PWI.

Scholarship has long noted that women of color in higher education often assume disproportionate responsibilities in service and mentorship, even as they excel in teaching and research (Li & Beckett, 2006; Turner et al., 2008). This pattern is further compounded for international women faculty of color, who face layers of missed opportunities, family obligations, and accumulated slights that slow their career progression compared to male peers, while also navigating intersecting expectations tied to gender, race, and cultural background (Delgado & Sun, 2021; Duckworth, 2024).

For Asian and Latino scholars, linguistic difference and cultural adaptation frequently intersect with racialization in academic spaces (Li & Beckett, 2006; Moll et al., 1992; Thomas & Hollenshead, 2001), shaping how expertise is perceived and how authority in the classroom is negotiated. These dynamics often position international faculty of color as practitioners of “cultural translation” (Buden et al., 2009, p. 196) and perpetual outsiders, even as their pedagogical and scholarly contributions enhance institutional diversity and global learning initiatives (Gutiérrez y Muhs et al., 2012; Padilla, 1994). For Black international faculty, the intersections of gender, race, and nationality create added layers of complexity. Although their global perspectives enrich scholarship and pedagogy, their gender, expertise, and professional identities are often underrecognized and filtered through U.S.-centric racial hierarchies, which can marginalize or distort international experiences and knowledge systems (Griffin & Reddick, 2011; Holley, 2021). This body of literature collectively underscores how systemic structures within academia simultaneously rely on and undervalue the intellectual and emotional labor of international faculty of color.

While these dynamics can heighten the pressures of faculty life, they also underscore the transformative potential of international faculty identities. Each of us draws on our intersecting positionalities to reimagine pedagogy, expand scholarly conversations, and mentor students in ways that embody diversity and inclusion in practice. This multiplicity of perspectives broadens institutional definitions of knowledge, challenges narrow assumptions, and contributes to a more expansive vision of academic excellence.

In this way, our experiences shared in this duoethnographic study align with Mezirow’s (1991) insight that transformation is sparked by the interrogation of assumptions and expanded through dialogue across difference. By navigating and reframing the intersections of race, gender, language, and nationality, we not only undergo our own processes of transformative learning but also serve as catalysts for institutional transformation. Our narratives, therefore, illustrate how international faculty of color embody resilience, creativity, and leadership in advancing the mission of inclusiveness in higher education.

Research Design and Methods

Duoethnography (Burleigh & Burm, 2022) provides an ideal methodological framework for exploring international faculty of color dynamics in a Midwestern PWI. As a dialogic and reflexive research approach, duoethnography highlights both similarities and differences in participants’ experiences, treating these as opportunities for mutual transformation. By engaging in extended reflexive conversations and written dialogues, researchers interrogate their lived experiences, uncover assumptions and reciprocal views, and collaboratively reframe understandings (Calderwood & Rizzo, 2022).

In recent years, duoethnography has been used to examine teacher identity (Breault, 2016), cross-cultural learning (Becker & Zakharova, 2025), and faculty development (Long et al., 2021). Its emphasis on reflexivity, authenticity, and critical dialogue makes it especially well-suited to exploring the transformative journeys of international faculty of color. Situating our work within this design helps us affirm our institution's commitment to reflective practice, faculty development, and global engagement as part of its broader mission.

Our study thus contributes to the literature by linking Mezirow’s transformative learning theory to the lived experiences of international faculty. We argue that teaching, research, and service are not only professional responsibilities but also sites of transformation where international faculty actively negotiate identity, enact resilience, and contribute to institutional excellence.

Study Design and Institutional Context

This study was conducted at a U.S. Midwestern PWI that has placed student success and inclusivity at the center of its mission. Our university recognizes that international faculty brings essential perspectives that strengthen academic excellence, broaden global engagement, and enrich student experiences and success. However, as a PWI, the university environment shapes their international faculty of color’s professional experiences. By creating supportive environments for faculty development, the institution fosters both individual and collective transformation.

As early-career and mid-career international faculty of color at this institution, we formed a duoethnographic research collective to investigate our own professional journeys through the lens of transformative learning theory (Mezirow, 1978, 1991). Specifically, we asked: How do international faculty of color experience, negotiate, and reframe transformation in their professional lives through teaching, research, and service at a PWI in the Midwestern U.S. university?

This guiding question reflects our dual focus: understanding faculty identity as an ongoing process of transformation and highlighting how international faculty advance institutional goals of inclusive excellence.

Data Collection

Data for this duoethnographic study were generated through a structured, iterative process of written and dialogic engagement, a cornerstone of the methodology that facilitates deep mutual inquiry (Burleigh & Burm, 2022). The collection period spanned six months, from January to June 2025, and was designed to elicit rich, contextualized narratives of our lived experiences as international faculty of color within a Midwestern PWI.

The process commenced with each researcher composing an initial personal narrative. These narratives were crafted in response to a shared protocol of prompts designed to stimulate reflection on transformative experiences, disorienting dilemmas, and moments of critical reflection specifically within the professional domains of teaching, research, and service. This independent writing phase ensured that each voice was articulated in its own terms before entering the collaborative dialogue.

Following the completion of these initial narratives, we engaged in three cycles of exchange. The first cycle involved a written exchange, where we shared our narratives and provided detailed written responses to each other’s accounts. These responses served to pose clarifying questions, identify resonances, and probe deeper into emerging themes. The second cycle consisted of a one-and-a-half-hour synchronous Zoom meeting, which was dedicated to an open dialogue about the connections, tensions, and insights surfacing from the written exchange. This session was recorded and transcribed verbatim to capture the full nuance of the conversation. The third cycle involved a final round of iterative reflection, where the insights from the synchronous dialogue informed further written elaboration and refinement of our ideas.

This multi-layered approach resulted in a comprehensive corpus of qualitative data. The primary data set included the initial personal narratives written by the three authors. The secondary data set consisted of the verbatim transcript from the Zoom meeting. In total, the process yielded over 80 pages of dense, reflective text. Consistent with the principles of duoethnography, we treated this entire corpus not as a static archive but as a living document, a record of an evolving dialogue where meanings were continuously questioned, negotiated, and refined through our critical engagement with one another’s experiences.

Data Analysis

The analysis of our duoethnographic data was guided by a reflexive approach to thematic analysis, as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006). We selected this method for its theoretical flexibility and its powerful utility for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) across a qualitative dataset. This approach was particularly congruent with our duoethnographic design, as it facilitates a deep engagement with the nuances of lived experience while providing a structured yet flexible framework for collaborative sense-making. Our analysis was not a linear process but an iterative cycle of reading, discussion, and refinement, moving from individual reflection to a co-constructed interpretation of our collective experiences.

The analysis unfolded in three recursive phases, adapting the six-step process described by Braun and Clarke (2006) to our collaborative, insider-researcher context.

Phase 1: Familiarization and Initial Coding

The first phase involved a deep immersion in the data corpus, which comprised over 80 pages of dialogic text from our individually written narratives and response cycles, supplemented by the transcript from our Zoom dialogue. Each researcher began by independently reading and re-reading the entire dataset to achieve familiarization, actively noting initial ideas and patterns.

Following this, we conducted a systematic, line-by-line coding of the data. Working independently, we generated concise, descriptive codes that captured the essence of key statements related to transformative learning, identity negotiation, and professional practice. This initial coding was intentionally inclusive, aiming to capture a wide range of insights. We approached this task with explicit reflexivity, acknowledging that our distinct positionalities as an Asian, a Latina, and a Black scholar inherently shaped our interpretations of what constituted a significant datum.

Phase 2: Generating and Reviewing Themes

In the second phase, we transitioned from codes to potential themes through collaborative dialogue. We met in May 2025 to compare our initial codebooks, engaging in critical discussion to negotiate a shared understanding of the data. This dialogic process involved grouping similar codes into broader candidate themes and sub-themes. For instance, codes such as “pedagogical adaptation,” “classroom as relational space,” and “integrating global perspectives” were clustered into a potential theme we tentatively labeled “Teaching as a Site of Transformation.”

We then reviewed these candidate themes in two ways. First, we considered their validity against the entire dataset (a thematic map review), ensuring each theme was supported by numerous coded extracts. Second, we conducted a quality review, assessing whether each theme presented a coherent, compelling, and distinct pattern. This phase was highly iterative, requiring us to split, combine, and discard themes until we arrived at a robust thematic structure that accurately represented the collective narrative.

Phase 3: Defining and Naming Themes

The final phase involved refining the essence of each theme and determining its scope and boundaries. We defined what each theme captured and, just as importantly, what it did not capture. For the theme “Research as Identity Work and Scholarly Agency,” for example, we articulated how it encompassed the struggle for epistemic legitimacy, the use of personal narrative in scholarship, and the act of researching for one’s community.

Through further discussion, we developed clear and concise names for each theme to communicate their core ideas effectively to the reader. The final three themes were solidified as follows: (1) teaching as a site of critical reflection and pedagogical agency, (2) research as identity work and scholarly agency, and (3) service as a pathway to advocacy and institutional belonging. The analysis concluded with the selection of vivid, encapsulating narrative excerpts from each author for the findings section, ensuring our results remained firmly grounded in the participants’ own voices.

Throughout this process, the duoethnographic commitment to dialogue was paramount. Thematic analysis provided the systematic framework, but our conversations were the engine of analysis, ensuring our interpretations were continually tested, challenged, and enriched by our multiple perspectives. This rigorous, collaborative approach ensured the trustworthiness and analytic depth of our findings.

Researcher Positioning and Reflexivity

As authors in this duoethnographic study, we approached this inquiry with full recognition that our positionalities shape both the stories we tell and the interpretations we make. We are three international faculty of color working at a supportive Midwestern PWI in the United States. Somanita, an Asian woman scholar, brings experiences of migration, linguistic adaptation, and scholarly resilience. Regina, a Latina scholar, carries with her the complexities of racialization, cultural adaptation, and a commitment to community-based engagement. Michael, a Black man scholar navigates the intersections of race and nationality, offering global perspectives that challenge and enrich U.S.-centric understandings of higher education.

Our positionalities are not static descriptors but lived, evolving intersections of race, gender, language, nationality, and professional role. These shape how we experience teaching, research, and service, as well as how we engage in transformative learning processes within academia. Reflexivity was central to our analytic approach: we regularly questioned how our perspectives influenced the passages we highlighted, the themes we constructed, and the meanings we drew from our narratives. Through dialogue, we acknowledged both the privileges and the vulnerabilities of our positions, and we treated these moments of recognition as sites of learning rather than as limitations.

Importantly, our institution provides the supportive context within which this exploration unfolds. Rather than being a site of deficit, our university has been a space where international faculty identities are welcomed, celebrated, and transformed. The opportunities to engage in research, to mentor diverse student populations, and to contribute to global perspectives within our disciplines reflect institutional commitments to inclusive excellence. While the dynamics we describe resonate with broader national and global trends for international faculty, our reflections illustrate how our university is actively cultivating a climate in which international faculty thrive, not only adapting to but also reshaping institutional culture.

Ethical Consideration

Data collection and discussion were consensual, and we followed ethical protocols consistent with the principles of respect for persons (ensuring voluntary participation and informed consent), beneficence (minimizing harm and maximizing benefits), and justice (equitable subject selection). We also maintained confidentiality, clearly stated the risks and benefits of participation, ensured the right to withdraw, and debriefed participants during and after the study. These procedures align with the guidelines outlined in the Belmont Report (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2025).

Because duoethnography foregrounds personal narratives and reflexive dialogue, we adopted additional safeguards to protect integrity, transparency, and mutual comfort throughout the process. After drafting our individual narratives, each of us carefully reviewed the excerpts proposed for inclusion in the article, confirming that they authentically represented our experiences and that we were comfortable making them public. Only passages receiving explicit approval from their authors were retained for analysis and publication.

We also engaged in ongoing dialogue about the ethical implications of sharing our lived experiences, recognizing that self-disclosure can be both empowering and vulnerable. This iterative consent process reflects our shared responsibility for care and accountability, consistent with the values of transformative education.

Importantly, we were intentional in framing our narratives in alignment with our institution’s mission. Our reflections are presented not as critiques of deficit but as scholarly contributions that affirm the university’s commitments to global engagement, inclusive excellence, and the professional flourishing of international faculty. By situating our experiences within this supportive institutional context, our aim is to advance the broader field of transformative education while also highlighting how our university models practices that enable international faculty to thrive as educators, researchers, and mentors.

Findings

Guided by the principles of duoethnography, our analysis does not merely report three individual experiences but curates a conversation among them. By placing the narratives of the authors (Somanita, Regina, and Michael) in dialogue, we identified three sites of professional practice where our stories converge, diverge, and ultimately co-construct a deeper understanding of identity negotiation and transformative growth at a PWI. Through this dialogic process, three overarching themes emerged.

Theme 1: Teaching as a Site of Critical Reflection and Pedagogical Agency

The classroom emerged across the narratives not as a neutral setting but as a dynamic and often contested space where cultural identity, communicative norms, and teaching philosophies intersected. Within Mezirow’s framework, each participant’s journey began with a disorienting dilemma that triggered critical reflection and pedagogical reinvention.

Somanita’s experience exemplifies this turning point. After delivering a carefully prepared presentation of her teaching approach, she was advised by a peer, “You should be more assertive in your assignment description.” This feedback served as a disorienting dilemma, prompting her to critically reflect on cultural differences in communication styles. Rather than internalizing this as a shortcoming, she reframed the incident as a “cultural mismatch and an opportunity to grow.” This reflection marked a shift from self-doubt to agency, leading her to intentionally integrate her cultural perspective into her teaching. She said, “I began to bring my full self,” creating classrooms that honor multiple ways of knowing and communicating. Her pedagogy incorporated collectivist values, exemplified by assignments inspired by the Cambodian proverb, “A bundle of sticks cannot be broken,” which emphasized collaborative learning and mutual support. Through rational discourse with colleagues and students, Somanita enacted a perspective transformation, reframing her cultural identity as a pedagogical asset rather than a barrier.

Michael’s story echoes this theme of contested authority, though his response took a different form. When mistaken for a computer technician based on his appearance, he encountered a disorienting dilemma rooted in racial and professional stereotyping. He confronted stereotypes directly through pedagogical tools such as his “Guess Who I Am” icebreaker. This exercise encouraged students to critically examine their assumptions about identity, privilege, and representation, a form of structured rational discourse designed to foster critical reflection among learners. His approach externalized the process of challenging bias, creating structured opportunities for cognitive dissonance and dialogue within the classroom. In doing so, Michael transformed a moment of marginalization into a teachable moment, advancing both his own and his students’ perspective transformation.

Regina’s voice enters this dialogue by broadening the scope of pedagogical responsibility beyond the self. Her reflection on student diversity, including the realization that white students were not a monolith and that students of color felt isolated, led her to a philosophy of intentional community-building. Her reflective practice, a key component of Mezirow’s critical reflection phase, enabled her to redesign her pedagogy to foster inclusion. Her practice of “highlighting the individual values and the wealth of experiences every student brought to the classroom” serves as a bridge between Michael’s direct confrontations of bias and Somanita’s journey toward self-affirmation. Through ongoing dialogue with students (rational discourse), she cultivated a classroom ecology that supports perspective transformation for all participants.

Together, their narratives show that transformative teaching at a PWI requires both internal resilience against misrecognition and an external commitment to crafting an inclusive classroom ecology. More importantly, they illustrate how Mezirow’s transformative learning process, disorienting dilemma, critical reflection, rational discourse, and perspective transformation, unfold within the teaching domain, enabling international faculty to reclaim agency and reshape pedagogical practice.

Theme 2: Research as Identity Work and Scholarly Agency

The duoethnographic conversation around research reveals a shared trajectory from feeling excluded by dominant academic paradigms to actively reclaiming and centering their identities as a source of scholarly agency. This trajectory follows Mezirow’s process: a disorienting dilemma triggers critical reflection, leading to a renegotiated scholarly identity.

Somanita provides an explicit articulation of this tension, stating that dominant frameworks like critical race theory “did not resonate with my experiences as an Asian woman and international scholar.” This epistemic dissonance acted as a disorienting dilemma, propelling her to design research that amplifies underrepresented voices and to see herself as a “missing piece in the puzzle.” Her narrative speaks directly to Michael’s scholarly philosophy. He frames his identity not as a hurdle but as a foundational “fund of knowledge,” a cognitive resource stemming from “a wide range of cultural, linguistic, and socio-historical knowledge.” For both scholars, critical reflection on their positionality led to a perspective transformation: they began to view their identities not as deficits but as unique epistemological resources.

Regina’s experience adds a pragmatic layer to this dialogue. While she felt her expertise was valued, she also voiced the practical challenge of pursuing her research line without a built-in team, noting it “has been a little challenging when you don’t feel like you have a team.” This structural isolation presented another form of disorienting dilemma, prompting her to seek out alternative forms of scholarly community and collaboration. This practical hurdle highlights the institutional structures that can marginalize international scholarship, making the agency that Somanita and Michael describe even more significant.

All three narratives converge on the same point: their research became a form of identity work. For Regina, it was using examples from her country of origin; for Michael, it was drawing on personal stories and multilingualism; for Somanita, it was creating space for unheard narratives. Through rational discourse with their fields, via publications, presentations, and peer engagement, they tested and validated these new, identity-informed scholarly approaches. Their research became the mechanism through which they transformed their perceived marginality into a unique scholarly contribution, ultimately achieving a perspective transformation that redefined what counts as legitimate knowledge within their academic domains.

Theme 3: Service as a Pathway to Advocacy and Institutional Belonging

The participants’ narratives expose a critical paradox: the expectation to serve on diversity committees can be a disproportionate burden, yet it is also reclaimed as a platform for advocacy and institutional influence. This paradox serves as a collective disorienting dilemma within Mezirow’s framework.

Regina names this paradox directly, identifying “multiple diversity-related activities and committees” as a “recurrent demand for international faculty.” However, she consciously reframed this demand, choosing to see it “as an opportunity to advocate for other minoritized individuals on campus, especially students.” This reframing represents a critical reflective turn, through which she transformed a sense of obligation into a sense of purpose. This sentiment is powerfully echoed in Somanita’s transformative view of service. She describes evolving from a place of “obligation and self-doubt” to recognizing her “visibility as an Asian faculty member” as a potent “form of advocacy.” For her, service became “a means to build community, shift narratives, and foster belonging,” a stark contrast to its origins as a bureaucratic duty. Her journey exemplifies a perspective transformation, where service is reconceived as a site of leadership and cultural translation rather than mere institutional labor.

Michael’s narrative extends this concept of service beyond committee work into broader academic leadership. His efforts to “organize international conferences and travel with colleagues and graduate students” to expand frames of reference is a form of professional service that aligns with Somanita’s and Regina’s advocacy. Here, service becomes a scholarly project of internationalization, transforming a professional duty into a platform for challenging parochial perspectives and building global networks. Through this expanded form of rational discourse, which facilitates cross-border academic dialogue, he enacted a form of service that directly contributes to perspective transformation at an institutional level.

In dialogue, these accounts show that the path to belonging for international faculty is often forged through the very service roles that might otherwise typecast them. While the disproportionate burden is a real and pressing equity issue that institutions must address, Somanita, Regina, and Michael demonstrate that service also holds transformative potential. By applying Mezirow’s lens, all three authors navigated the disorienting dilemma of cultural taxation, engaged in critical reflection and dialogue, and ultimately reclaimed service as a vehicle for perspective transformation, both for themselves and for their institution. Through their agency, they leveraged these roles to build supportive communities, advocate for marginalized students and colleagues, and ultimately, to reshape their institution into spaces where they and others could find a sense of purpose and belonging.

Discussion

This duoethnographic study explores the transformative learning experiences of international faculty at a Midwestern PWI in the United States by analyzing the dialogic interplay among three narratives. The analysis did not seek to present a single, unified truth but to engage in a critical conversation that reveals the multifaceted nature of identity negotiation, agency, and transformative learning. The findings illuminate how teaching, research, and service are not merely professional responsibilities but vital sites of struggle, reflection, and growth. Our discussion interprets these findings through Mezirow’s (1978, 1991) transformative learning theory and the concept of funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992).

Theorizing the Transformation: From Disorienting Dilemmas to Integrated Identities

The journeys of Somanita, Regina, and Michael vividly illustrate Mezirow’s (1978, 1990, 1991) transformative learning process, moving sequentially through disorienting dilemmas, critical reflection, rational discourse, and perspective transformation. For Somanita, it was receiving feedback on her assertiveness; for Michael, it was being mistaken for staff; and for Regina, it was the isolating reality of being the only Hispanic in her department. These disorienting dilemmas triggered critical self-reflection, forcing them to examine their deeply held assumptions about their place in academia.

This aligns with Mezirow’s (1978) concept of the disorienting dilemma yet extends it by contextualizing these triggers within the racialized and cultural dynamics of a PWI. As Kasworm and Bowles (2012) argued, transformative learning in higher education often occurs in response to “disjuncture” between personal identity and institutional expectations, a dynamic illustrated in our participants’ narratives. However, this study extends the theory by highlighting that for international faculty, transformation is not solely an individual cognitive process but is also relational and contextual, negotiated within and against the specific cultural and structural frameworks of the PWI.

The resolution of these dilemmas was not assimilation but integration. The participants did not shed their cultural identities; they learned to leverage them as what Michael termed “funds of knowledge” (Moll et al., 1992). Somanita’s reframing of her communication style in her assignment description from a deficit to a unique asset, Michael’s use of his multilingualism as “intellectual gravitas,” and Regina’s incorporation of her cultural perspective into her research and teaching all exemplify this shift. This process echoes what Fabbri and Romano (2022) described as “transformative teaching,” where educators draw on personal and cultural resources to redesign pedagogical practices in ways that affirm identity and foster inclusive learning. Similarly, our findings reinforce Kasworm and Bowles’ (2012) observation that transformative learning in academic settings involves both internal reflection and external action, which they term “praxis.” They moved from being perceived as “cultural others” to becoming “cultural translators,” actively using their unique positionality to enrich their pedagogy, scholarly contributions, and service. This transformation aligns with the concept of “perspective transformation” (Mezirow, 1978), in which a revised worldview allows for more inclusive and integrative practices.

A Mezirowian Analysis: Mapping the Specifics of Transformation

To move beyond a generic application of transformative learning theory, we applied Mezirow’s specific constructs to dissect the nature and process of participants’ transformations. This granular analysis addresses the core components of Mezirow’s framework: the locus (meaning scheme vs. perspective), the process (accretion vs. sudden), the mechanism (type of reflection), and the phases of change.

Locus of Transformation: From Meaning Schemes to Meaning Perspectives

For all participants, the disorienting dilemmas initially targeted specific meaning schemes, beliefs about pedagogical authority Somanita, professional recognition Michael, and scholarly legitimacy Regina. However, through sustained critical reflection, the transformation escalated to the level of meaning perspective. Each scholar fundamentally shifted their overarching worldview from one that implicitly positioned their international identity as a professional liability to one that explicitly frames it as a unique source of strength and insight. This shift from assimilating to institutional norms to integrating and expanding those norms with their cultural funds of knowledge represents a transformative change in perspective.

Process of Transformation: Accretion Catalyzed by Pivotal Events

The transformation was not solely the result of a single dramatic event, though such events served as powerful catalysts (e.g., being mistaken for staff). Instead, the process was primarily one of accretion, built upon a series of smaller, recurring dissonant experiences, subtle feedback, linguistic microaggressions, and service burdens, that cumulatively eroded old assumptions. The pivotal “dilemma” often served to crystallize these accumulated tensions, triggering the focused critical reflection necessary for perspective transformation.

Mechanism of Transformation: The Centrality of Premise Reflection

The depth of transformation was determined by the type of critical reflection employed. While content reflection (analyzing the event itself) and process reflection (evaluating one’s reaction) were present, the transformative breakthrough occurred through premise reflection. As Mezirow (1991, pp. 110–111) defined it, premise reflection involves the re-examination of our presuppositions and premises; that is, our prior learning that constructs the way we make sense of the world. This is not simply asking “why” questions but critically interrogating the very interpretive frameworks through which we have learned to see ourselves, others, and institutional life.

For the authors in this study, premise reflection meant stepping back from the immediate disorienting dilemma to examine the learned premises that had shaped their expectations. Somanita had to interrogate the premise, learned through her prior cultural and educational socialization, that collaborative communication is universally valued as effective. Michael had to re-examine the premise, constructed through both his home country experiences and his professional training, that expertise would be recognized absent visible markers of authority. Regina had to confront the premise, built through years of academic socialization, that scholarly legitimacy flows naturally from expertise rather than being mediated by access to established research teams.

In each case, transformation required not merely asking “why did this happen” but fundamentally revising the prior learning that had organized their sense-making. This deep interrogation of foundational premises about power, knowledge, and belonging was the engine of their perspective transformation.

Phases of Transformation: A Completed Cycle

Our narrative illustrates a journey that aligns with Mezirow’s (1990, 1991) full phase model of perspective transformation. While Phases 1–3 (Disorienting Dilemma, Critical Self-Examination, and Critical Assessment of Assumptions) are evident in each participant’s initial confrontation with institutional norms, our analysis particularly illuminates their progression through the later phases:

Phases 4–6 (Exploration, Planning, Acquisition): Participants actively explored new professional roles, planned pedagogical or scholarly actions, and acquired skills to implement their transformed perspectives.

Phases 7–10 (Trying New Roles, Building Confidence, Reintegration): They experimented with new identities as cultural translators, built confidence in these roles, and ultimately reintegrated into their institution with an asset-based worldview.

This complete progression from initial dissonance to empowered reintegration demonstrates that transformation was both a reflective and an enacted process, structured through Mezirow’s phased framework. This detailed Mezirowian analysis clarifies what transformed (worldviews), how (through accrued premise reflection), and to what end (agentic reintegration). It demonstrates that the “shift from self-doubt to agency” was not a simple change in attitude but a structural cognitive and emotional reorganization achieved through the specific transformative learning processes Mezirow theorized.

Service as Structural Paradox and Site of Agency

This study highlights the dual role of service in the lives of international faculty. Consistent with existing scholarship, participants experienced “cultural taxation” (Padilla, 1994), or the disproportionate expectation to serve on diversity-related committees, which Regina described as a “recurrent demand.” This reflects broader findings that women and faculty of color often carry invisible labor undervalued in reward systems (Gutiérrez y Muhs et al., 2012).

At the same time, our duoethnography reveals service as a space of agency and influence. Somanita and Regina reframed service from obligation to opportunity, using it for advocacy, community-building, and mentorship. This parallels Delgado and Sun (2021), Thomas and Hollenshead (2001), and Turner et al. (2008), who show how faculty of color strategically create counterspace for belonging. By reclaiming service as leadership, participants turned a structural burden into a mechanism for change, demonstrating the resourcefulness of international faculty in advancing inclusive excellence.

Advancing Transformative Learning Theory

This study advances transformative learning theory in two keyways. First, it applies Mezirow’s framework to international faculty, a population whose transformative journeys have been largely overlooked in the literature. By doing so, we demonstrate that transformative learning is not confined to formal educational settings or student experiences but is equally relevant to faculty professional development and identity negotiation.

Second, and more specifically, our Mezirowian analysis expands the theory by demonstrating how tis core constructs, meaning perspective, premise reflection, and the full phases model, manifest within the intersectional and institutional context of a PWI. For international faculty, transformation involves navigating intersecting identities and structural dynamics, thereby enriching Mezirow’s model with a necessary contextual and critical lens. Our findings thus contribute to a more nuanced, context-sensitive understanding of transformative learning in higher education.

Implications for Practice

The narratives presented in this duoethnographic study point to several critical implications for PWIs seeking to better support international faculty. First, mentorship and onboarding must move beyond formal programs to provide proactive, relational support that helps faculty navigate both explicit and hidden norms. Second, faculty development should validate a diversity of pedagogical approaches rather than privilege a single dominant model.

Third, targeted research supports, such as seed grants and collaborative networks, can help international faculty translate their unique perspectives into institutional contributions. Finally, service must be recognized as both a site of cultural taxation and a form of leadership. Equitable distribution and formal recognition of this work are essential if institutions are to move from simply recruiting international faculty toward creating conditions in which they can thrive as agents of transformative change.

Recommendations for Further Research

This study opens several avenues for future research. First, research with larger and more demographically diverse groups of international faculty could clarify how factors such as country of origin, race, gender, discipline, and institutional type shape experiences across academic roles. Expanding beyond education-related fields would further illuminate how disciplinary norms influence transformative learning.

Second, longitudinal studies tracking career progression from onboarding through tenure could reveal systemic barriers and the long-term impact of institutional supports on retention and identity transformation. Third, research examining administrators and senior faculty perceive their roles in supporting international colleagues could uncover gaps between policy and practice, informing more effective mentorship and inclusion strategies.

Fourth, studies of professional development initiatives could explore how faculty and students adapt to and benefit from the diverse pedagogies and perspectives introduced by international faculty, helping institutions enact, rather than merely espouse, inclusive excellence. Fifth, comparative studies across institutions with varying climates of support could reveal how structural and cultural factors enable or constrain transformative agency, particularly in less supportive or hostile environments where resilience and resistance strategies may differ.

Finally, further research should investigate how departmental cultures, college-level policies, and discipline-specific expectations mediate international faculty experiences. Examining these organizational layers would provide a more nuanced understanding of how transformative learning is facilitated or constrained within academia.

Limitations

As with all research, this study has limitations. Duoethnography privileges depth and reflexivity over breadth, providing illustrative rather than generalizable claims. The authors are situated within education-related disciplines, where discourses of diversity, pedagogy, and critical reflection are often prominent. The transformative processes we described may manifest differently, or face distinct constraints, in fields with different epistemological traditions, reward systems, or demographic profiles, such as STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), the arts, or professional schools. Furthermore, our analysis focuses primarily on the institutional and individual levels; the mediating influence of intermediate organizational layers, such as departmental cultures, college-level leadership, and disciplinary norms, remains an important area for future exploration.

Furthermore, our study was conducted at an institution that actively supports diversity and faculty development. The supportive climate likely facilitated the transformative processes we documented, enabling participants to reframe challenges as sites of professional growth. The experiences of international faculty in less supportive, under-resourced, or overtly hostile institutional environments may differ significantly and warrant focused investigation.

Finally, the perspectives of international faculty who have left academia are not represented here, and their experiences may differ in important ways from those who remain. Acknowledging these boundaries highlights the situated nature of our work while also affirming its contribution: to deepen understanding of how international faculty navigate institutional structures, negotiate professional and cultural expectations, and transform their academic and personal identities within the PWI.

Conclusion

This duoethnographic study highlights the transformative learning journeys of international faculty at a U.S. Midwestern PWI. Participants’ narratives illustrate how teaching, research, and service function as sites of struggle, reflection, and growth, moving from dissonance toward agency and belonging. Grounded in Mezirow’s (1978, 1991) transformative learning theory, this research extends the framework by applying it to the underexplored experiences of international faculty of color. Our findings demonstrate that the disorienting dilemmas they encounter, whether in the classroom, the research process, or institutional service, act as catalysts for critical reflection and perspective transformation, thereby enriching and expanding the theoretical model to include professional academic contexts.

Their experiences demonstrate that success depends not only on individual resilience but also on institutional environments that either constrain or enable transformation. We argue that international faculty are not outsiders but cultural translators, bridge builders, and agents of change. For higher education to benefit fully from their contributions, institutions must move beyond recruitment toward creating structures that support and are reshaped by international scholars.

These findings contribute to a more nuanced understanding of international faculty experiences, challenging deficit-oriented perspectives that often position them as peripheral members of academic communities. By explicitly framing these journeys through the lens of transformative learning theory, this study advances the field of transformative education, illustrating how the theory can be adapted to understand identity negotiation and professional growth in faculty development contexts. By highlighting their active roles in shaping institutional culture and knowledge exchange, this study underscores the value of recognizing and leveraging the unique insights and skills that international scholars bring to teaching, research, and service.

Institutionally, this work suggests that supporting international faculty requires intentional policies and practices that foster inclusion, mentorship, and professional growth. Higher education leaders should consider mechanisms for collaboration, cross-cultural dialogue, and structural support that allow international faculty to thrive. Doing so not only enhances international faculty success and retention but also strengthens the capacity of institutions to cultivate inclusive, globally responsive, and innovative academic environments.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Somanita Kheang

Regina J. Giraldo-García

Michael T. Ndemanu

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Somanita Kheang is an Assistant Professor of Educational Studies in the Department of Educational Studies at Teachers College, Ball State University. Her research uses andragogy, transformative learning, and the impostor phenomenon to explore adult learning experiences and satisfaction in postsecondary education. She has examined these theories and phenomena with diverse research participants, including nontraditional and international students from varied educational, cultural, and professional backgrounds in higher education.

Regina J. Giraldo-Garcia is an Associate Professor of Research Methods in the Department of Educational Studies at Teachers College, Ball State University. Her research, grounded in sociocultural, critical, and developmental theories, explores social justice in education with a focus on factors that influence the academic success of disenfranchised students. She also investigates critical thinking, technology in education, adult learning, and the role of mentors as agents of empowerment.

Michael T. Ndemanu is an Associate Professor of Multicultural Education in the Department of Educational Studies at Teachers College, Ball State University. His research focuses on multicultural education, transformative education, African American Vernacular English, English learner pedagogy, transnational education, translingual literacy, social justice, and peace education. He is also the Executive Director of Global Institute for Transformative Education (GITE), a U.S.-based non-profit firm designed to improve the quality of instruction and curriculum in developing countries.

References

Altbach

P. G.

Yudkevich

(2017). Twenty-first century mobility: The role of international faculty. International Higher Education, (90), 8–10. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2017.90.9995

Association of American Colleges and Universities . (2015). Committing to equity and inclusive excellence. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED556762.pdf

Becker

Zakharova

(2025). Bridging cultures in academia: A duoethnography of cross-cultural collaboration and self-reflexivity in warsaw, Poland. European Education, 1–14(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10564934.2025.2516715

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Breault

R. A.

(2016). Emerging issues in duoethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(6), 777–794. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2016.1162866

Buden

Nowotny

Simon

Bery

Cronin

(2009). Cultural translation: An introduction to the problem, and responses. Translation Studies, 2(2), 196–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700902937730

Burleigh

Burm

(2022). Doing duoethnography: Addressing essential methodological questions. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, 16094069221140876. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221140876

Calderwood

K. A.

Rizzo

L. N.

(2022). Co-creating a transformative learning environment through the student-supervisor relationship: Results of a social work field placement duo-ethnography. Journal of Transformative Education, 21(1), 138–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/15413446221079590

Cranton

(2002). Teaching for transformation. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2002(93), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.50

10.

Cranton

(2016). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide to theory and practice (3rd. ed.). Routledge.

11.

Cranton

Taylor

E. W.

(2012). Transformative learning theory: Seeking a more unified theory. In Taylor

E. W.

Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 3–20). Jossey-Bass.

12.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1). https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8

13.

Damianakis

Barrett

Archer-Kuhn

Samson

P. L.

Matin

Ahern

(2019). Transformative learning in graduate education: Masters of social work students’ experiences of personal and professional learning. Studies in Higher Education, 45(9), 2011–2029. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1650735

14.

Delgado

R. K. G.

Sun

(2021). Challenges, changes, and choices: Immigrant academics of color in American academia. Adult Learning, 33(3), 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159521997583

15.

Dirkx

J. M.

(2006). Engaging emotions in adult learning: A Jungian perspective on emotion and transformative learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2006(109), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.204

16.

Duckworth

(2024). Women who left the higher education profession: A dissertation in practice [Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa]. Iowa Research Online. https://doi.org/10.25820/etd.007658

17.

Fabbri

Romano

(2022). Transformative teaching in higher education. Pensa MultiMedia editore s.r.l.

18.

Gravois

(2005). Teach impediment: When student can’t understand the instructor, who is to blame? Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/teach-impediment/.

19.

Griffin

K. A.

Reddick

R. J.

(2011). Surveillance and sacrifice: Gender differences in the mentoring patterns of black professors at predominantly white research universities. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1032–1057. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211405025

20.

Gutiérrez y Muhs

Niemann

Y. F.

González

C. G.

Harris

A. P.

(Eds.), (2012). Presumed incompetent: The intersections of race and class for women in academia. Utah State University Press.

21.

Hassi

M.-L.

Laursen

S. L.

(2015). Transformative learning: Personal empowerment in learning mathematics. Journal of Transformative Education, 13(4), 316–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344615587111

22.

Holley

M. B.

(2021). Waive it away: Systemic injustices against black and brown faculty and staff professionals, past and present [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida]. USF Tampa Graduate Theses and Dissertations. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd/9129

23.

Jones

S. J.

Taylor

C. M.

Coward

(2013). Through the looking glass: An autoethnographic view of the perceptions of race and institutional support in the tenure process. The Qualitative Report, 18(29), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2013.1490

24.

Kasworm

C. E.

Bowles

T. A.

(2012). Fostering transformative learning in higher education settings. In Taylor

E. W.

Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 388–407). Jossey-Bass.

25.

Kheang

(2019). Intersection between andragogy and transformative learning. In: Proceedings of adult education research conference, USA, 2019, June 9. https://newprairiepress.org/aerc/2019/papers/30

26.

Kheang

(2022). Towards discovering new identity: Transformative learning experience as an international student in Thailand. In: Proceedings of adult education research conference, USA, 2022, June 10. https://newprairiepress.org/aerc/2022/papers/5/

27.

Kheang

(2025). Reimagining academic writing in practice: Insights from andragogical and transformative perspectives. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.51830/001c.154399

28.

Kheang

(2026). Impostor phenomenon and identity transformation among Asian nontraditional doctoral students. Journal of Transformative Education, 24(2), 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/15413446251393675

29.

Kim

Wolf-Wendel

Twombly

(2011). International faculty: Experiences of academic life and productivity in U.S. universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(6), 720–747. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2011.11777225. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41337168

30.

Lee

Janda

(2006). Successful multicultural campus: Free from prejudice toward minority professors. Multicultural Education, 14(1), 27–30. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ759643.pdf

31.

Beckett

G. H.

(Eds.), (2006). “strangers” of the academy: Asian women scholars in higher education. Stylus. https://dokumen.pub/strangers-of-the-academy-asian-women-scholars-in-higher-education-1579221211-9781579221218-1579221203-9781579221201-9781435605664.html

32.

Lin

Pearce

Wang

(2009). Imported talents: Demographic characteristics, achievement and job satisfaction of international full-time faculty in four-year American colleges. Higher Education, 57(6), 703–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9171-z. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40269154

33.

Long

A. E.

Wolkenhauer

Higgins

(2021). Learning through research in a professional development school: A duoethnographic approach to teacher educator professional learning. School-University Partnerships, 14(1), 36–44. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1295780.pdf.

34.

Marvasti

(2005). U.S. academic institutions and perceived effectiveness of foreign-born faculty. Journal of Economic Issues, 39(1), 151–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2005.11506784. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4228117

35.

Mezirow

(1978). Education for perspective transformation: Women’s re-entry programs in community colleges. Teacher’s College, Columbia University.

36.

Mezirow

(1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. Jossey-Bass.

37.

Mezirow

(1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.

38.

Mezirow

(2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In Mezirow

(Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3–34). Jossey-Bass.

39.

Moll

L. C.

Amanti

Neff

González

(1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543534

40.

Namaste

N. B.

(2017). Designing and evaluating students’ transformative learning. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2017.3.5

41.

Nkabinde

Z. P.

(2010). Living with triple marginality in America’s teacher preparation programs. In Obiakor

F. E.

Grant

Obi

S. O.

(Eds.), Voices of international African American teacher educators in the United States (pp. 41–53). Nova Science Publishers.

42.

Padilla

A. M.

(1994). Ethnic minority scholars, research, and mentoring: Current and future issues. Educational Researcher, 23(4), 24–27. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X023004024

43.

Settles

I. H.

Buchanan

N. T.

Dotson

(2019). Scrutinized but not recognized: (In)visibility and hypervisibility experiences of faculty of color. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 113, 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.06.003

44.

Thomas

G. D.

Hollenshead

(2001). Resisting from the margins: The coping strategies of black women and other women of color faculty members at a research university. The Journal of Negro Education, 70(3), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.2307/3211208

45.

Turner

C. S. V.

González

J. C.

Wood

J. L.

(2008). Faculty of color in academe: What 20 years of literature tells us. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(3), 139–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012837

46.

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services . (2025). The belmont report. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html.