Here we explain our CAE approach. Our data are centred around our own reflections of our academic journeys, with our data analysis being thematic. We employed CAE as it offers a variety of modes of engaging with our two selves (Anderson & Glass-Coffin, 2013). Campbell (2016, p. 95) describes this as a form of ‘self-narrative that places the self within a social context’. Collaborative autoethnography enabled us to combine our reflections with our experiences and how they relate to broader cultural and social contexts.

Collaborative autoethnography is a tool to ‘break through the dominant representations of professional practice, creating new knowledges’ (Denshire, 2014, p. 838) and examine the complexities of HE (Ed. Barkhuizen, 2017). Collaborative autoethnography allowed for a more nuanced understanding of shared experiences. The strengths of using CAE in research include ‘self-reflexivity associated with autobiography, cultural interpretation associated with ethnography, and multi-subjectivity associated with collaboration’ (Chang et al., 2013, p. 17). Collaborative autoethnography allowed for reflexivity of how we negotiate our roles within our universities to contribute towards driving sustainable and transformative L&T.

We tell our stories of real experiences because we believe in the power of narrative as a form of meaning-making. Sole and Wilson (2002) confirm that sharing experiences through stories is a powerful way to exchange and consolidate knowledge. The sharing of experiences through narratives builds trust and generates emotional connections. For us, storytelling is not only a method of personal reflection but also a valuable scholarly practice that enables the surfacing of hidden struggles. In sharing our experiences, we invite others to see themselves in our stories, to question dominant norms and to co-create more inclusive and empathetic academic spaces. That is why we believe it is not only useful but also necessary.

Our stories involved reflection via journaling. As participants in the HE L&T fraternity, it is imperative to be reflective practitioners. McGregor (2011, p. 4) refers to Dewey, reminding us of the power of reflective practice, and states that ‘being reflective requires active consideration about actions and their consequences’. We thus engaged in reflective conversations during which we reflected on our own individual experiences while navigating our respective HE spaces.

Reflection was therefore key in the data collection process. It presented us with an opportunity to examine and verbalise our experiences (Given, 2008, p. 747), which facilitated our understanding thereof. Reflecting on our personal experience and issues of the workspace requires that we be critical and embrace the opportunity to scrutinise the issues that inform our research space. Given (2008, p. 50) reminds us that the researchers’ individual experiences are primarily important if one wants to illuminate the experiences under study.

As both co-researchers and participants, we are aware that our positionalities shape the stories we tell. Our reflections are grounded in our lived experiences of navigating gendered, hierarchical and often exclusionary institutional spaces. While this insider perspective enriches the authenticity of the narrative, we acknowledge the risk of reflexive bias. Throughout the writing process, we engaged in critical dialogue with one another to interrogate our assumptions, recognise moments of personal bias and remain open to alternate interpretations. Guided by the Feminist Voice Theory, we also sought to preserve the distinctiveness of our voices, honouring our different institutional roles. Rather than striving for objectivity, we embrace reflexivity as a strength of this research methodology, understanding that our subjectivities are not limitations but sources of insight into the complex realities of academic life. This transparency allows us to honour both the rigour and the vulnerability that CAE demands.

While our collaboration was rooted in mutual respect and trust, we remained mindful of the power dynamics shaped by our differing institutional roles and disciplinary contexts. Author 1 brought experience in reflective pedagogical frameworks, while Author 2 navigated a more traditional, male-dominated academic environment. These positional differences influenced how we engaged in dialogue and interpreted our experiences. Rather than ignoring the asymmetries, we embraced reflexivity and care, consciously creating space for both voices to be valued.

We employed thematic analysis to analyse our reflections. Following Braun and Clarke (2006), we began by immersing ourselves in our self-narratives, reading and re-reading them to gain familiarity with the content. We then manually segmented the data into meaningful units and generated initial codes. Through iterative discussion and reflection, we identified patterns that we grouped into preliminary themes. These themes were refined through cycles of comparison, merging and differentiation, ultimately leading to a final set that captured the emotional, professional and relational dimensions of our shared experience.

This method allowed us to move beyond surface-level descriptions towards a deeper understanding of our professional journeys. By thematising our experiences, we were able to interpret how broader issues such as self-confidence, academic identity and vulnerability manifested in our everyday lives, and how peer support shaped our sense of agency within HE.

To enhance the trustworthiness of our interpretations, Author 1 shared an early draft of the article with a critical friend with scholarly expertise in gender equality and feminist theory. This external review served as a form of peer debriefing and offered constructive feedback on our thematic interpretations. This helped us to guard against potential blind spots and over-identification with the data.

In autoethnographic research, ethical considerations primarily concern the researcher’s self-care and the protection of any individuals who may be implicated in the researcher’s personal narratives (Tolich, 2010). This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects (Bochner & Ellis, 2016).

Given the deeply personal and reflective nature of this CAE, ethical considerations were central to our research process. The use of self-narratives required a careful engagement with emotional risk. At every stage of our engagement, we engaged in dialogue to ensure mutual agreement on what would be disclosed. This iterative consent process is a key ethical strategy in CAE where power is shared and trust is foundational (Chang et al., 2013).

One of the most prominent themes emerging from both narratives is the persistent presence of structural gender inequality. Despite notable academic achievements, recognition and career advancement often remain elusive, reflecting how entrenched institutional norms continue to disadvantage women in academia.

Both narratives highlight the structural and gendered barriers women face in academia:

The other expressed a similar systemic challenge when reflecting:

These statements reflect the frustration of operating in systems that obscure or deny merit-based progression, particularly for women. These experiences resonate with the Feminist Voice Theory, which critiques how institutional cultures marginalise women’s narratives and devalue relational and experiential forms of knowing (Mitchell, 2017; McCall, 2021). They also highlight how gendered power dynamics erode academic assertiveness (Moon, 2009), often leading to self-doubt, despite high achievement.

This raises the question: how do we navigate professional pathways shaped by exclusionary norms? Clark et al. (2024) suggest that by exposing how meritocracy discourse maintains its grip, institutions can begin to redefine what is considered ‘merit-worthy’. Such redefinition opens the door to recognising structural inequalities and reimagining more equitable academic cultures.

Another thread running through our stories is the toll that systemic barriers and repeated setbacks take on one’s confidence and emotional well-being. Our accounts reveal the inner struggle of maintaining professional momentum amid cumulative disappointments and a constant sense of precarity. These experiences mirror what Moon (2009) identifies as the erosion of academic assertiveness in unsupportive environments, where women often internalise systemic exclusion as personal inadequacy.

A deep sense of emotional exhaustion, self-doubt and disappointment runs through both stories:

The emotional and psychological cost of navigating academic spaces as a woman, particularly under pressure to constantly prove oneself, is evident. Feminist Voice Theory reminds us that these emotional responses are not merely personal struggles, but reflections of a broader academic culture that devalues women’s ways of knowing, being and leading (Mitchell, 2017; McCall, 2021). At this point, we return to CAE as our methodology. Chang (2008) reminds us that it provides a platform for self-transformation that may bring healing from emotional scars of the past. This confirms our choice of methodology. Autoethnography best allowed us to reveal our exclusionary experiences. This method proved to be empowering and liberating.

A strong theme of support through informal networks and peer collaboration is presented as a coping and empowering strategy:

Amid several challenges, a significant source of strength came from our informal peer support network. Our small, organic CoP helped us to reframe our experiences, affirm one another’s journeys and rebuild confidence. This form of mutual support aligns with feminist praxis, which emphasises collective healing and action as central to challenging systemic inequities (Hooks, 2014; United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative [UNGEI], 2022). Wenger (1998) outlined several features of a CoP with which we identify. We jointly navigate our L&T journeys and, through discussion, manage to establish a shared understanding of common ground and context. In this way, our CoP acted as a counter-space that feminist voice scholars call an ‘affirming epistemic space’ where subjective, relational and vulnerable forms of knowing are validated (McCall, 2021; Mitchell, 2017).

We realised that our CoP is a powerful learning tool. We therefore concur with Stark and Smith that a CoP provides a valuable opportunity for professional learning independent from formal learning programmes (Stark & Smith, 2016). Having a network that understands your situation is great for mutual support. Moon’s (2009) theory reminds us that such networks can scaffold academic assertiveness by building confidence, reinforcing voice and resisting self-silencing. Our CoP helped us to share perspectives, engage in conversations and question worldviews. Through a feminist praxis lens, we recognise this belonging not only as emotional support but also as an act of resistance in reclaiming space in institutions where we often feel marginalised.

Our stories also highlight the tension between carefully planned academic trajectories and the disruptive realities of institutional processes. Unexpected detours, personal hardships and structural limitations reshaped what once felt like a clear pathway to success. This disruption reflects a misalignment between institutional expectations and the lived realities of female academics, often shaped by care responsibilities, precarity and exclusion from male-dominated networks.

Both stories present a tension between planned career trajectories and the realities of institutional processes, unexpected disruptions and personal loss:

Later, they lament:

These insights reveal how institutional cultures can derail even the most strategically planned academic paths, and this is confirmed in the literature (Barnes et al., 2021). An institutional culture in support of academic career pathing includes an appreciation of equity and inclusion, as well as an ethic of care and collaboration. Moon’s (2009) theory of academic assertiveness helps us understand how these repeated disruptions can erode confidence, especially for women navigating these unspoken expectations.

Feminist praxis invites institutional leaders to critically reflect on the disconnect between policy and lived experience and to centre care, recognition and equity in career development frameworks. Leaders and other role players in HE need to understand that this kind of institutional culture is needed to enable the career progression and appreciation of all academic staff.

Both authors come to view vulnerability not as weakness but as a gateway to growth, community and perspective. One drew on theory:

The other reflected on emotional turmoil:

This theme reinforces the transformative power of reflection and critical engagement with difficult experiences. Reflection often becomes enriched when situated within a social context (Giddens, 1990). This was exactly our experience. Such vulnerability aligns with feminist praxis, where sharing personal experience becomes an act of collective healing (Hooks, 2014). It also echoes feminist voice theory, which values subjectivity and personal voice (Mitchell, 2017).

While vulnerability is often seen as a weakness in professional settings, our experiences suggest otherwise. Leaning into our vulnerability enabled critical self-reflection and deeper connections, transforming uncertainty into an opportunity for growth in our academic practice.

Finally, our narratives foreground the often-discouraging pursuit of recognition within the academy. Even when institutional requirements are met or exceeded, recognition is not guaranteed. This raises critical questions about how success is measured and whose contributions are truly valued.

Despite significant achievements (PhDs, supervision, leadership roles), we both struggle to attain recognition through formal promotion processes:

This raises questions about how success is defined, recognised and validated in academic institutions. It resonates with Buckley et al. (2000), who found that unless promotion criteria and reward structures recognise the outstanding contributions of all faculty, it is likely that there will be an imbalance in the proportion of female faculty who reach the highest ranks and assume leadership roles.