This research examines Toxicity for Black Female Professionals in Higher Education. Through our own toxic experiences which is the justification for looking at this area, we are interested in what Black and mixed-race colleagues have to say about their own toxic experiences (Bonell, 2025). Our hypotheses statement is higher education environments are indeed becoming more toxic, with ongoing turbulences, as we witness more redundancies and voluntary and compulsory severance in UK (United Kingdon) Higher Education, and beyond (Andrew, 2020). By examining the definition of toxicity beyond poisonous environments we have attempted to conceptualise toxicity which we will examine in this paper. There is a wider literature on this specific issue e.g. Arday and Mirza, 2018, Maistry, 2024.

 One toxic solution to these issues is continuing professional development which covers diverse environments, including staff (Race, 2024). The criticism is that compulsory training in higher education has become virtual and depersonalised where there is no chance of asking questions, within group environments, let alone receiving answers that can improve professional practice and the behaviour of all colleagues in higher education. DiAngelo (2019, 2021) has expressed this experience through her professional practice when teaching racism. This is applicable in all areas, not only within higher education. Warmington (2024) explains that applications of Critical Race Theory (CRT) begin with colour blindness and the need to recognise institutional racism. Warmington argues that the notion of institutional racism must be defended as it is being attacked by political interests. The notion of anti-racism is therefore politically questionable when it needs to be part of professional practice within a more inclusive, equitable practice. How do Black (Female) Professionals respond to race and racist issues in higher education?

Bhopal (2024a) argues that by performing and enacting Whiteness, some academics of Colour mirror White Behaviours. As a result, they are rewarded and gain entrance into the White space of higher education, but the main beneficiary from this process is the White Academy, leaving structural and institutional racism intact. The author argues that Black and mixed-race academics are complicit in upholding White Supremacy, and by doing so protect the interests of White groups. But as the literature underlines, the issues are systematic and, in this case, universities need to change to reduce toxicity. As Bhopal (2024b: 232) highlights: ‘In order for schools and universities to make meaningful and significant changes, they must examine their role in perpetuating racism … Ways of tackling these issues tend to come under the umbrella of equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) … [and] the topic of race can become lost among other types of inequality deemed to be more worthy … Educational institutions are able to ‘tick the box’ to demonstrate that they are meeting their EDI targets without actually addressing racial inequalities.’ Bhopal (2004a, 2024b) is instructive and methodologically useful, with the use of interviewing in this area of research, as she shows how structural and institutional racism hinders the fact of addressing racism. One potential solution for Black Female Professionals is to mirror White Behaviour for career advancement but what happens if toxic incidents or experiences hinders or eliminates the chances of this professional strategy?

Our paper sets out why we are both carrying out this research. We will conceptualise the notion of toxicity and cover the key literature which contextualises our research. We will then explain out two stage methodology of interviewing respondents who have shared their toxic experiences within higher education, highlighting several ethical issues. We will conclude with our data themes and recommendations that aims ultimately to reduce levels of toxicity for Black Professionals within higher education.

For this two-stage research project, we are using semi-structured interviews (Cohen et al, 2018), within an interpretivist paradigm (Buckler and Moore, 2003). In the first stage we carried out 9 interviews within the UK in 2023. On reflection, the process of constructing an interview schedule was interesting as we created questions and then grouped them around several themes. The semi-structured nature, rather than an open-ended list of questions allowed for both a working interview structure, but the space for our respondents to express toxic experiences. (Brinkman and Kvale, 2014). When choosing our respondents, we had two significant considerations. Firstly, we felt that we could not interview, respondents who we knew personally. Secondly, we felt we could not interview individuals who were going through toxic experiences. Ethically, we had to consider the notion of advocacy (BERA, 2024) as we not collecting data to help our colleagues through their own toxic experiences. We were collecting data to increase our understandings of toxic experiences. In one case, a co-author of this paper, had been asked to give evidence to an institution concerning a respondent’s story. Hence, the individual could not be interviewed in the first stage, as the toxic story was still evolving. Methodologically, we felt the respondent could be considered after time in a second stage interview, as a stage had been met, we felt when reflection was possible, and the respondent felt comfortable enough to tell the toxic story through interview. The second stage of data collection has taken place in 2026 with 10 interviews.. It is important to highlight the ethics of having to use the term UK, as ethically we must respect our samples through confidentiality and anonymity (BERA, 2024). We fear that the general sample of Black Female Professionals in Higher Education is small enough, whereby there is possibilities that readers of the data highlighted in presentations and publications (Peart and Race, 2025) might recognise who is saying what. Methodologically, we will also highlight how long the interviews lasted in this empirical research. We were planning for 45 minutes to an hour when several interviews went on more than twice as long as that initial structure. Because of the nature of the research, and the semi-structured interview, we both felt obliged to let the respondent continue with answers to the questions.

We have four provisional concluding themes to discuss: Black staff seen as deficit * We haven’t worked hard enough to get to where they were * I continue to be treated like someone without any experience * They don’t think of African as academics Black Staff Used for Convenience of Organisation * My profile fits the widening participation projects, I’m also a good visual aid in that sense * I am definitely refusing to have my name or my face to promote an agenda that will benefit the institution. I’m aware of those kinds of games institutions play Limp Institutional Leadership * Blocking in a big way. The system should not allow that to happen Toxicity and the Snake Pit “I described The Academy in many ways and one way I describe it is being [in] a snake pit and not knowing what snake is going to bite you next … so snakes have this capacity to be charming and enchanting … But at the same time, snakes can be vicious and deadly … So, for me … toxicity is related to snakes.” * I’m always having to defend myself. I never let my guard down * You are always considered an outsider Need to Develop Support Beyond Institution *Colleagues who are friends or who have gone through the same *Family supports and a few friends *I always seem to fall outside, I’m never part of those little groups We will conclude with three recommendations: * Value and recognize the valuable contributions made by Black staff * Remove barriers and support Black staff gain access to formal and informal internal decisions making structures * Provide meaningful training and other opportunities to Black staff to support their development.

Andrew, M. (2020) Behind voluntary redundancy in universities: The stories behind the story, Australian Universities' Review, Vol. 62, No. 2, Sep 2020, 14-24. Arday, J., Mirza, H.S. (Eds.) (2018) Dismantling Race in Higher Education. Racism, Whiteness and Decolonising the Academy. Racism, Whiteness and Decolonising the Academy, London, Palgrave Macmillan. Bhopal, K. (2024a). Complicity and Conformity: perpetuating race and class hierarchies in UK higher education. Educational Review, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2024.2398754, last accessed 31st January 2026. Bhopal, K. (2024b) Race and Education. Reproducing White Supremacy in Britian, Milton Keynes, Penguin Random House. Bonell, C. (2025) Toxic Education. How Schools Are Damaging Young People’s Health and Wellbeing and How We Can Fix Them, Policy Press, Bristol. Brinkmann, S., Kvale, S. (2014) Interviews, Sage, Thousand Oaks. British Education Research Association (5th Ed.) (2024) Ethical Guidelines for Education Research, Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research, fifth edition (2024) | BERA, Buckler, S., Moore, H. (2023) Essentials in Research Methods in Education, Sage, London Cohen, L., Manion, L. Morrison, K. (8th Ed.) (2018) Research Methods in Education, London, Routledge. DiAngelo, R. (2019) White Fragility. Why It’s so Hard for White People to Talk About Racism, London, Penguin. DiAngelo, R. (2021) New Racism. How Progressive White People Perpetuate Racial Harm, Boston, Beacon Press. Maistry, S, M. (2024) South African higher education: A toxic milieu of neoliberalism, colonialism and anti-Blackness | Transformation in Higher Education, Vol. 9, No. 1, last accessed 30th January 2026. Peart, S., & Race, R. (2025). Invitation to exclusion: The continuing experience of Black women in higher education (HE) in the United Kingdom. Equity in Education & Society, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/27526461251326932 Race, R. (3rd Ed.) (2024) Multiculturalism and Education, London, Open University Press. Warmington, P. (2024) Permanent Racism. Race, Class and the Myth of Postracial Britain, Bristol, Policy Press.