Table 2 Quality criteria for autoethnography and application in our study

Reflexivity

We included first-person positionality to explicate our current positions in the EER community and foreground the power differentials in our mentoring relationships. Our statements of goals provide additional perspective on the mentoring relationships among us

Substantial contribution

We grounded the study in relevant frameworks and demonstrated alignment between theoretical constructs and our reality. We included the perspectives of both mentor and mentees in our mentoring triad

Esthetic merit

We use “esthetic” and “evocative” thick descriptions of our shared experiences and our individual responses to them (Ellis et al., 2011, p. 277). We trimmed a long list of critical incidents to a digestible list of three critical incidents for publication

Impact

While impact is best judged post-publication, we anticipate that insights generated from our autoethnographic product may help mentors and mentees deepen their relationships through consideration of how the other perceives shared experiences and subsequent improved communication

Expression of a reality

We present our findings via a narrative describing critical incidents that feel credible because we have included multiple (and sometimes conflicting) viewpoints, misunderstandings, and even awkward moments in our relationships

Relational ethics

We were “cognizant of the promise and potential problems” (Hughes & Pennington, 2016, p. 24) of revealing sometimes conflicting viewpoints, misunderstandings, and awkward moments, and discussed our comfort level with these revelations multiple times during the data analysis (process) and writing phases (product) of the project. We intentionally omitted incidents from the paper that one or more of us felt violated privacy or that we were uncomfortable making public. We chose not to include proper nouns for people or academic units where the events we relayed might paint them in an unfavorable light