Academic identities

Having discussed the notion of identity, the identity developed by a doctoral candidate as a qualitative pointer for success needs to be explored. A doctoral study does not just involve becoming an expert in a particular topic area, but comprises a transformation of identity: that of becoming a scholar or researcher (Barnacle & Mewburn, 2010, p. 433). Doctoral research produces and reproduces not only knowledge but social identities as well (Delamont, Atkinson & Parry, 2000, p. 4). According to Henkel (2000, p. 255) the concept of academic identity implies a ‘complex and heterogeneous mix of individual and community values, linked to particular forms of knowledge or epistemological frameworks and a sense of worth or self-esteem’. Because disciplines themselves are complex entities and by no means homogeneous although they do represent particular forms of knowledge or frameworks, it may be argued that academic identities are discipline specific. The kind and amount of change that takes place differs between people and contexts as well as disciplines. Academic identities are not only influenced by the specific discipline; they are also influenced by the various communities to which individual academics belong (O'Byrne, 2011, p. 8). However, according to Barnacle and Mewburn (2010), the significance of identity formation within doctoral education tends to be overlooked.

The transition from a dependent to an independent researcher can be hard for doctoral candidates. Because this transition has certain implications for their identity and self- esteem, failure becomes more than just a matter of things going wrong technically or pedagogically (Delamont, Atkinson & Parry, 2000, p. 2). However, one must keep in mind that academic identities are diverse, not only because of the diversity of the academic system, but also because ‘there is more than one way to construct an academic professional self’ and because candidates have to rely on their personal resources for identity forming (Nixon, Beattie, Challis, & Walker, 1998, p. 292). These identities are flexible, multi-layered and susceptible to change over time (Winberg, 2008) as individuals follow a range of different trajectories in forming academic identities (Jawitz, 2007).

It is not only the identities that are flexible and constantly changing (though slowly). Higher education as a system and context for practice is not static, but is constantly shifting, evolving and changing. Therefore the meanings associated with ‘being’ an academic and what constitutes ‘academic work’ are always changing (Archer, 2008, p. 385) so that candidates joining the academic system now, are joining a different system than those who joined it a decade ago (Henkel, 2000, p. 180). Academic identities are being actively shaped in response to changes in university structures and external environments (Clegg, 2008, p. 340). When contexts change and priorities are shifted, ‘grasping hold of identities that one can feel comfortable with is no easy matter’ (Sikes, 2006, p. 563). The continuous change is due to universities being constantly pressurised to deliver with more relevant and useful knowledge and skills and (Davies & Petersen, 2005, p. 33) who are able to compete in the current job market. These changes continue to shape the nature, organisation, form and meanings of higher education at the macro level (Barnett, 2003) and at the same time at the level of individual and collective academic professional identities (Davies & Petersen, 2005).

Therefore increased attention is given to understanding the nature and development of academic identities (Becher & Trowler, 2001; Henkel, 2000; Taylor 1999; Tight, 2000; Trowler & Knight, 2000). Davies and Petersen argue as follows (2005, p. 33):

The ‘Enterprise University’ and the signifying practices that come with it are, it seems, everywhere apparent – although its inevitable effects on academic work and

day to day practices, and on academic identities, has yet to be adequately researched.

Notions of professionalism and of what constitutes academic work and what it means (or what it should mean) to be an academic are being constantly disrupted (Archer, 2008, p. 386). Academia is a challenged territory which involves persistent struggles over the symbols and boundaries of authenticity. It is these questions of authenticity that are central to the formation of social relations among academics. According to Archer (2008), individuals and groups are competing to ensure that their particular interests, characteristics and identities are accorded recognition and value. Becoming an academic is not a smooth or automated process, neither is it straightforward or linear. It involves conflict and instances of inauthenticity, marginalisation and even exclusion. It along these lines that Colley and James (2005) understand the framing of professional identities as disrupted processes which can involve not only becoming, but also unbecoming.

A key stage in the socialisation process for academics is doctoral research.

Doctoral research is a relatively prolonged process of change and transition in status, a rite of passage. For all academics the experience of postgraduate research is one in which identity formation is especially important. For most candidates and in most disciplines the enculturation process involves a certain degree of identification with their chosen academic discipline. The crystallisation of such academic identities, their acquisition and their form, vary from discipline to discipline. Barnacle (2010, p. 441) argues that research degree candidates need to develop an ability to shape their identity performances and maintain coherence through multiple performances of different identities with different material semiotic dimensions. The thesis on which the doctoral candidate is working during the course of the study is not merely the product of the candidate, but represents a network of relations of which the candidate is a significant, but not the sole, part. It is both the discipline and the institution that play an important role in the development of the academic identity (Becher & Trowler, 2001, p. 47; Henkel, 2000). According to these authors, the discipline is regarded as the central organising vehicle within higher education. Belonging to a disciplinary community involves a sense of identity and personal commitment. Henkel (2000, p. 22) goes further and acknowledges that the discipline is the central context within

which academics construct their identities, their values, the knowledge base of their work, their modes of working and even their self-esteem. The discipline is the place where a sense of academic identity flourishes. Universities are major institutions in the modern world, which simultaneously produce knowledge and identities. They are not only knowledge processing institutions but also people processing institutions (Delamont, Atkinson, & Parry, 2000, p. 4).

It seems clear that the concept of identity formation in the case of doctoral candidates consists of a personal aspect and an academic aspect, which implies a link between an independent development of identity and learning. According to Merriam (2004, p. 60), numerous studies have documented that growth and development are outcomes of transformative learning. This aspect is discussed next.