COMMITMENT OCCUPATIONAL SELF-EXPLORATION

Limited Active Completed

Not made Occupational identity

diffusion

Occupational identity moratorium

Occupational identity confusion

Made Occupational identity

foreclosure

Dynamic occupational identity achievement

Static occupational identity achievement

Despite an attempt in this model to encapsulate the multifaceted and dynamic nature of identity development, through the introduction of three levels of identity exploration, namely: limited, active and completed, as Skorikov and Vonracek (2011, p. 695) suggest, “it still does

97

not fully capture the occupational identity as the complex, evolving structure of meanings in which the individual links his or her motivation and competencies with acceptable career roles”.

From the perspective of a study exploring professional identities in teacher education, Vloet and van Swet (2010) suggest that the contemporary view of professional identity is of a complex, lifelong, ever-changing process of interpreting and reinterpreting significant practice experiences. In addition, they suggest that this complex concept can be defined as “a story told by a person about himself or herself at a given moment, within a certain context” (p. 152), highlighting the manner in which professional identity can be constructed through narrative.

3.2.3 Professional identity as constructed through narrative

Professionals can build and rebuild their professional identity by a process of self-reflection on, and internal dialogue with, their significant practice experiences, and by talking about those experiences with others (Vloet & van Swet, 2010, p. 151). Palmer (1997, p. 18) reasons that no-one can wholly know or name identity, including their own and suggests that “elusive realities” of identity “can be caught only occasionally out of the corner of the eye” and that “stories are the best way to portray realities of this sort”.

According to McCormack (2009) the practice experiences of professionals work are often complex and diverse, such that it is often not easy to make personal meaning of and learn from them. Stories can then offer professionals the opportunity to “reveal both the individual and collective nature of experience” and to “see into themselves” (McCormack, 2009, p. 143). The place of narrative in the formation and validation of professional identity is also highlighted by Lave and Wenger (1991) who suggest that through “talk” or speech, professionals develop identification with their practice and their profession. The putting into words of one’s story of personal experiences through talk or narrative enables the individual to both position and make meaning of it, in the context of their understanding of self or identity (Dyer & Keller-Cohen, 2000).

In the context of teacher identity, Gill and Pryor (2006) argue that since professional identity cannot be separated from personal identity and sense of self, telling life histories and stories about teaching and learning, provides opportunity for teachers to construct and re-construct their sense of self, on both a personal and a professional level. In addition, they suggest that narratives can enable individuals to make sense of their own understanding of life and work,

98

to re-examine their assumptions, values and beliefs and potentially transform personal knowledge of their professional identity and practices.

3.2.4 Summarising professional identity

The concept of professional identity can be considered to be both: structural in nature – constructed as a consequence of one’s profession, occupation or vocation; and to serve as agency – be a determining factor in what work a person does and how they do it. Professional identity is also multifaceted, dynamic and contextual. The contextual nature is, to a large extent, a consequence of the communities within which one practices and the levels of one’s participation within these communities. As Wenger (2000) proposes, professional identity is often a “nexus of multi-membership” of several communities of practice.

In this study, the professional identity I am seeking to explore and describe is that of people who are qualified and registered as pharmacists and who are working in higher education as educators. Within the domain of identity research literature, there is body of studies that pertain particularly to the identity of academics in higher education. In the section that follows, aspects of this literature will be reviewed within the same common themes described by Rodgers and Scott (2008) as underpinning contemporary identity literature: identity as relational, contextual, multifaceted, dynamic and constructed through narrative.

3.3 Academic identity

The term “academic” is often used to describe or identify an educator within the higher education environment. Billot (2010, p. 709) proposes that the use of the term is in the context of both describing a relationship with the institution itself, as well as with the academic profession, and inherent to the concept are the “values, beliefs and practices held in common with others of that affiliation”. She furthermore explains this as a three dimensional identification of professional values, role, and location. In addition to being influenced by one’s context (location), academic identity is therefore influenced by one’s beliefs and values, and in turn impacts on one’s sense of meaning and purpose, self-belief, enthusiasm, drive, dedication and efficacy (Billot, 2010). According to Shreeve (2011, p. 79), “being an academic is a question of identity”. Furthermore as with any other facet of identity, “there are multiple possible configurations that require ‘identity work’” (Shreeve, 2011, p. 79). As Winter (2009, p. 123) proposes, at the heart of academic identity is the concept of academic professionalism with the inherent values of self-regulation and professional autonomy, the values of discipline-based scholarship, intellectual curiosity, communities of

99

practice and accountability to peers. The construction and formation of academic identities involves multiple layers of disciplinary, departmental and institutional cultures and traditions, locations and contexts, goals and missions, co-workers and students (Becher & Trowler, 2001).

3.3.1 Multifaceted and dynamic nature of academic identity

Similar to other identities, academic identity is complex, multi-faceted and influenced by many factors (Quigley, 2011; Whitchurch, 2008). McAlpine and Akerlind (2010) provide a comprehensive explanation of the complex nature of academic identity by describing it in terms of academic practice, where:

The term ‘practice’ represents more than a job, appointment or title that academics hold; it is also more than the tasks, duties and responsibilities that academics engage in; and more than the skills or knowledge academics develop. ‘Practice’ incorporates the totality of individual (and collective) experiences – the ways in which we think, interact, enact and engage as academics in the work we do. The term ‘practice’ brings into play the underlying, sometimes implicit, purpose(s) that motivate us to be academics and through which it is possible to integrate an array of multi-faceted duties, responsibilities, skills and knowledge into a coherent sense of academic identity (Kindle Locations 328-333).

Historically, the academic profession was teaching-focussed, but by the early twentieth century it came to include both teaching and research (Kreber, 2010). The blend of these two activities, teaching – which may be considered the transference of knowledge, and research – the generation of new knowledge, and the extent to which academics identified with either one or both of them, allowed for the categorisation of academic identities on a continuum between researcher on the one end, to teacher on the other end (Henkel, 2007). Over the last thirty years, with the internationally held perception that greater institutional recognition and reward are associated with research, the balance in focus between teaching and learning is viewed as having tipped toward research (Kreber, 2010). However, a balanced interface between research and teaching is recognised as being necessary for maintaining quality and scholarship in higher education, and therefore most academics are, to varying degrees, expected to be actively engaged in both (The University of the Free State, 2006). Increasingly in the higher education environment there is a greater focus on outputs, with issues of accountability, efficiency, and control having become central driving factors,

100

resulting in academics having to assume far greater administrative and managerial roles. Consequently, the nature of academic work has changed as institutional pressures to produce specific research outputs, at the same time as teaching and undertaking managerial/administrative responsibilities have increased. The progressively complex interplay between teaching, research and administration/management, has also created tension between what academics perceive as their professional identity and that prescribed by their employing institution (Billot, 2010; Kreber, 2010; Winter, 2009). In the South African context, some universities have historically been classified as either teaching or research- oriented (Chetty & Lubben, 2010) and, depending on the nature of the institution, the perceived “prescribed” identity can also vary.

For many within the university environment, research is central to academic identity (Henkel, 2005), with some authors such as Lea and Stierer (2011, p. 608) even going so far as to suggest that, from a review of the academic identity literature, it appears that research is the “trademark activity of the university academic, and the primary source of their “role definition, identity formation and intellectual fulfilment”. In a study that explored the relationship between research capacity development and identity formation, Dison (2004 p.83) argued that the ability to do research is more than simply about knowledge and competencies: it “arises from the capacity of the whole person”, and is inextricably interrelated to the individual’s identity as a researcher and academic. From this perspective, either the inability to obtain research funding, or having administrative or teaching functions impede on research time, poses a serious threat to the identity of research focussed academics (Henkel, 2005). This is not unexpected when, in the current climate, higher education worldwide, appears to, in comparison with teaching, place greater importance on research (Chetty & Lubben, 2010).

3.3.1.1 Role of doctoral studies in the formation of academic identity

Within the South African context, it is the “research doctorate”, or PhD, which is a “specialised qualification” grounded on the “mastery” of research within a specific academic discipline, that is considered the highest qualification offered in higher education, and is “typically the desired qualification for an academic or research career” (du Toit, 2012, p. 1). In a study by Backhouse (2009), in which she investigated doctoral education in four academic units, at three South African universities, across different disciplines, she suggested that the research policies and strategies of South African universities support the notion of the doctorate as research. In the academic environment, the doctorate is considered to be preparation for an academic or research career, and has been equated to

101

an “academic apprenticeship” (Backhouse, 2009, p. 4), similar to that described by Lave and Wenger (1991) (see Sections 2.4.1 and 3.2.1.1). Backhouse (2009) advocates that within the apprenticeship model, whilst being “legitimate peripheral participants in a community of practice” (p. 4), through research, doctoral students provide academic disciplines with a means of sustained continuation and regeneration by “expanding the knowledge base and developing the debates and discourses” (p. 4).

Although internationally there has been a shift in doctoral studies toward course work programmes, with both taught and research components, this has not been the trend in South Africa, with the research degree remaining the primary means of attaining a doctorate. However, as du Toit (2012, p. 2) suggests, a research doctorate results in highly “specialised knowledge” limited to very specific topics, and is “not well-suited to serve as an entry-level qualification for an academic career”; furthermore he suggests that students with serious intentions of pursuing an academic career would be “better advised to proceed ‘overseas’”.

Despite the emphasis that is placed on the doctorate, in higher education in South Africa in 2010, only 5191 - one third of all South African academics - had a doctoral degree (Cherry, 2010). It is further estimated that of the roughly 7000 part-time doctoral students in South Africa, a large proportion of these are comprised of the two-thirds of academics, who do not hold doctoral degrees (Cherry, 2010). This would suggest that, since the research doctorate is recognised as the highest academic qualification, and research is ordinarily given priority in terms of recognition and even promotion within universities, not having a doctorate has implications for academic identity. Harrison (2009, p. 26), citing Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschel and Hutchings (2008) suggests that, “doctoral education is a complex process of formation”, and that “what is formed, in short, is the scholar’s professional identity in all its dimensions”.

A doctorate is viewed as “leading to an academic career”, and develops “a certain kind of person”: more specifically, a person “who displays the characteristics of a scholar – one who displays independence, thinks in an academic way and shapes the intellectual landscape” (Backhouse, 2009, p. 102). In the context in which a doctorate is viewed as preparation for an academic career, providing “the necessary certification for an academic appointment”, it is similarly considered to provide opportunity for both exposure to, and development in aspects of academic work other than research (Backhouse, 2009, p. 105). It is certainly viewed as the primary process of enculturation into an academic discipline, providing an opportunity to learn the ways of, and develop both an identity with and commitment to, the discipline (Backhouse, 2009). Green (2005, p. 162) proposes that doctoral studies are as much about

102

“the production of identity” as they are about “the production of knowledge”. A doctorate is thus often also considered to be the final stage of socialisation into a discipline and integral to the development of a disciplinary identity (Becher & Trowler, 2001). Doctoral study within a discipline provides a student with a framework for viewing the world, and for making “certain interpretations of real-life occurrences and of meaning in texts” (Dison, 2004, p. 89). With reference to Wenger’s (1998) suggestion that identity formation occurs in the tension between identification and negotiability (see Section 3.2.1.1), Dison (2004, p. 90) advocates that it is within the discipline, and the framework that it provides for making meaning, that the doctoral student finds both a degree of identification and negotiability – “ownership of meaning”.

Notwithstanding the fact that a doctorate is viewed as a means of developing the “tacit skills of being an academic” (Backhouse, 2009, p. 106), and as preparation for an academic career, as Backhouse (2009) argues, “learning to teach is not always part of the PhD” (p. 107). The manner in which teachers in higher education learn to teach, and perceive their teaching and teaching practice, can be viewed as being impacted upon by the communities of practice within which they are located, rather than through any formal preparation or qualification (Kreber, 2010; Lave & Wenger, 1991). The lack of formal teaching qualifications held by academics in South African universities was highlighted in a study by Wadesango and Machingambi (2011), who interviewed 36 academics across three universities, and reported that 95% of those interviewed did not have any formal teaching qualification. Thus the formation of teacher identity within higher education may be viewed as a “process of socialisation” (Kreber, 2010).

3.3.1.2 Identity of academics as teachers

Based on a study which explored the manner in which lecturers at two universities in the UK perceived themselves as teachers, Hockings and co-researchers (2009) concluded that, within higher education, the identity of academics as teachers is influenced by their own experiences of education, the way in which they perceive knowledge to be constructed within discipline communities, and by their personal beliefs about themselves and their students. In addition their pedagogic practices – the manner in which they teach, was influenced by their identities. As Cranton and Carusetta (2004, p. 6) propose, the development of teachers within higher education is largely an “adult education enterprise”, and rather than being viewed as simply the acquisition of technical skills, it needs to take into account how teachers learn, develop, and transform their “sense of self” or “authenticity”. They describe authenticity as a complex concept including: “being genuine, showing consistency between

103

values and actions, relating to others in such a way as to encourage their authenticity, and living a critical life” (Cranton & Carusetta, 2004, p. 7).

Integrity, or authenticity, has the potential to provide an environment in which “vital connections”, between teacher and subject, teacher and student, and student and subject, are made (Palmer, 1998). Being authentic has also been described as opening one’s self to the possibility of being caring (Kreber, Klampfleitner, McCune, Bayne, & Knottenbelt, 2007). Building on the work of Nodding, Heidegger and Zimmerman, Kreber and colleagues (2007, p. 33), purport that “care is the very essence of being human”, and that the more authentic we become, the greater our capacity to care for ourselves and others; and furthermore, the more we care, the more open we are to ourselves and others. It might be pertinent to note that within academia, caring qualities have been associated more with those inclined to teaching than to research. In a study of the relationship between teaching and research, within a research-focussed university, the heads of departments typically identified qualities such as motivated, self-driven, perseverant and driven, as those associated with successful researchers, whilst good teachers were characterised by qualities such as caring, concerned and open (Rowland, 1996). As Cranton (2001, p. 81) argues, “the authentic teacher cares about teaching, believes in its value, wants to work well with students, and has a professional respect for students in general”. She further suggests that “if we don’t know who we are as human beings it is very difficult to know who we are as teachers”, and that finding one’s identity as a teacher can lead to greater authenticity (p. 6).

Although a wealth of literature on teacher identity within the school context has emerged (Akkerman & Meijer, 2011; Beauchamp & Thomas, 2009; Beijaard et al., 2004; Beijaard, Verloop, & Vermunt, 2000; Canrinus, Helms-Lorenz, Beijaard, Buitink, & Hofman, 2012; Canrinus et al., 2011; Stout, 2001), the body of literature concerning teacher identity within higher education is relatively limited (Haigh, Xiaomin, & Lindsay, 2010; Hockings et al., 2009; Krabbi, 2005; Kreber, 2010). Drawing on the literature pertaining to the formation of teacher identity within the school environment, Kreber (2010, p. 172), proposed that teacher identities can be construed as being formed by a dynamic interplay between “personal theories of teaching” and “perceptions of self”, both subject to influences within the “social and occupational context”. For the majority of academics, their immediate social context is comprised of the discipline, department or faculty within which they are located, and includes the variety of relationships within that context, including relationships with students and academic and non-academic colleagues (Becher & Trowler, 2001; Kogan, 2000; Kreber, 2010). The individual’s personal, social and cultural background can also be considered part of their social context (Kreber, 2010). The occupational context is shaped by a variety of

104

factors, including macro factors impacting on the higher education environment, such as political, social and economic, and institutional factors, such as the way the institution positions itself in terms of the “research-teaching nexus” (Kreber, 2010, p. 173). Contextual factors are important, since the context within which academics work can impact on how they perceive themselves, their colleagues, their students, their relationships and ultimately their practice (Cranton & Carusetta, 2004; Kreber, 2010).

According to Galbraith and Jones (2008), context is not all-important though, suggesting that it is a myth that being a specialist in a discipline implies that you will be able to teach it effectively, and that teaching in each discipline is unique. In addition, quoting Weimer (2008), they suggest that “there is no guarantee that colleagues in the discipline are pedagogically savvy – that their views of teaching are anything but eclectic, idiosyncratic and uninformed”