Discussion of pattern

The lecturers interviewed for this study recognize that they develop their professional identity through informal learning experiences at a university. This accords with Garrick (in Boud & Middleton, 2003) who suggests that informal interactions with peers are predominant ways of learning. Furthermore, the findings of a two-year research project completed in 1997 by the Education Development Centre (Dobbs, cited in Cofer, 2000:2) which is considered the most comprehensive look to date at how informal learning occurs in the workplace arrived at similar findings. One of the most profound findings of the study was that 70% of what people know about their jobs is learned informally from the people they work with. All nine respondents in this study stated that they had learned or were learning mostly through their informal interactions with colleagues. I argue that management in many universities should realize that informal learning has an important role to play in assisting lecturers to develop a professional identity. Lecturers often rely on one another, informally, to make meaning of various tasks and problems that come their way so that all involved parties may benefit in one way or another. This has benefits for the university in that better solutions arise from problems being solved collaboratively instead of in isolation.

Due to the fact that lecturers learn mostly through informal processes in a university through social interaction and because lecturers stated implicitly or explicitly that this is the way that they learn best at work I argue that narrative is the primary way that lecturers develop a professional identity. The role that narrative plays is important in the transfer of information and discoveries of who they are as lecturers (McLellan, 1994:7).

Important here is the connection between communities of practice and informal learning. Wenger (1998, in Boud & Middleton, 2003:2) argues that social participation within the community is the key to informal learning. He further states that “it is embedded in the practices and relationships of the workplace and helps to create identity and meaning.” The informal learning processes of lecturers are social in nature and therefore lend opportunities for them to learn further in informal contexts such as communities of practice.

The lecturers interviewed stated explicitly or implicitly that narrative is the primary learning process through which they learn at the university. This tallies with Lampert (in Elbaz, 1991:1-2) who explains that the way that teachers view themselves and their work will only become apparent as they present themselves in the stories they tell about their work to different people and in different settings. Lecturers were able to articulate the types of learning processes required for the development of professional identity. Some of these examples included observation of more experienced peers, interfacing, team teaching and action learning – which would all imply engaging in narrative so that learning could occur. This aligns with McLellan (1994:7) who states that some of the key components of the situated learning model are apprenticeship, collaboration and coaching. More specifically some of the lecturers interviewed stated the importance of informal chats in the tea room, team teaching, staff lunches, walks with colleagues on campus and informal meetings where they could discuss issues that mattered to them. Although none of the lecturers made use of the term narrative it was made clear through their narrations in the interviews that this was the way in which they had come to an understanding of their roles.

All lecturers made pleas for narrative to occur at the university at all levels. There were implicit and explicit pleas to management - perhaps inferring that through the establishment of opportunities by management for narrative to occur these types of informal social relationships could further develop their professional identities. Some examples of these pleas follow: T/R-1(13) speaks of the need for more organized ways for staff to come together: “I find that if it is facilitated, if there are common rooms or if

there’s an opportunity to bump into each other, then the less social of us…I’m not highly social in my make up. I sort of explore people less aggressively than others do. So I need a forum or environment where I’m bumping into them.” T/R-2(9) speaks of an informal push by management to encourage mentorship among colleagues: “The university can sort of encourage people – say to certain people to volunteer to be mentors and encourage junior staff to pick a mentor and get on with a mentor. They can’t really enforce it. I don’t think it would work.”

I have extracted sets of statements from three different lecturers to illustrate how they have developed a professional identity by learning informally through narrative in the workplace. T/R-2(2) explained “the way of who I have become (in terms of that academic) at the university – has been very much an informal process. There are…hasn’t been training courses, or things like that…or formal mentoring relationships…or supervisor relationships. Those have been effort…if at all very minor, It’s been a much more informal process of – doing what I do and learning as I go”. The same respondent goes on to discuss that this informal learning process has taken place through the informal narrations with peers; “Sometimes its academic type stuff. You know, (name of lecturer) would say she’s been to a meeting and this was raised at the meeting and ‘What do you think?’ We will chip in and talk about something that is specifically related to our work. Um, sometimes somebody will talk about something that’s kind of academic that’s not related to (name of university). They have read this very good book and it was saying this or that and people will chip in and comment on it.” The statements above would support one of the findings of this study in that narrative is the primary learning process involved in the professional identity development of lecturers. Prusak (cited in Brown et al, 2005:45) highlights the value of narrative in organisations. He states that social knowledge - making one’s way in an organisation through stories - is increasingly the source of wealth for organisations and one of the ways in which knowledge is configured and transferred is through stories. Furthermore, situated learning has application here as the actual social context in which the learning occurs gives the benefit of increased knowledge and offers the learner the potential for appropriating knowledge in new ways and new situations (Lankard, 1995:2). In addition

Sarbin (in Rossiter, 1999:78) maintains that “human beings think, perceive, imagine, and make moral choices according to narrative structures” through the medium of storytelling. Thus if lecturers are listened to in everyday conversation – in staff meetings, in corridors and offices talking to peers or mentors, in their classes, at the lunch table and during informal staff gatherings it is possible to hear them in the act of storytelling. Professional identity can thus be said to be developed in story form. These stories are not scientific - instead they are questions or ideas which require further thought and discussion in order to gain clarity.

Brown et al (ibid) maintain that organizations can not run as machines do. They ask four questions which immediately point to the importance of narrative among employees in the workplace and dispel the idea that organizations function as a machine:

• Where is the knowledge in organizations?

• How do you know what people know?

• How do you know how to behave?

• How do you know how to act when you enter an organization?

The answers to the above questions could probably be best understood and answered through narrative (Brown et al, 2005:3) The questions above would not be answered in any manual or position description despite the fact that having the answers to these questions would prepare lecturers for success in the workplace. With this in mind it is necessary not to see organizations as machines but rather as being made up of individuals who talk to each other and learn about work, mostly in the form of stories. Brown et al (2005:20) do not favour a mechanistic model for organizations. Instead they refer to a model which is “organic and self-adjusting where people talk to each other and things are not as crisp, or as clear, or as rational, or as scientific as they appear in the mechanistic models.”

In the example below T/R-5(8) speaks of the value of social knowledge where the emphasis is not placed on information but rather on context and rules and experience (Prusak, cited in Brown et al, 2005:49): “Actually, one of the most useful things or useful

times for me is lunch…we just talk about problems we have with students, issues that need to be raised that we feel strongly about at the university, teaching practices and just generally what we’re doing our research on, what we found interesting. That’s probably one of the most, I think, interesting times of my day, and that’s probably where we share.” These lecturers do not describe their informal learning as being facilitated or guided. Rather, they start identifying with the organization as a social community (Handy 1995, in Scheeres, 2003: 2). By engaging with others narratively, as stated by the lecturer above , they are not just learning new skills – they are learning to negotiate new networks of both fellow employees and processes. If they are successful in doing this they should come to form a closely knit community of members, in contrast to their perhaps previous status as autonomous operators (Handy, 1995. Wenger, 1998, in Scheeres, 2003:2). As stated in chapter two Wenger (1998, in Boud & Middleton 2003:2) argues that social participation within the community is key to informal learning. Marsick and Watkins (in Cofer, 2000:1) state that learning about work is meaningful here as the lecturer is aware that this type of interaction occurs on a regular basis thus allowing time for action and reflection. Through reflection the lecturer is able to actively apply new concepts learned in practice and then bring feedback to the rest of the group for reflection again.

T/R-3(4) comments on the value of informal learning when trying to navigate the university website. He states, “I’m sure there’s some document somewhere on the vast (name of university) website that explains it…I’ve been here almost a year now and I still don’t really find my way around the website. It’s a massive thing.” He goes on to explain that a more experienced lecturer helps him often to find what he needs whether it is with regard to the website or not ; “But someone like (name of lecturer) is great to work with. You speak to him and he will show the (name of university) shortcuts.” Prusak (cited in Brown et al, 2005:48) explains that merely relying on computers for knowledge just means getting knowledge on a screen. He explains that this is very different than going somewhere, being and working with other people, and having a sense, through stories among other things, of how the work is done, how to succeed, what the norms are and what type of behaviour is expected. Brown and Duguid (1991:2)

explain that in some cases the details of work practice in a social context are not regarded as important. However, having a more experienced lecturer who is willing to assist allows the lecturer the opportunity to share stories, discuss problems and find solutions to problems that management cannot solve and perhaps do not know about. Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development would also have relevance here. Through problem solving under the guidance of a More Knowledgeable Other (MKO) the lecturer is able to surpass his or her present developmental level to deepened levels of cognition. Brown, Metz and Campione (in Tryphon & Voneche, 1996:147) explain that “social settings create zones of proximal development that operate only in collaborative interactions.” Without the informal mentorship of a MKO the lecturer would experience problems in finding solutions to daily problems encountered in his work thereby inhibiting the development of his professional identity.

Mentoring is not the only means through which professional identity can be developed. Communities of practice can also assist in this regard. According to Viskovic and Robson (2001:224) there is another dimension of practice to a community of practice. They state that there is a shared set of words, stories and ways of saying things which become part of its practice. Through narrative I argue once again that professional identity is developed. The lecturer, in becoming a participant in a community of practice, and through narrative in this community, is able to more clearly define who he or she is as a lecturer. I provide an analogy here to illustrate the above, by Jordan (in Brown & Duguid, 1991:12) who argues in her analysis of midwifery; “ To acquire a store of appropriate stories and, even more importantly, to know what are appropriate reasons for telling them, is then part of what it means to become a midwife.”

Research on narrative ways of knowing as a way of understanding how identity is conceptualised and developed have been recognised. Bruner (1986, in DiPardo & Potter, 2003:327) argues “that our narrative constructions (and reconstructions) provide important clues to our stances and subjectivities; dealing in human vicissitudes and multiple possibilities, our attempts at story making not only communicate information about chains of events but represent the holistic sense we ultimately make of them.” In

other words, through understanding that narrative is key to knowing how lecturers organise and make meaning of their experiences we can start to appreciate the value of a narrative orientation to understanding how professional identity is developed.

In linking a narrative orientation to the study of professional identity development of lecturers to a social theory of learning it can be said that the Vygotskian conceptions about lecturers’ lives and their development of professional identity are enhanced through narrative ways of knowing. Through a process of narrating experience and revisiting and refining these narratives I argue that it is possible to arrive at an understanding of how professional identity is developed.

Through research on narrative as a way of understanding how identity is developed the writings of Bruner (1990) became relevant to this study. Bruner (1990:115) acknowledges that people narrativize their experiences of the world in order to make meaning of their personal lives. As a result he uses the work of Mischler (in Bruner, 1990:115) to illustrate that in research social scientists need to move away from interviews aiming at expecting respondents to answer in categorical forms needed in formal exchanges rather than in the narratives of natural conversation. If we do not do this we are in danger of our interviews becoming artificialised through our interview methods. It was for this exact reason that I decided to embark on narrative inquiry as one of my methods for data collection and analysis. Lampert (in Elbaz, 1991:1-2) explains that the way that teachers view themselves and their work will only become apparent as they present themselves in the stories they tell about their work to different people and in different settings.

According to Bruner, (1986, in Elbaz, 1991:3) life is lived as a story line in that we shape the story and the life together, reshape our life as we will it, and then live it in accordance with the already formed story-in-progress until the next retelling changes its shape yet again. The notion of story evokes an image of a community of listeners.

McLellan (1994:7) claims that stories are important for situated learning and the social construction of knowledge through apprenticeship, collaboration, reflection and coaching. Narratives, according to her are significant in the transfer of information and discovery. McLellan further claims that stories provide a solid base for remembering what has been learned.

Therefore it becomes apparent why the findings of this study focus on the narrative life stories of lecturers. I contend that it helps us understand how they come to reach their personal professional identities. To understand professional identity means exploring through life story narrative how the lecturer has constructed his or her personal history in terms of his or her past, present and future. I concur with McAdams (1990:151) who believes that identity is an autobiographical history of one’s life. In turn McAdams’ thinking is in harmony with Erikson (1959 in McAdams 1990:151) who believes that the story is the person’s identity.

The development of identity is a process which takes place over the lifespan of an individual. Hankiss (in McAdams, 1990:168) provides us with a clear idea as to how individuals conceptualise identity:

Everyone builds his or her own theory about the history and the course of his or her own life by attempting to classify his or her particular successes and fortunes, gifts and choices, and favourable and unfavourable elements of his or her fate according to a coherent, explanatory principle and to incorporate them within an historical unit.

However it is important to note the contention of Erikson (1958, in Mc Adams, 1990:167) that life histories are subjective in that adults reconstruct their own pasts in such a way that they literally feel that they have mapped out their lives in the way they intended. McAdams (1990:166) believes that around the end of adolescence the individual has considered an ideological setting for his or her identity story.

I will now discuss the three groupings of lecturers which formed the pattern. The first group of lecturers in the university have had negative experiences at the university which have been characterised by a lack of informal professional support.

There are a few lecturers whose experiences within the university have been negative due to a lack of collegial support. This may be enhanced in that they perhaps lack confidence and therefore tend to isolate themselves from other lecturers who they may learn from. This may be linked to a less positive self-concept or a strong personal instead of social identity. Although reasons such as those stated above may be sought for explaining their negative experiences the most probable explanation is the fact that they have experienced prolonged professional isolation which leads them to seek professional support elsewhere outside of the university at which they work, which is counter-productive in some ways to the university, or give up seeking support and become withdrawn from the community in which they should be actively operating in.

As mentioned in chapter two Tajfel and Turner (cited in Wetherell, 1996:33) argue that people’s psychological processes are transformed in group settings. They suggest that the basis for people’s self-definition changes in groups in that personal identity gives way to social identity. However, some lecturers are not afforded the opportunity to work in group settings and therefore do not become members of communities of practice and have no choice but to withdraw from the academic community within which they operate. As a result these lecturers may experience difficulty in terms of coming to an understanding of what their roles entail. T/R-7(14) states: “I find that I don’t actually get kind of teaching support since I came to (this) university from day one. I actually must find all answers myself. So it is quite difficult … I don’t know what other people are doing. I must find my own way, which is okay. Um, I can just lock the door because