Interactional perspective

The interactional emphasis of IT was developed by McCall and Simmons (1978) who are regarded as the founders of modern work in IT (Burke & Stets, 2009:39). In their interactional approach to IT, McCall and Simmons (1978) state that the construction of an identity involves ‘naming’ which includes all the things (together with the self and other) that give meaning to people’s plans and activities (Stets & Burke, 2000:225). They also view an identity as one’s imaginative view (how one likes to view oneself) as an actor and as an occupant of a particular position (Burke & Stets, 2009:39). However, they state that identities have an idiosyncratic dimension (the identity of role identities) which involves the distinctive interpretations that individuals bring to their roles (Burke & Stets, 2009:39; Stets, 2007:89).

The central concept in IT for McCall and Simmons (1978) is a role identity. They view it as one’s imaginative view based on how one likes to think of and acts as an occupant of a particular social position. McCall and Simmons (1978) also posit that role identities have either a conventional or an

idiosyncratic dimension. With regard to the conventional aspect, they state that role identities comprise

the cultural expectations tied to social positions in the social structure that actors try to meet. Conversely, the idiosyncratic aspect of role identities is viewed as the distinctive interpretations that individuals bring to their roles (Burke & Stets, 2009:39).

To illustrate this point, Burke and Stets (2009:39) state that a professor identity typically entails conventional meanings of one as an educator and a researcher. However, some professors may add idiosyncratic dimensions such as “friend to students” or “protector of students’ to their conventional identity which is not usually found in the professor identity. As such, individuals can rigidly adhere to the culturally defined behaviours attached to the roles or they can adopt unique behaviours in such a way that they become unrecognisable to others (Burke & Stets, 2009:39).

The issue here is that people are capable of bringing their own interpretations of what an identity means to them when they occupy a position and play a role; as such meanings for role identities are both shared and idiosyncratic (Stets, 2007:89). McCall and Simmons (1978) are therefore interested in how the self influences behaviour, due to the realisation that behaviour emerges in interaction. They also tend to focus on aspects of exchange such as negotiation, bargaining and rewards as well as the costs that facilitate or impede action (Burke & Stets, 2009:39). This interest was influenced by their early interest in “the importance of negotiation in working out the differential performances, relationships and

interconnections of roles within a group or interaction context” (Stets & Burke, 2000:227). This element of McCall and Simmons’ interactional approach to IT is therefore appropriate for responding to the first subsidiary question: How do reflexive interpretations of cultural expectations tied to membership in disciplinary communities influence the negotiation of academic identities and work behaviour of academic staff? Since McCall & Simmons (1978) view an identity as the preferred ‘character’ that individuals create for themselves as occupants of specific social positions, they argue that the negotiation of identities is intended to portray individuals’ preferred self-perceptions when occupying certain social positions (Owens et al., 2010:481; Stets & Burke, 2009:11). McCall and Simmons’ interactional perspective on IT also shows that the negotiation of identities results in unique interpretations that individuals bring to their roles and how those are negotiated with others in interaction (Stets, 2007:205; Burke & Stets, 2009:39).

As Turner (1962:24) states, roles cannot exist without relevant other-roles toward which they are oriented. Thus, if people enact or perform their roles well, other’s appraisals of approval will make them feel good. Similarly, when they perform well in a role; they attain a sense of control over their environment (Burke & Stets, 2000:5). As primary sources of personal action, McCall and Simmons (1978) contend that identities are ‘role’ identities and they influence peoples’ everyday lives. However, people are capable of creativity and improvisation in the performance of their roles, even within the overall requirements and restrictions of their social position(s). This element is expected to be helpful in explaining the different strategies which academics employ to negotiate who they are at work.

In this way, McCall and Simmons’ (1978) approach illuminated the intermingling of the academics’ idiosyncrasies and impulsiveness of behaviour, as constrained by social convention through the dialogue between the ‘I’ and the ‘me’ (Owens et al. 2010:481). Similar to Stryker (1968,1980), McCall and Simmons (1978) also believe that individuals have multiple identities due to the different positions that they hold in society. However, they state that these multiple identities are arranged in prominence hierarchies respectively (Stets, 2007:205). The prominence hierarchy refers to the role identities which are most important or enduring for actors; thus it not only represents the ideal self but it also characterises the actors’ priorities which guide their behaviour across situations and time.

Consequently, when individuals are faced with a situation where they must choose an identity in a situation, they choose the most prominent (Stets, 2007:205). McCall and Simmons (1978) also observe that some situations do not allow the enactment of prominent role identities since ‘others’ do not support such roles; hence they cease being prominent; instead they become salient identities (Stets, 2007:205). They further contend that individuals universally seek role support for aspects of the self which they value; hence they enact identities congruent with that self to maximize role-support (McCall & Simmons, 1966:73).

For this reason, McCall and Simmons (1978) speak of the significance of ‘negotiation’ among actors so that mutually sustaining identities can be obtained (Stets, 2007:205). The interactional perspective also states that a person’s ‘emotions’ emerge when a prominent identity is challenged in interaction; that is, others in the situation do not agree that the individual’s behaviour is consistent with the identity that the person is claiming or performing (Stets, 2007:205; Burke & Stets, 2009:159). This lack of support for one’s behaviour has a tendency to produce negative feelings for the individual. As a result, the person may decide to employ strategies such as selective perception, rationalising own behaviour, rejecting non-supportive others or even withdrawing from the situation (Burke & Stets, 2009:159; Stets, 2007:205). This element is expected to be helpful in showing how academics deal with situations in their work when they are unable to fulfil the cultural expectations attached to their roles as academics.

McCall and Simmons (1978) further state that when individuals face negative emotions or threats to their identity they employ ‘defence mechanisms’. These are essentially tactics that people use to protect themselves from the pain associated with negative feelings. Besides defence mechanisms, people may also employ ‘projection’ whereby they assign negative feelings to others rather than attributing those feelings to themselves. Alternatively, they may use ‘displacement’ where they direct their negative feelings towards others (Burke & Stets, 2009:160). Nevertheless, although IT historically focused on role identities, it has since broadened its perspective to include other bases of identities such as person and social identity.