SHARED IDENTITY – EVOLVING AND MERGING:

The focus on identity in the CoP literature has not emphasized the process of identity- construction in the context of Situated Learning (Handley et al., 2006). Identity in the context of Situated Learning is defined and explored in terms of practice and participation (Wenger, 1998). Sense making within the context of Communities of Practice play a

very key role in identity construction, sense-making of their belonging influencing the concept of the ‘self’, group and the location; ‘who am I’, ‘who we are’ and ‘where we are' (Coakes & Smith, 2007; Carbery & Murphy, 2007). It has been observed through several studies that individuals belonging to Communities of Practice can be distinguished by their shared perceptions, actions, and thoughts and there tends to be a strong feeling of self-identity of being situated in the Communities of Practice, and strong identification with Communities of Practice is often encouraged and perceived to be a key success factor for a successful Community of Practice formation (Contu & Willmott, 2005; Pastoors, 2007).

3.7.1 SELF-IDENTITY – SITUATIONAL AND RELATIONAL:

Self-identity, as the term defined here by the researcher is based on Giddens(1991), in which the definition of ‘Self-identity is conceptualized as a reflexively organized narrative derived from participation in competing discourses and various experiences, productive of

a degree of existential continuity and security.’ In other words the ‘self’ is, as it is

reflexively understood by the person, emerges from different participation and action in the society. The notion of ontological security arising in the form of a coherent Self- identity (Kinnvall, 2004) is emphasized by Giddens, the security of understanding the

‘world is what it appears to be’ is an important driving force in self-identity, which

provides us a sense of continuity, a sense of self-confidence and self- assurance. One can

safely assume that ‘our inner security is the residence of a coherent self-identity’ (Sigel,

1989).

Social Constructionist theory pioneered by scholars like Harre`(1987), Shotter(1985) and Gergen(2000) locates identity construction in the ‘process of becoming’, collective influencing the construction of self through interpretations and internalizations of experiences of belonging, engagement and practice in communities. The researcher understands identity as not the intrinsic self, something fixed, static and unmoving but more a process of continual formation and construction, one of ‘becoming’. Most

importantly this process of becoming is enriched and happens on an ongoing basis through active participation in social practices.

3.7.1.1 Social Identity Theory:

According to Social Identity Theory (SIT), developed by Tajfel & Turner (1979), here the concept of the self, or the definition of self is drawn from affiliations and memberships in

social groups and categories’ (Terry et al, 1999; Ashforth & Mael, 1989). In the SIT,

individuals tend to define themselves and others into various group and social

classifications like age, gender, class, religion and other forms of collective memberships.

The researcher introduces the concept of ‘social identity’ of an individual which is

different from individual identity and defines the self as socially-constructed a ‘construct that mediates the relationship between the self and the broader social structure of groups

and categories’ (Terry et al, 1999).

3.7.1.2 Self-Categorization/Identification:

Is the process by which members of a group cognitively ascribe typical or prototypical dimensions to themselves which distinguishes them from out-group or people outside the group. These characteristics define the specific in-group members as a separate category (Terry at al, 1999; Tajfel & Turner, 1985). This is reflected in the way the community

defines “who we are” and as well “who we are not” and is constantly being modified

through relationships and interactions within the group (Loyarte & Rivera, 2007). 3.7.1.3 Self-Enhancement:

Is satisfying the urge or the need to be recognized as member of a particular group, boost their self-esteem and increase their prestige with regards to the out-group members (Thompson, 2005; Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Terry at al, 1999). Self-identification is viewed positive in this case to the extent that the individual conceptualizes the ‘self’ in

terms of the prestige drawn from attachment to ‘personas’ emanating from the group

membership (Adler & Adler, 1987; Schneider& Nygren, 1971; Ashforth & Mael, 1989). There is a tendency to favor the in-group members and feel more at ease with perception of less in-group differences against increased perception of differences with out-group members and less connection. This is based on the Minimal Group Paradigm which states that members of a group tend to attach higher self-esteem and favor in-group interaction over out-group members (Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Hogg, 1992; Hogg & Abrams, 1998; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Kinnvall, 2004).

3.7.2 IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION:

It can be defined as the individual quest for self-definition, coherence, meaning and

conceptualizing of ‘self’ as being achieved through the engagement in group narratives

and participation in the practice of the community (Grey, 1994; Wenger, 1998;

Handley, 2006; Alvesson & Willmott, 2002). Specifically in this research literature the focus is on the construction of individual identity as members of the CoPs, and here the researcher is talking about Self-Identity as an understanding of the self being part of the collective.

Alvesson & Willmott, (2002) explains that Identity Construction happens through the twin processes:

(1)Identity Regulation (2)Identity Work 3.7.2.1 Identity Regulation:

Is defined as the ‘intentional effects of social practices upon processes of identity

construction and reconstruction’ (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002). In this process one considers the role of all organizational processes of training, recruitment, induction and discourse in identity formation. Organizational discourse generated through these processes has significant implications for shaping and development of identity. Self- identity influencing process is achieved through identification with the organizationally-

inspired discourse, the ‘insides’ are touched by the organizational discourse which

employs both language and symbolism (Deetz, 1995; Knights & Willmott, 1989). 3.7.2.2 Role of Symbolisms in Identity Regulation – Artifacts:

Organizations employ symbolisms like languages, symbols, sets of meanings, rituals, sagas, heroes and myths in articulating and communicating the culture all of which have tremendous implication for Self-Identity formation (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002;

Alvesson, 2001). These symbolisms are termed as artifacts in the CoP parlance, the

reification of one’s shared meanings with history and legacy being part of it (Wenger,

1998). Evocation of a shared legacy and history is attempted through the use of symbols, memories, myths, stories and a heritage is formulated to provide direction for future actions amongst the members of the Community (Kinnvall, 2004).

In this specific research work it plays a very crucial role in exploring the identity formation of IAS officers since there is an induction into the service through one-year training at the academy in Mussorie, which is a very historical spot embedded with the rich legacies of Indian public administration. Apart from the regular training, IAS being a historical legacy administrative service, there would be an organizational discourse based on its unique evolutionary history and legacy, it would be worth investigating if the ancestral myths, symbolisms and shared legacy does have an impact on the identity formation.

3.7.2.3 Identity Work:

Self-identity can be defined as a collection of structured narrations, which needs to be sustained through a process of constant modification and negotiation (Wenger, 1998; Handley et al., 2006; Alvesson & Willmott, 2002). This process is known as Identity Work, which is an interpretive activity involving creating, transforming, recreating, maintaining and incorporating the social practices and discourses into the narratives of self-identity. A more formal definition from Alvesson & Willmott (2002) states that,

‘people are continuously engaged in forming, repairing, maintaining, strengthening or

revising the constructions that are productive of a precarious sense of coherence and

distinctiveness’. This explains that one’s situated ‘Self-Identities’ are constantly being

constructed and transformed, so one is at work in actively producing their socially-situated

‘self-identities’.

3.7.3 IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION IN A COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE –

INTERPLAY OF COMPLEX FORCES:

In the context of this research on Communities of Practice this would mean constant choice of the extent of participation in the Communities of Practice, and ongoing ‘self-

identity’ construction through sense-making of the alignment of the practice with their current understanding of ‘self’(Handley et al., 2006). The members of the CoP decide on

the extent of their participation through the negotiation between the organizational steering of identity-regulation and the sense-making of the ‘self’ as drawn from the current practices and other sources of identities. In other words, identity-construction in a CoP is a complex interplay between the organizational mandate of influencing the

individual identity, the choices exercised over the extent of internalization of the

streams or sources of identity like habitus (Bourdieu), explained later in the document. Complex interplay of forces of competing identities can be a source of tension when the

‘self’ is not being able to make sense through active participation in the practice since

there are other identities which are coming into conflict.

3.8 ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION – IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION FOR