CONTRASTE ENTRE USOS PLANEADOS Y USOS DESARROLLADOS DEL RELATO

3.1 Introduction to identity

In the previous chapter I concluded with the notion that teaching emanates from an individual’s inner self, and that good teaching cannot be attributed to knowledge and technique only; good teaching arises from the identity and integrity of the teacher (Palmer, 1998). As Palmer (1998) advocates, good teachers have a strong sense of personal and professional identity and integrity that infuses their work. Palmer is not alone in this opinion: based on their narrative and life history research with teachers, Carter and Doyle (1996, p. 120) proposed that “the act of teaching and teachers’ experiences and choices are deeply personal matters inexorably linked to their identity and life history”. It is this self-same concept that has also given rise, in the past twenty years, to a significant body of research on teacher identity (see literature reviews by Andrzejewski, 2008; Beijaard, Meijer, & Verloop, 2004; Menter, 2010). Similarly, recognition of the impact of identity on practice (Wenger, 1998) has seen the emergence of a comparable body of literature around the concept of teacher, professional and academic identities in higher education (Archer, 2008; Clegg, 2008; Hockings et al., 2009; James, 2005; Trede et al., 2012).

Identity is “one of the most ubiquitous and extensively investigated concepts in social science research” (Kim, 2010, p. 53). It “guides life paths and decisions”, is the source of the meaning found in a sense of belonging to a group, and is also at the basis of both constructive and destructive behaviour toward others (Vignoles, Schwartz, & Luyckx, 2011, p. 2). Henkel (2005) cites Taylor (1989, p.28) as suggesting that “to know who you are is to be oriented in moral space, a space in which questions arise about what is good and bad T and about what has meaning and importance for you”. Furthermore, Henkel proposes that there are three dimensions to the moral framework which identity supports, specifically: an “obligation to others, fulfilment or meaningfulness and range of notions concerned with dignity, respect and self-esteem” (Henkel, 2005, p. 157)

73

Identity is very difficult to define and can be understood in a variety of ways, using different terms or metaphors to communicate its meaning (Billot, 2010; Canrinus, Helms-Lorenz, Beijaard, Buitink, & Hofman, 2011). Identity or a “sense of self” describes how people characterise themselves through their perception of self, their relationships with others, and within broader groups to which they belong. In essence, “identity” seeks to answer the question “who am I?”, and is an on-going “process of development”, embodying a continual “organised endeavour” to make sense of the question in the context of past, present and future lived experiences (Billot, 2010, p. 713). Identity can be broadly thought of as a “label attributed to the attempt to differentiate and integrate a sense of self along different social and personal dimensions” (Bamberg, 2011, p. 6). Vignoles et al. (2011) extend the concept further by suggesting that identity is not only about who you think you are, individually or collectively, but also about “who you act as being” (p. 2) in dealings with others and in groups, and the recognition you receive from them in the process. McFadden (2008, p. 1) proposes that identity has both an individual and social function, in that it can offer the individual a “sense of uniqueness by establishing a definition of who one is as an individual” whilst also being able to provide a “sense of connectedness and belonging to social groups”.

In an attempt to define and classify identity and describe its formation and development, a vast body of research literature has accumulated over the last fifty years, both within and across various disciplines, including: psychology, sociology and anthropology (Vignoles et

al., 2011). Based on this extensive research and literature on identity, this chapter

commences with a consideration of the classification of identity, and then explores certain theories of identity through a discussion of a number of the common themes underpinning them. The concepts of professional and academic identities are then discussed, and finally the literature pertaining to the identity of academics, teaching on professional or vocational programmes within higher education is reviewed.

3.1.1 Classification of identity

Building on the work of Triandis (1989), Jameson (2007) proposes a classification of individual identity (Figure 3.1). The classification suggests that at a general level identity can be described as either objective or subjective. Objective identity is identity in terms of official records, for example birth certificates, identity documents, passports, tax registration numbers and returns. On the other hand, subjective identity is a “person’s sense of who he or she is as a human being”, and encompasses both collective and personal identity (Jameson, 2007, p. 207).

74

Personal identity refers to the “unique elements that we associate with our individuated self” (Ting-Toomey, 2005, p. 212) and as Jameson (2007, p. 207) maintains, is a “sense of self derived from personality, character, spirit, and style”, that makes us who we are and creates a sense of uniqueness.

Figure 3.1: Classification of individual identity (adapted from Jameson, 2007, p. 208)

Based on self-categorisation theory, Onorato and Turner (2004) make a distinction between personal identity and social identity, or what Jameson (2007) would more broadly call collective identity. Personal identity (the personal self) “refers to ‘me’ versus ‘not me’ categorisations - all the attributes that come to the fore when the perceiver makes interpersonal comparisons with other in-group members” (Onorato & Turner, 2004, p. 259). Personal identity addresses questions of individuality, uniqueness, and distinctiveness, relative to other people. Conversely, social identity (the collective self), “refers to ‘us’ versus ‘them’ categorisations - all the attributes that come to the fore when the perceiver compares his or her group (as a collective) to a psychologically relevant out-group” (Onorato & Turner, 2004, p. 259). Social or collective identity can therefore be thought of as the individual’s self- concept consequential to their perceived membership of social groups. Simply stated, it is an individual-based perception of what defines the “us” associated with group membership and is distinguishable from the idea of personal identity which refers to self-knowledge originating from the individual’s unique attributes.

Identity