Academic identities are first and foremost work-related identities; that is, they derive from and are shaped by work, for it is through work that people become social beings. As such, work ‘forms’ people. It not only gives them a focus, but it also gives them a means for personal expression and personal definition. In this way, work becomes one of the primary means by which adults find their identity and form their character; that is, where people work, how they work, what they do at work and the general ethos and culture of the workplace ineradicably mark people for life (Gini, 1998:708). Whereas an occupation is an activity, work, function or job that makes up the main source of an individual’s livelihood, a profession is a more or less specialised, well paid and prestigious occupation (Monteiro, 2015:47). Similarly, academic occupations are principally professional occupations while academics as professionals are individuals who are qualified and legally entitled to pursue academic professions (Hodson & Sullivan, 2008:258).
Professional identity is defined as “one’s professional self-concept, based on attributes, beliefs, values, motives, and experiences” (Slay & Smith, 2011:86). Robson (1998:586) views it as “the perception of oneself as a professional and it is closely related to the knowledge and skills one has, the work one does and the work-related significant others or the reference group”. Therefore professional identities derive from a profession; they influence self-definition and shape how others think about an individual. Thus professional identity can be thought of as the constellation of attributes, beliefs and values that people use to define themselves in specialised, skill- and education-based occupations or vocations (Slay & Smith, 2011:87).
Research into the construction of professional identities also cites family, cultural values, personal experiences and self-reflection on own identity as some of the factors which influence the construction of professional identities (Slay & Smith, 2011). This view is exemplified in the study’s second subsidiary question: How do descriptions of the (mis)alignment between work roles, expectations and individual values influence meaningfulness and fulfilment for academics’ professional self-
concepts? The second subsidiary question is important, given the statement that professional identities shape behaviour and are critical in the formation of job attitudes. They also play an integral role in the wellbeing and productivity of academic staff (Caza & Creary, 2016:6; Clarke et al. 2013:9; Lieff et al. 2012:208). For academics, professional identities are constructed within CoPs and the profession itself (Pifer & Baker, 2014:118).
Wenger (1998:51) defines the practice as a process in which people experience the social world and their engagement in it as being meaningful. Practice then is about meaning as an experience of everyday life. For Wenger, there is a deep connection between identity and practice, since a practice requires a community whose members engage and acknowledge each other as participants (1998:149). Wenger also characterises participation as having three dimensions: firstly, members share an understanding of the domain. This not only improves mutual engagement and builds trust between members but it also allows the discussion of issues pertaining to the practice (1998:149). Secondly, practice in a community is a joint enterprise which keeps the COP together and builds a sense of accountability to a body of knowledge. Thirdly, the community members develop a shared repertoire, inclusive of routines, words, tools and stories within the practice (Ruuska & Vartiainen, 2003:172).
Academics’ professional identity is also work-related and linked to economic activities, It does not focus on who academics are currently; instead it focuses on who they aspire to be in the future (Cohen-Scali, 2003:239; Clarke et al. 2013:9). Hence professional identities are related to job satisfaction and loyalty to the institution. They arise membership in communities with own histories, traditions, myths, values and practices (Johnson, Morgeson, Ilgen, Meyer & Lloyd, 2006: 498; Clarke et al. 2013:8). Professional identities are also situated and play an integral role in their wellbeing and productivity of academics (Lieff et al. 2012:208). For Caza and Creary (2016:6) professional identities provide behavioural guidance in the workplace; they shape behaviour and are critical in the formation of professional self- concepts within the workplace. Therefore examining the impact of work experiences on professional identity construction is important because work experiences within contemporary institutions can be different for academics as professionals, as individuals and as members of discipline-based communities. Guzman-Valenzuela and Barnett (2013:1) opine that academic professions are trajectories; they are essentially an interplay between the institution as a structure (seeking to preserve and advance itself as an organisation) and academics as agents (seeking to fulfill their own self- realisation).
Thus, although academic professions shape and restrict academic identities depending on the type of university, academics are still free to pursue their academic professions or not. This view is exemplified in the study’s third subsidiary question: How do internalised meanings of involvement and symbolic identification with NUL influence academic identity trajectories? Professional identities are
therefore key in the way in which academics assign meanings to themselves; hence they help academics to claim purpose and meaning from their work. They also help professionals to see how they contribute to society (Caza & Creary, 2016:6).
As professionals, academics are perceived to combine their individual and social identities into their professional or role identities. However, they often experience tension arising from the institutional social context when they attempt to develop identities as professionals (Vandeyar, 2010:917). The practice then is a source of coherence in the community (Ruuska & Vartiainen, 2003:171). Even so, each community develops its practice by sharing and developing the knowledge of practitioners in its domain; these include its repertoire of tools, frameworks, methods and stories (Snyder & Wenger, 2010:110). The experience of meaning is produced by a continued interaction and engagement in practice because people produce meanings that negotiate anew the events which they were part of in the past through a continued interaction with others (Wenger, 1998:52-53).