The perceptual emphasis of IT was developed by Peter J. Burke (1980, 1991; Burke & Tully, 1977). Burke’s perspective of IT follows the symbolic interactionist’s idea that identity is self-meaning developed in the context of meanings of roles and counter-roles (Stryker & Burke, 2000:7). Integrating ideas from both Stryker (1980) and McCall and Simmons (1978), Burke (1980) extended IT by delineating five theoretical properties of identities from an interactionist view of the self: (1) identities are self-meanings; (2) identities are relational; (3) identities are reflexive; (4) identities affect behaviour indirectly and (5) identities motivate (MacKinnon, 1994:88).
These elements of Burke’s interactional approach to IT are appropriate for responding to the second research question: How do descriptions of the (mis)alignment between work roles, expectations and individual values influence meaningfulness and fulfilment for academics’ professional self- concepts? Burke’s (1980) approach to IT focuses on the “internal dynamics that operate for any one identity” (Burke & Stets, 2009:48). Burke’s (1980) cognitive approach to IT also focuses on the internal social structure and its impact on identity construction; it also focuses on internal, cognitive identity processes (Stryker & Burke, 2000:11).
The cognitive approach views identities as not only reflexive and symbolic in nature but also as realised through interaction between actors and others (Burke & Reitzes, 1981:84). Burke’s (1980) approach further argues that there is a shared link between identity and behaviour. That is, when the meaning of an identity matches with the meaning of the behaviour, then identities predict behaviour (Burke & Stets, 2009:49; Stryker & Burke, 2000:8). Burke (1980) argues that from interpersonal social interaction, people evaluate feedback from others to determine whether their identities or self-views are being backed by others or not. They then take feedback that they receive from others and compare it with their identity meanings; if these meanings match, individuals feel emotionally neutral or positive. However, if they do not match, they tend to experience negative emotions which motivate them to change their behaviour in the situation to align feedback with self-views (Cantwell, 2016:572).
This element of Burke’s cognitive approach is expected to describe the process that individuals use to maintain their self-meanings and to ensure that those self-views are communicated consistently in situations. Burke (1980) also views an identity as composed of four basic components, namely, inputs, identity standards, comparators and outputs (Burke & Stets, 2009:62).Firstly, the identity standard (as a set of culturally prescribed meanings held by individuals) defines role identities in a situation. Thus it represents the core of an identity since it is the set of meanings that serve as a ‘standard’ or ‘reference’ for who one is (Sharp & Kidder, 2013:354; Burke, 2004:5).
Identity standards are culturally prescribed; that is, they are meanings held by individuals that help them to define their identities in situations (Stryker & Burke, 2000:9; Burke & Stets, 2009:63). In this way each identity that a person holds has a separate standard containing the meanings that define that identity (Burke & Stets, 2009:63). Thus for Burke (2004:5) an identity is a set of meanings that people hold for themselves that define ‘what it means’ to be who they are as individuals, role occupants and group members. He further argues that when the self is an occupant of a role, and the incorporation of meanings and expectations of that role do not align, then people perform actions to align them. For example, when an academic identifies with being a researcher, he or she will continue on ordinary courses of action of being a researcher. However, if someone accuses them of not being a researcher, then he or she may ‘perform actions to align self-perceptions with the identity standard’ (Sharp & Kidder, 2013:354).
Secondly, inputs (perceptions of the self in the situation) tell the individual about their environment or what is happening around them (Burke & Stets, 2009:64). In terms of identities, perceptions are the inputs to identities or meanings in the situations that are relevant to the identity. Thus, inputs are perceptions that imply something about the identity of an individual (Burke & Stets, 2009:65). According to Burke (2004:5), if an interactive situation and the perceived situational meanings are disturbed to the extent that they no longer match the standards, people act in such a way that they counteract those
disturbances and restore the match in meanings between perceptions and standard. This process of restoring meaning is called the self-verification process. As a central cognitive process in the identity theory, self-verification involves seeing the self as embodied in the identity standard or the cognitive representation of a role containing the meanings and norms that the person associates with the role. Therefore, self-verification occurs where an individual behaves in order to maintain consistency with the identity standard. Self-verification also underlies role taking, role making and group formation as the person acts to portray the identity (Stets & Burke, 2000:232). Burke’s approach to IT also views emotions as playing a key role in the feedback loop between identity standards and inputs (self - perceptions). He states that positive emotions such as pride and satisfaction act as signals of alignment between standards and perceptions and drive people to continue normal courses of action. Conversely, negative emotions such as anger or sadness act as signals of misalignment between standards and perceptions and motivate people to repair this misalignment (Sharp & Kidder, 2013:354).
Thirdly, the comparator (mechanisms that compare the perceived situational meanings with those of the identity standard) compares the input perceptions of meanings relevant to the identity with the memory meanings of the identity standard and registers the difference or error between them (Cantwell, 2016:575; Burke & Stets, 2009:63-67; Stets & Burke, 2003:108). If the meanings match, the self is verified and self-meanings are supported in the situation. However, if the meanings do not match the identity standard, then the individual experiences a discrepancy and emotions result from this comparison process (Cantwell, 2016:575).
Lastly, the output is the emotion, activity or behaviour of the individual which is the result of the difference between the identity standard and perceptions. Thus the outputs represent the behaviour in the situation, hence the meaning or symbolic value of the behaviour is relevant to the extent that it changes the meanings in the situation (Burke & Stets, 2009:63-67; Stryker & Burke, 2000:9). Overall, Burke’s (1980) IT views behaviour as a result of the relationship between perceptions in the situation and the self-meanings held by the individual. Burke (1980) also views behaviour as being goal-directed and prone to change, depending on the demands of the situation in order to match meanings in the situation with meanings held in the standard (Stryker & Burke, 2000:9). Additionally, Burke’s (1980) cognitive model of IT views emotion as the result of the relationship between perceived self-meanings in the situation and the self-definitional meanings held in the identity standard (Stryker & Burke, 2000:10). Hence, a mismatch or increasing discrepancy between perceived self-meanings in the situation results in a negative emotion, while a match or decreasing discrepancy results in positive emotions. Emotions are also recognised as having their own consequences (both for the individual experiencing them and on others) as outward expressions of the state of the individual. Emotions then signal to self and others a person’s internal state, making that state part of the situation to which all parties, including the self must respond (Stryker & Burke, 2000:10).