Who am I? Key influences on the formation of academic identity within a faculty development program

Abstract

Introduction: Professional identity encompasses how individuals understand themselves, interpret experiences, present themselves, wish to be perceived, and are recognized by the broader professional community. For health professional and health science educators, their ‘academic’ professional identity is situated within their academic community and plays an integral role in their well being and productivity. This study aims to explore factors that contribute to the formation and growth of academic identity (AI) within the context of a longitudinal faculty development program.

Methods: Using a qualitative case study approach, data from three cohorts of a 2-year faculty development program were explored and analyzed for emerging issues and themes related to AI.

Results: Factors salient to the formation of AI were grouped into three major domains: personal (cognitive and emotional factors unique to each individual); relational (connections and interactions with others); and contextual (the program itself and external work environments).

Discussion: Faculty development initiatives not only aim to develop knowledge, skills, and attitudes, but also contribute to the formation of academic identities in a number of different ways. Facilitating the growth of AI has the potential to increase faculty motivation, satisfaction, and productivity. Faculty developers need to be mindful of factors within the personal, relational, and contextual domains when considering issues of program design and implementation.

Introduction

The term ‘identity’ has taken on a great many meanings in psychology, sociology, and philosophy. All these descriptions, however, are based on the premise that identity is a dynamic construct which is continually formed and reformed (Luehmann 2007; Monrouxe 2010). Identity encompasses how individuals understand themselves, how they interpret experiences, how they present themselves and wish to be perceived by others and how they are recognized by the broader community (Gee 2001).

While health care professionals have a ‘professional identity’ which is situated within the community of their profession or clinical setting, faculty members of a university also have an ‘academic’ professional identity, which is situated within the context of their faculty or academic department, and encompasses the many educational roles they provide (Arreola et al. 2009). The literature suggests that this academic identity (AI) plays an integral role in the well being and productivity of health professional educators. Indeed, Stone et al. (2002) highlight how medical faculty who identify as teachers are more likely to want to teach, improve their skills, acquire satisfaction from the experience of teaching and ultimately, student learning. Similarly, other studies have noted that AI contributes to the self-efficacy, motivation, commitment, and job satisfaction of educators and has tremendous impact on their behavior in the classroom (Flores & Day 2006; Taylor et al. 2007). While these authors have illuminated the importance of AI, they have provided limited insight into the nature and complexity of factors related to its formation and growth. This study aims to understand these factors within the context of a 2-year faculty development program. Implications for the future design and implementation of faculty development programs are discussed.

Table

Practice points

AI plays an integral role in motivation, satisfaction, and productivity of health professional educators; however, there is limited insight about its growth. Factors within personal, relational, and contextual domains appear to contribute to AI formation. Faculty developers need to be mindful of these domains when considering issues of program design and implementation.

Study context

The Education Scholars Program (ESP) was developed in 2004 by the Centre for Faculty Development – a joint initiative between the University of Toronto, Faculty of Medicine and St. Michael's Hospital. The goals of the 2-year, half-day a week program are to support and enable the success of health professional and health science faculty in their many roles as educators, including leader, scholar, teacher, and faculty developer. Potential candidates are nominated by their department chairs and clinical leaders and are then selected by a committee consisting of leaders within the education community. The program accepts on average 15–16 participants per cohort. Once accepted, departments are required to support participants with protected time and tuition.

The core curriculum is organized into three themes: (1) teaching excellence; (2) curriculum and scholarship; and (3) leadership and career development. Course activities, teaching methods, and assignments are all designed to facilitate the integration and application of subjects within these themes into participants’ actual practice contexts (Lieff 2009). Participants are taught by a large and diverse faculty who engage as facilitators, mentors, and advisors on scholarly projects.

Methods

To help inform our understanding of AI, we adopted a qualitative case study approach. Case study methodology is used for in-depth investigation of a single individual, group(s), or event(s). Case studies allow the researcher to engage in an ongoing analysis of data collected from multiple sources with the purpose of enhancing understanding of a phenomenon of interest (Yin 2009). In this study, the case under investigation was the ESP and we were interested in understanding how its participants viewed themselves and were perceived by others within their academic contexts.

Participants

Individuals for this study were graduates from the first three cohorts of the ESP (2004–2006, 2006–2008, and 2008–2010). All participants of the program (n = 47) were invited to participate in this research; 43 consented to participate in the study (Table 1). While the majority of program participants were physicians, there were also representatives from speech–language pathology, nutritional sciences, ultrasound, occupational therapy, physical therapy, medical physics, clinical biochemistry, microbiology, and pharmacy. Program participants came with a range of educational and clinical experience. The year participants graduated with their professional degrees ranged from 1977 to 2001, with the majority graduating in the early 1990s.

Table 1  Demographics

Cohort	Program participants	Females	Males	Participants consented N (%)
2004–2006	15	7	8	15 (100)
2006–2008	16	11	5	14 (88)
2008–2010	16	7	9	14 (88)
Total	47	25	22	43 (92)

Data collection

As part of their course requirements, participants were asked to provide written reflections about their experience in the program and its connection with their practice at three time points throughout the two years: the first submitted in December of year 1, the second in June of year 1, and the third submitted in June of year 2. These written reflection papers aimed to encourage feedback from the participants about their personal views and experiences. Reflection papers of participants who agreed to take part in the study were collected and anonymized. In total, 129 reflection papers were collected (Table 2). In addition, focus group interviews (Krueger & Casey 2000) were conducted with participants at the end of each year to explore general perceptions and experiences of the program and their academic identities. In total, 13 focus groups were conducted (Table 2). Each focus group consisted of seven or eight participants, was approximately 1.5 h in length, and resulted in approximately 19.5 h of digital recording. These recordings were then transcribed and anonymized before analysis.

Table 2  Data collected

	Reflection papers			Focus groups (FG)
Cohort	6 months	12 months	24 months	12 months	24 months
2004–2006	15	15	15	2005 (FG1 and FG2)	2006 (FG1 and FG2)
2006–2008	14	14	14	2007 (FG1 and FG2)	2008 (FG1 and FG2)
2008–2010	14	14	14	2009 (FG1 and FG2)	2010 (FG1, FG2, and FG3)
Total	43	43	43	6	7
	129			13

Data analysis

A thematic analysis of the data was conducted to explore emerging issues and themes related to AI. During the analysis, one researcher identified tentative issues and codes and organized them into preliminary categories. The research team met frequently to discuss and refine these initial codes and categories. Eventually, through an iterative process of relating and grouping of codes, the research team decided on a coding structure divided into major themes and factors (Glaser and Strauss 1967). Our coding structure was then applied to the complete data set, using NVivo qualitative data analysis software.

Quality issues

Trustworthiness of the data was enhanced in a variety of ways. The development of codes at each level of analysis was documented to enhance confirmability. The research team met frequently to discuss emerging analyses and refine themes being generated to enhance the dependability of the results. Finally, triangulation of themes generated from both sources of data (reflection papers and focus group interviews) as well as across all three cohorts assisted in establishing credibility (Lincoln & Guba 1985). Ethical approval was obtained for this study from the local Ethics Review Committee.

Results

Analysis of the data revealed many factors related to the formation and growth of AI (see Table 3 for the coding structure). These factors were clustered into three inter-connected domains – personal, relational, and contextual. All appeared to play an important role in how participants’ viewed themselves, interpreted experiences, presented themselves and were perceived by others within their academic contexts.

Table 3  Coding structure

Themes	Sub-themes
Personal	Perceptions of capabilities
	Interpretation of actions
	Impact of prior experience
	Management of competing identities
Relational	Sense of belonging
	Comparison to others
	Perceptions of others
Contextual	Program discourse
	Curriculum methods and content
	Work environment

Personal

The data highlighted many cognitive and emotional factors that contributed to the growth of the participants’ academic identities within the context of the ESP. These included perceptions of capabilities, interpretation of actions from new perspectives, the impact of prior experiences, and the management of competing identities.

Participants’ perceptions of their capabilities either contributed to, or diminished their feelings of self-confidence. This, in turn, seemed to influence how they viewed themselves as well as how they interpreted and approached situations. The majority of participants discussed how the program helped improve their confidence as educators, often empowering them to take risks, try new things or take on new roles that they would have been reluctant to embrace previously. The following quote illustrates how this increased confidence encouraged risk-taking as well as a new sense of self-awareness:

My deeper understanding of my strengths has also influenced my students’ learning and curriculum development because I now acknowledge that I have the skills to take risks whereas before, I never had the confidence to put myself out on a limb. (2-0406 Reflect 12 months)

Our data indicated that this sense of self-confidence was not stable and participants often reported experiencing some loss of confidence at points through the program when they became aware of the knowledge they had yet to learn:

At the beginning I came in interested in education and teaching. I gained a lot of skills, learned a lot, grew into that identity a little bit more... as you keep on learning, you start realizing how much else is out there and you start feeling like an imposter again. (2008 FG1)

For most participants, however, perceptions of their capabilities had increased by program completion.

The data also suggested that participants came into the program with a particular lens through which they understood themselves and their educational work. Their participation in the program allowed them to view their educational practices with ‘fresh eyes’, often prompting them to reassess their educational approaches:

You looked at it and said why did I ever do it that way? So it just questions what you’ve done… you thought you had it okay and now you have to re-evaluate the session… so I think that's a good thing, but it has changed the way I think. (2007 FG2)

As a result, participants felt encouraged to leave their educational ‘comfort zones’ and experiment with new techniques introduced in the program such as setting the learning climate, interactive lecturing, and the use of role play.

In addition, the data revealed that a range of prior experiences could play a powerful role in how the participants viewed themselves. Such experiences appeared to contribute to the formation of participants’ attitudes and beliefs about their academic roles. For example, this participant explains how childhood experiences played an integral role in his perception of himself as a teacher:

My attitudes towards learning and teaching are essentially attenuated versions of my own father's core beliefs. (1-0406 Reflect 24 months)

More recent professional experiences also affected participants’ willingness to view themselves and engage in potential new roles:

I was in a situation where some major changes in our institution were, I felt, imposed from the top, very traumatic experience… maybe it turned me off the whole idea of leadership. (2007 FG2)

It appeared that the prior experiences of participants could either reinforce or inhibit the development of new roles (e.g., leader) within their AI. Furthermore, when participants did ‘try out’ new academic roles (e.g., educator, faculty developer, scholar) during their involvement in the program, many experienced discomfort while trying to manage their different identities. For example, many struggled in balancing their AI with their clinical identity:

How do I attain a level of mastery as a medical educator (if ever) while maintaining excellence in my clinical practice? (4-0810 Reflect 12 months)

Participants were concerned that their increasing commitment to their academic role might compromise their clinical competence.

Relational

The data suggested that connections and interactions with others and the networks the participants belonged to, influenced how they viewed themselves and interpreted situations. Throughout the program, participants formed connections with a multitude of new people, thus expanding their social networks and community. It appeared that their AI was influenced by a sense of belonging, comparing themselves to others, as well as others’ perceptions of them.

Participants frequently discussed a ‘sense of belonging’ to a community within this faculty development program. The experience of learning, sharing experiences and growing together appeared to have contributed to their emergent AI:

We learn from each other – sharing ideas and innovations, commiserating about common frustrations, problem-solving around challenging teaching encounters and rejoicing in each others promotions. I realize the power of a network, and of collegial exchange. (14-0406 Reflect 6 months)

Many also felt that the development of their growing connections to the broader medical education community provided them with opportunities to explore new ideas and interests:

To talk to someone and you can hold their attention because they’re interested in the same thing. And they’ll give you 45 minutes of their time. So it's neat to have a community to be able to do that with. (2009 FG2)

This coming together with ‘like minded’ people amongst their classmates and faculty seemed to help participants to solidify how they viewed themselves and provided membership to a community which many felt missing at their home institutions.

Analysis also revealed that the manner in which participants constructed their identities was often in comparison to others. Many shared stories in which they viewed themselves either as more ‘capable’ or ‘deficient’ than their colleagues and peers. Positive comparisons, it appeared, served to boost their confidence and solidify their identities as educators. In contrast, when comparing themselves to individuals they deemed as ‘experts’, participants often viewed themselves as deficient. These more negative comparisons were often in relation to the experienced group of faculty who were invited to facilitate the program. For some this was discouraging:

Some of the presenters that we’ve had in some ways have been very overwhelming cause you look at them and you think ‘how will I ever be like them’. (2007 FG1)

However, while these ‘experts’ were intimidating to some, others found them motivating and viewed them as role models whose specific characteristics and behaviours they aspired to develop in their future selves:

Through the ESP, I have been able to come into closer contact with many different clinician-educators. By witnessing them in action as teachers and as scholars and by observing their success in the medical school organization, I have come to one conclusion: “I want to be like them”. (1-0406 Reflect 6 months)

Sessions taught by successful graduates of the program were particularly motivational and made the aspirations of current participants seem more attainable:

Knowing that they were education scholars before and now they were presenting to us, that was amazing that they could do that. (2008 FG1)

Another emergent factor related to AI formation and growth was how others (i.e., colleagues, program heads) perceived the participants. For some, it helped solidify their evolving identity, as their participation in the program conferred some academic ‘legitimacy’. It was reported that not only did others begin to view them differently but they also expected different things from them, which further validated their new identities:

People come to me, or come to you for advice and you’re identified as an expert locally or within certain spheres… go see such and such, people ask you for help and so it does change your identity. (2006 FG1)

Others, however, felt anxious with these external expectations or perceptions and felt ‘pushed’ into roles they were not yet comfortable with or ready to embrace:

Although sometimes I feel, I don’t want to say a fraud, but I feel that people have expectations or assumptions because you’re a part of the program … maybe part of it is actually giving you the opportunity to grow into that role but I also sometimes feel this pressure that because we’re in it then we have to do great things. (2006 FG1)

Contextual

The data indicated that participants' academic identities were affected by a number of factors related to the broader environment including factors within the learning context of the ESP (i.e. discourse, curriculum) and their individual work environments.

Many participants discussed the importance of having the ‘right language’. They felt that through their participation in the program they acquired a discourse which enabled them to access the broader educational community. This vocabulary, which described what they were already doing, provided a credibility and legitimacy to their work:

I didn’t have the language, the definitions, the understanding to… articulate well what I wanted to say prior to joining the course and definitely through the readings, through living it, through participating I feel like my ability to articulate my educational thoughts has exponentially increased. (2006, FG1)

Furthermore, participants appeared to internalize the language used to describe them within the program. They began to integrate the labels of ‘educator’ or ‘scholar’ into how they viewed themselves:

It was awkward at the beginning, in fact, to be called a ‘scholar’. Scholars do this and scholars do this…but to be called ‘you as educators’ and constant reference to us as educators and your educational plan, your this, your that, always with the word education, it naturally forges an identity in a way of thinking of yourself. (2007 FG1)

In addition to this discourse, specific aspects of the ESP curriculum appeared to play a role in how participants understood and perceived themselves. The methods employed and carefully selected content of the program seemed to provide them with a theoretical underpinning which could inform their work:

I just feel like I have a basis on which I am doing things. So whether it be altering a curriculum or teaching a student, I feel like I’ve got sort of a theoretical background and for me that gives me credibility. (2008 FG1)

Throughout their involvement, participants appeared to develop new perspectives for understanding their different activities as educators. These new perspectives enabled them to consider whether they were interested in taking on new roles or responsibilities:

I can now say that I could see myself as a leader in the future whereas before I couldn’t think of myself as a leader at all. And I thought of leaders as being born not cultivated and I think that's part of what ESP helped identify. (2008 FG1)

In addition to factors within the learning context of the program, participants’ own work environments appeared to play a role in determining whether they were able to act on these newly emergent identities. Lack of opportunity to ‘try out’ their new identities often led to frustration:

I’ve tried to go to people and say well, this is what we can do… here's some ideas I’ve learned and I find that people are happy doing what they’re doing…And I found that a bit hard. I came here and I feel inspired and I go back there and I feel [boxed in]. (2007 FG1)

In some instances this frustration motivated individuals to attempt to change their work environment and their role within it; in other instances they decided to move to a different work environment where they had the support to grow. In contrast, some, however, felt unable to pursue their developing academic identities:

The particular setting that I’m in there's not a lot of support for change. So now I’m kind of faced with the dilemma, okay, I have two choices: I can really put a lot of energy into shaking things up here and that's going to take a lot of work, or I’m going to go somewhere else because I can’t really live with the way it is (2007 FG1).

Discussion

As presented above, a number of dynamic factors emerged within three related domains – personal, relational, contextual – that appeared to contribute to the formation of an AI. These findings support the work by others (e.g., Coldron & Smith 1999; Luehmann 2007) who assert that identity is an ongoing process rather than a fixed entity. The process of AI development involves interpreting oneself as a certain kind of person, presenting oneself as that person and being recognized as such in a given context. While factors within each domain are dynamic and inter-related to each other, for clarity they will be discussed as separate entities below.

Personal

Within the personal domain, the findings highlighted how emotional and cognitive factors contributed to AI. An individual's perception of their capabilities, interpretation of their actions, interpretation of prior experiences and their ability to manage multiple roles and identities all appeared to affect their AI. For most participants, their sense of self-confidence in their many roles as educators fluctuated throughout the program. This waxing and waning of self-confidence has been similarly described by other educational researchers (Skeff et al. 1992; Lown et al. 2009). In general, however, participants described being empowered by a growing self-confidence – empowered to experiment with new educational roles they were previously reluctant to embrace. This enhanced sense of self-confidence as educators contributed to their growing sense of AI (Stone et al. 2002). In addition, the program introduced participants to a variety of new educational perspectives, prompting them to question their academic attitudes and beliefs and providing them with new ways to interpret their actions. Over time, these new perspectives enabled them to view themselves differently. Moreover, the program introduced participants to a variety of new academic roles (i.e., leader, faculty developer, and scholar). As participants began to identify with these new roles, many described an ‘internal conflict’ between their identity as a clinician and their identity as an educator. While Wenger (1998) describes how multi-membership is an inherent aspect of our identities, the management of these multiple identities may be challenging as they either conflict or align with each other (Mishler 1999). Finally, the findings highlighted the impact of prior experiences on the growth and development of AI. In a study by Stuart and Thurlow (2000), it was revealed how classroom behaviours and beliefs teachers have about themselves were heavily influenced by prior childhood experiences. Nevertheless, participants were often unaware of the impact of their past experiences – both personal and professional – on how they viewed themselves and their willingness, or rather unwillingness, to change or embrace new academic roles.

Relational

In the relational domain, the findings indicated that participant identities were influenced by feeling a sense of belonging, comparing themselves to others as well as others’ perceptions of them. Participants described their membership in the program as a positive experience in which they felt ‘connected’ to the larger community. The importance of a sense of belonging to both a classroom community and a larger community of practice has been well documented in the literature (Steinert & McLeod 2006; Lown et al. 2009). Belonging to a community may provide a sense of validation as well as career and professional networking opportunities (Lown et al. 2009). Indeed, membership in a community is related to one's AI as it has been found to be a great predictor of academic success (e.g., Wenger 2000; Simpson et al. 2004). The findings also indicated that comparing oneself to others may have the potential to reinforce or inhibit emerging identities. As participants learned about new perspectives and acquired a new language, many felt more capable in their educational roles than their colleagues, which appeared to contribute to an increase in self-confidence. Furthermore, participants were introduced to a large and diverse faculty who engaged as both program facilitators and advisors on scholarly projects. Participants compared themselves to these ‘experts’ and while some participants felt inadequate, most felt inspired or motivated by them. Indeed, these ‘expert’ faculty appeared to serve as role models for participants who were trying to identify potential identities and served as an ideal to which participants strived to become (Ibarra 1999).

Contextual domain

In the final domain, the findings suggested that the unique features of the program itself as well as individual work environments of the participants can both influence the formation of their identity. Within the program, the acquisition of a language of practice conferred upon the participants a sense of credibility and legitimacy as educators. In addition, the explicit labeling of participants as scholars, educators, and leaders by faculty conveyed a belief in their ability to succeed (Tipping & Tiberius 1990). Furthermore, the multiple frameworks and perspectives embedded within the curriculum, as well as the emphasis on reflection, enabled versatility in identity construction as there was not one specific model being promoted. Finally, the importance of a supportive context was highlighted in our findings. Without support to ‘practice’ their new identities many felt discouraged. Multiple demands on time and lack of value for medical education at the faculty level prevented participants from pursuing academic interests and roles. Work environments are thus an essential component in identity development as they have the potential to either impede or enable its growth (Marks 1999).

Implications for faculty development

Based on the findings presented above, it is important for program developers and facilitators to be mindful of the following implications. In relation to factors within the personal domain, faculty development facilitators need to be aware of the potential conflict generated from emerging academic identities and provide supports to help individuals consider the tension inherent in managing the multiple roles that may be asked by them or that they wish to embrace. With the influence prior experiences have on identity formation and growth, it is essential for faculty developers to assist participants in bringing them to a conscious level and provide a safe environment in which to articulate and examine them further. (e.g., through reflection discussions).

Faculty development programs must also consider a number of relational factors. Facilitating a sense of belonging both within the program and the broader medical education community appears to be paramount in the formation of AI. Providing opportunities for informal discussion and relationship building (e.g., eating meals together) amongst participants can facilitate a sense of belonging to a supportive community. In addition, a sense of belonging to the greater community can be facilitated by exposure to multiple ‘experts’ and other role models in the field. Indeed, the choice of program facilitators may have both personal and relational implications related to identity formation. When choosing facilitators, it may be beneficial to introduce a wide variety of experienced individuals in the field, purposely chosen to represent the various contexts of the participants, in order to facilitate relationship building. Moreover, with the knowledge that exposure to these ‘experts’ can lead to comparisons affecting confidence levels in participants, it may be helpful to invite these potential role models to share their journey or practices. It may be helpful to invite these potential role models to share their journey or practices. Finally, faculty development programs need to provide participants with support developing strategies to deal with external pressures and expectations from their home environments.

During curriculum development activities, it is important for faculty developers to also be cognizant of a number of contextual factors. The discourse used within the program – which participants may adopt to describe themselves, their actions and their newly acquired knowledge – has been shown to play a role in the formation of their emerging academic identities (Gee 2001). Program developers should therefore be thoughtful and purposeful about the use and introduction of discourse throughout the curriculum. FD programs should also take care to introduce participants to, and work within, a variety of educational frameworks throughout the curriculum. Exposure to these varied perspectives may help to ensure a greater likelihood participants will find one that relates to them. Furthermore, the practice of reflection appears to be an essential component of the curriculum as it has the potential to provide a venue to help participants both question and solidify their attitudes and beliefs. Finally, the work context of participants should also be considered. Support from home departments including protected time and tuition monies are helpful; however, it appears that more institution-wide strategies may be needed in order for participants to be able to act on their new identities when back in their home environments.

Limitations

While this study offers some helpful insights into the nature of AI formation, it nevertheless has a number of limitations. Importantly, the study is based upon data collected and analyzed from a faculty development program in a single geographical area, which restricts its ability to generalize findings to other settings. Further studies are required to investigate AI formation across other programs and settings. In addition, the study's reliance on self-reported data means there is some potential for social desirability bias (e.g., participants may over-claim the positive effects of the program). Participants’ comments, however, suggest this potential limitation was avoided. Participants openly shared their struggles and frustrations with the program and their issues of identity.

Concluding comments

As this study indicated factors salient to the formation of AI can be grouped into three major domains: personal (cognitive and emotional factors unique to each individual); relational (connections and interactions with others); and contextual (the program itself and external work environments). Faculty development initiatives not only aim to develop knowledge, skills, and attitudes, but also contribute to the formation of academic identities in a number of different ways. Facilitating the growth of AI has the potential to increase faculty motivation, satisfaction, and productivity. Faculty developers need to be mindful of factors within the personal, relational and contextual domains when considering issues of program design and implementation.

Declaration of interest: The authors report no declarations of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.