Sometimes fish, sometimes fowl? Liminality, identity work and identity malleability in graduate teaching assistants

Abstract

Graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) have been described as being ‘neither fish nor fowl’, occupying a role between student and teacher. Their multiple identities are commonly framed within the literature as a key challenge. This study explored the perspectives of GTAs when discussing their teaching work, through activity-oriented focus groups with nine GTAs from a UK university. Thematic analysis revealed that whilst GTAs showed a lack of clarity over their identity, they are actively involved in the process of ‘identity work’ through negotiating an emerging professional identity. Furthermore, liminality of status, being neither fully a student nor teacher, allows GTAs to operate with identity malleability, adjusting their most salient identity to meet the demands of the situation. It is argued that rather than occupying an ‘ambiguous niche’, GTAs occupy a ‘unique niche’ and the identity malleability they possess affords the optimum conditions in which to engage in identity work.

Keywords:

• Graduate teaching assistants
• professional identity
• identity work
• liminality

Notes

1. In Australia and New Zealand, such roles are more likely to be referred to as ‘tutors’.

2. The notion of ‘Identity Work’ (e.g. Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2003) represents the conception of identity as constantly in flux; identity in this sense is not something to be ‘possessed’ but something that emerges from activities, discourses and events and is subject to constant development and revision. In the process of active construction and negotiation of identity, individuals are said to be engaged in identity work (see Harrison, Clarke, Reeve, & Edwards, 2003, for a discussion of this concept as it pertains to work in Education).

3. A single discipline area at a single research site has the benefit of providing a ‘bounded setting’ (Jazvac-Martek, 2009) which avoids issues relating to differing understandings of terminology, concepts, etc.

4. The statements used in this activity were adapted from responses given by a previous cohort of GTAs from the same department in an unpublished survey of their experiences.

5. As Colucci (2007) indicates, the purpose of using activities is to elicit rich discussion, rather than the content of the activity being the primary focus. Thus, the purpose of requiring participants to reach an agreement on their rating of each statement was to enable them to surface their perspectives during the process of the negotiation.

6. Participants are represented by pseudonyms throughout.