https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3262-7185
ABSTRACT
Research has suggested that teacher educators’ profession and the process of identity formation are poorly understood. Moreover, attempts to clarify the terminology are rare. While research has addressed teacher educators’ professional identities holistically, discussion on teacher educators’ teacher identities is very rare, even though these specific sub-identities are at the core of their work. In this study we apply meta-ethnography to provide an interpretive synthesis of 30 studies on teacher educators’ identities conducted in the past decade. Our findings display how teacher educators’ teacher identities are understood in the current literature suggesting teacher identity to be a hidden term in research on teacher educators. Moreover, we provide a critique, challenging prevalent understandings of teacher educators’ identities, particularly focusing on the terminology used in the studies and definitions of teacher educators’ teacher identities and conclude with future directions for the research in this domain.
Introduction
The work of teacher educators is diverse and requires specific knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Ping, Schellings, and Beijaard Citation2018). Teacher educators have a key role in supporting future teachers in the development of their professional identities and also in acting as role models of teaching for future teachers (Lunenberg, Korthagen, and Swennen Citation2007). However, teacher educators’ profession is still poorly defined (Khan Citation2011; Tryggvason Citation2012; Smith and Flores Citation2019; Ping, Schellings, and Beijaard Citation2018) and the research literature points to the lack of clarity regarding who teacher educators are, what they do, and how they develop professionally (Flores Citation2018; Ping, Schellings, and Beijaard Citation2018). It appears that there is no clear knowledge base for teacher educators’ work (Ping, Schellings, and Beijaard Citation2018), likely due to the unclear border between what it means to be a schoolteacher and what it means to be a teacher educator (Swennen, Jones, and Volman Citation2010).
Previous research on teacher educators has focused primarily on how they see themselves as professionals (Richter, Brunner, and Richter Citation2021) and therefore applies the concept of professional identity or simply, identity. Moreover, teacher educators have often been described as blended professionals. We agree with Smith and Flores (Citation2019) that teacher educators are Janus-faced due to the competing demands of excellence in both research and teaching, which may be difficult to fulfil. Arguably, competing demands can lead to identity tensions. We acknowledge that teacher educators’ identities are shaped by the context in which teacher educators work and may therefore vary. For example, Finland has had academically based teacher education tradition for many decades: teacher educators are considered to be academic professionals responsible for conducting academic research, and providing research-based teacher education (Hökkä, Eteläpelto, and Rasku-Puttonen Citation2012).
In addition, to understand teacher identities of teacher educators, we must first understand what the term ‘teacher educator’ stands for. Existing research literature, however, points to the vagueness in the definition of the term (Smith and Flores Citation2019). In this study, we consider the term ‘teacher educator’ in a broad sense. Building on Snoek, Swennen, and van der Klink (Citation2011), teacher educator is ‘someone who contributes in a formal way to the learning and development of teachers’ (652). This kind of broad understanding of the term means that teacher educators can have different backgrounds and paths, like school-based teacher educators or mentors at schools, as well as college-based teacher educators and academic teacher educators in universities. They can teach or supervise pre-service or in-service teachers, including having ‘formal or informal involvement in the professional development of other colleagues’ (Swennen, Jones, and Volman Citation2010, 132).
Another point to consider when attempting to understand teacher educators’ teacher identities is the relationship between the research and teaching or the so-called research-teaching nexus. The latter has been extensively studied especially among academics but less among teacher educators. Despite the fact that there is no consensus on the definition of the nexus (Tight Citation2016; see also Harland Citation2016), various possible relationships between teaching and research exist: (1) integration, (2) research as a positive influence on teaching, (3) teaching as a positive influence on research, (4) separate activities with little impact on each other, (5) research as a negative influence on teaching, and (6) teaching as a negative influence on research (Coate, Barnett, and Williams Citation2001). Robertson (Citation2007) also found significant variations in the way academics experienced the relation between research and teaching. Nonetheless, research-active academics can have a significant role in helping their students to develop their academic skills. They can also provide more topical knowledge to students (Coate, Barnett, and Williams Citation2001). Furthermore, academics can use their research to design the learning activities carried out by the students (Cao et al. Citation2019). This means that students can be involved in teachers’ research (van Winkel et al. Citation2017; Griffiths Citation2004). The research-teaching nexus also has a central role in higher education curriculum design (Annala and Mäkinen Citation2011). Therefore, a close and mutually enriching relationship between research and teaching would be helpful for reducing the tensions arising from the competing demands of academics’ research and teaching (Geschwind and Broström Citation2015).
Prior research has highlighted that more attention should be given to what it means to be a teacher educator (Richter, Brunner, and Richter Citation2021) and to understand better the process of their identity formation (Izadinia Citation2014). Arguably, we need to talk about teacher educators’ multiple roles and identities as teachers, researchers, as well as the relations between them. It has been shown that especially in research-intensive settings, the research-teaching nexus has a central role for academics’ professional identities, but we have also argued that research-teaching nexus plays a central role in academics’ teacher identities (Kaasila et al. Citation2021). We see teacher educators’ professional identity as a wide encompassing concept, consisting of their teacher identities and researcher identities. Based on the cursory examination of the literature, we observed that several studies on teacher educators have discussed teacher educators’ identities or professional identities holistically, or have examined teacher educators’ researcher identities, however, the term teacher identity has been ignored or used in a very narrow way in relations to teacher educators. This is surprising, as teacher identities have been extensively studied among school teachers (Beijaard, Meijer, and Verloop Citation2004), pre-service teachers (Beauchamp and Thomas Citation2009; Lutovac and Kaasila Citation2018a, Citationb; Holappa et al. Citation2022; also academics from other than the field of education or teacher education (van Langveld et al. Citation2017; Kaasila et al. Citation2021). We agree with Richter, Brunner, and Richter (Citation2021) that how teacher educators make sense of their role of being a teacher of teachers has not yet received substantial attention in the literature. This also creates a situation in which teacher educators’ teacher identities are ignored, or at least poorly understood and defined, even though these specific sub-identities are at the core of their work. In addition, there is a lack of research on teacher identities of those teacher educators who work in research-intensive universities (see also, Yuan Citation2015) and the question remains about the role that research plays in their teacher identities.
In this study we apply meta-ethnography to provide an interpretive synthesis of 30 studies on teacher educators’ identities conducted in the past decade. In doing so, we explore how teacher educators’ teacher identity is understood in the research literature and what this term entails. We also explore the role of the relationship between teaching and research implied in the examined studies. The new synthesis opens a critique, challenging prevalent understandings of teacher educators’ identities, particularly focusing on the terminology used in the studies and definitions of teacher educators’ teacher identities and concludes with future directions for the research in this domain. The research questions guiding this study are: How is teacher educators’ teacher identity understood in the current research? What kind of relationship between teaching and research has been implied in the current research on teacher educators’ teacher identities?
Method
To provide a new synthesis of the existing studies on teacher educators’ teacher identities, we applied meta-ethnography – a method for interpretive synthesis (Noblit and Hare Citation1988; see also Lutovac and Kaasila Citation2019). The method has typically been used for small-scale review studies of qualitative research (Fink Citation2013) with the purpose to establish derived understanding across studies, revealing what might be hidden within individual studies and thus enabling the discovery of a whole from a combination of the parts (Soundy and Heneghan Citation2022). The method points to a process, model or theory that is not found in any individual study (Campbell et al. Citation2011).
Selection of the examined studies
This study is a small-scale interpretive synthesis, grounded in purposively selected five review studies and 25 empirical studies (see ). We found these 30 studies to be sufficiently comprehensive to explore the ways teacher educators’ teacher identities are understood in the current research. We first explored 5 review studies (Swennen, Jones, and Volman Citation2010; Williams, Ritter, and Bullock Citation2012; Izadinia Citation2014; Ping, Schellings, and Beijaard Citation2018; Smith and Flores Citation2019) that gave us an overall view of teacher educators’ identities, their professional development, and the relation between research and teaching in their work (see ).
Table 1. Selected studies.
Second, we added to our analysis 25 empirical studies relevant to our focus (see ). To select the empirical studies, the search in academic database Scopus was performed with the following keywords: ‘teacher educator(s)’, AND ‘teacher identity’. This search generated 75 studies. We read the abstracts of the 75 studies and applied the following criteria to narrow down the number of studies considered. First, we focused on more recent studies published from 2010 onwards. Second, we selected studies published in leading journals in the domains of teacher education or professional development. We were left with 25 studies for a more careful examination. Usually, these studies considered teacher educators professional identities or identities. With the premise that teacher educators’ teacher identities are poorly defined and that there seems to be a disconnect between teaching and research in teacher educators’ profession, we were particularly interested in the studies that provided new understandings of how teacher educators’ teacher identities could be defined, or that explored the relationship between teaching and research in teacher educators’ identities.
Analysis
We applied meta-ethnography in the following manner. In the first phase, we analysed the selected studies inductively by reading them carefully and keeping detailed notes of our observations. In our readings of the selected studies, we paid attention to how teacher educators’ teacher identities were defined (if at all), how researcher identities were considered in this research literature, and how the relationship between teaching and research (or research-teaching nexus) was considered. What stood out in our observations is that the selected studies portrayed different understandings of teacher educators’ identities, and the ways how the relation between research and teaching in teacher educators’ work was seen.
This observation led us to the second phase of the analysis, which was the construction of the three distinct understandings of teacher educators’ teacher identities. We gave these understandings preliminary descriptive labels, illustrating different variations regarding the role of teaching and research in teacher educators’ teacher identities. These labels were used as a frame that further helped us categorise the single studies under the specific understanding of teacher educators’ teacher identity. For example, we noticed that in some studies the role of teaching was seen as primary for teacher identity. We labelled this understanding of teacher identities as ‘teaching-oriented teacher identity’. We also noticed that in some studies the role of research had a bigger role, however, research and teaching were seen as separate. We labelled this understanding as ‘towards research-oriented teacher identity’. The third understanding – ‘research and teaching-oriented teacher identity’ builds on the idea of the research-teaching nexus, highlighted in some more recent empirical studies on academics (Kaasila et al. Citation2021) or teacher educators (Cao et al. Citation2019, Citation2021). In this kind of understanding of teacher educators’ teacher identity, teaching and research are integrated. We note that while the selected review studies helped us gain an insight into possible descriptive labels and the three understandings of teacher educators’ teacher identities, they do not stem from the selected review or empirical studies and therefore, provide a new synthesis of the field.
In the third phase of analysis, we compared the three understandings of teacher educators’ teacher identities to highlight their key ideas and to point out the similarities and differences among them. The final step in analysis involved the exploration of what our findings reveal in terms of what might be hidden within the individual selected studies (Soundy and Heneghan Citation2022). This led to a critique of the research on teacher educators’ teacher identities and future directions. Stemming from our analysis, the key points for critique revolve around the unclear terminology and definitions, research and teaching seen as separate activities, and the distinction between teacher educators and other academics.
One limitation of our study was the unclear and inconsistent terminology in the field which was also evidenced in the selected studies. Most examined studies do not use the term teacher identity, therefore, we had to make our own interpretations about the meaning of the term used. For example, we interpreted that the terms such as ‘the roles of teacher educators’, ‘schoolteacher’, ‘teacher of teachers’, ‘role model for teachers’, ‘teacher in higher education’, ‘teacher educator-researcher’, and ‘who I am as a teacher’ are related to the term teacher identity. To validate our interpretations, all three authors discussed about the key characteristics and labels for the three understandings of teacher educators’ teacher identities as well as the studies that were categorised under them until we reached consensus.
Understandings of teacher educators’ teacher identities in the current research
This synthesis of the research literature led us to construct three understandings of teacher educators’ teacher identities based on the relation between research and teaching implied in them. These understandings include: 1) Teaching-oriented teacher identity; 2) Toward research-oriented teacher identity, and 3) Research and teaching-oriented teacher identity. Below, we discuss the contributions of the examined studies to these understandings of teacher educators’ teacher identities.
Teaching-oriented teacher identity
‘Teaching-oriented teacher identity’ is the first understanding of teacher educators’ teacher identities. It points to the fact that in some studies, the role of teaching was seen as primary for teacher identity. This understanding stems from our interpretations of the review studies of Swennen, Jones, and Volman (Citation2010) and Izadinia (Citation2014), although these studies did not use the term teacher identity. Izadinia (Citation2014) reviewed 54 studies on teacher educators’ identity and identified the challenges and tensions experienced by teacher educators and how these affect their professional identity. Swennen, Jones, and Volman (Citation2010) analysed 25 studies on teacher educators’ identity by focusing on the identities and sub-identities of teacher educators, and the implications of the sub-identities for their professional development. The authors found four sub-identities of teacher educators in the literature: teacher educators as schoolteachers, teacher educators as teachers in higher education, teacher educators as researchers and teacher educators as teachers of teachers (136–137). Arguably, the following sub-identities are related to teacher identities: schoolteacher, teacher of teachers and teacher in higher education. Similarly, Griffiths, Thompson, and Hryniewicz (Citation2014) identified two main types of identities with mid-career teacher educators: teachers of teachers and teachers in higher education. Arguably, these two sub-identities are directly related to teacher educators’ teacher identities, although the authors did not use the term teacher identity. We agree with Swennen, Jones, and Volman (Citation2010) that school mentors can think of themselves primarily as schoolteachers. The authors noticed that the identity of teacher educators as teachers of teachers is explicitly or implicitly present in almost all the studies they analysed and is operationalised in the concept of teacher educators as models for their student teachers. Swennen, Jones, and Volman (Citation2010) have not directly defined the sub-identity ‘teacher in higher education’ but they argue that ‘teacher educators are essentially identified as teachers in higher education simply because of the fact that they work in higher education and are part of the community of practice of higher education’ (138).
Teacher educators’ identities were mainly based on teaching at school, although they were beginning to see themselves as teachers in higher education and teacher educators’ former experiences as schoolteachers importantly shaped their teacher identities as lecturers in higher education (Swennen, Jones, and Volman Citation2010; see also, Lopes et al. Citation2014). Often, these teacher educators valued teaching above research in their academic lives (Griffiths, Thompson, and Hryniewicz Citation2014). For example, Boyd and Harris (Citation2010) referred to this situation as dual identities of teacher educators. Moreover, the transition from being a schoolteacher to being a lecturer in higher education context can be challenging, in particular with regards to developing higher education pedagogy and becoming an active researcher (Tryggvason Citation2012; Amott Citation2018). Williams, Ritter, and Bullock (Citation2012) review of 60 self-studies explored experiences of beginning teacher educators’ transition from classroom teaching to being a teacher educator. The authors did not use the term teacher identity in their study. When defining identity, the authors applied Wenger’s (Citation1998) theory of Communities of practice and emphasised the role of belonging to these communities in identity formation. Williams, Ritter, and Bullock (Citation2012) concluded that becoming a teacher educator involves several complex and challenging tasks, such as examining one’s own beliefs and values grounded in personal biography (see also, Gutman Citation2020) including those associated with being a former schoolteacher; navigating the complex social and institutional contexts in which they work; and developing a personal pedagogy in teacher education context that enables construction of a new professional identity as a teacher educator. The identity as ‘teachers of teachers’ was commonly identified in research among most teacher educators, which includes the understanding that teacher educators serve as models (of teaching) for their pre-service teachers (Lunenberg, Korthagen, and Swennen Citation2007; Swennen, Jones, and Volman Citation2010). Swennen, Jones, and Volman (Citation2010) argued that even when used unintentionally, the notion of ‘teachers of teachers’ applies only to teacher educators, and this qualification indicates that teacher educators differ from other teachers in higher education.
In terms of the relationship between the teaching and research, this understanding suggests that teacher educators’ teacher identities are much stronger than researcher identities, particularly due to teacher educators holding onto their identities as schoolteachers. Some teacher educators are involved in the practitioner research, such as self-study in order to improve their practice (see also Izadinia Citation2014). According to Chetty and Lubben (Citation2010), most teacher educators consider teaching and research as dichotomous elements, leading to the dichotomy between teacher educators’ identities as ‘teacher’ and ‘academic’. This has been attributed to the high demands of universities to increase their research outputs (see also, Yuan Citation2015). In all, we see that ‘teaching-oriented teacher identity’ is more descriptive for school-based teacher educators than for university-based teacher educators who have completed their doctoral degree. In addition, within this understanding, teacher educators are seen especially as role models of teaching, and this defines their teacher identities.
Towards research-oriented teacher identity
‘Towards research-oriented teacher identity’ is the second understanding of teacher educators’ teacher identities. In some of the selected studies, the role of research for teacher educators’ teacher identity was greater, however, research and teaching were seen as separate. These ideas are reflected in the label of this understanding. This understanding stems from our interpretations of the review studies of Ping, Schellings, and Beijaard (Citation2018) and Smith and Flores (Citation2019) although these studies did not use the term teacher identity. Ping, Schellings, and Beijaard (Citation2018) reviewed 75 studies on teacher educators’ professional learning and Smith and Flores (Citation2019) focused on examining two main components of teacher educators’ work, teaching and research, and the tensions that arise in relations to these components. The signature characteristic of this understanding is that teacher educators’ identities are related to both teaching and research. For example, in their review about teacher educators’ professional learning and identities, Ping, Schellings, and Beijaard (Citation2018) identified two sub-categories of identities: teacher educator identity and researcher identity. The authors argue that teacher educator identity refers to ‘the professional role as a teacher of teachers educating or cultivating future teachers’ (98) and researcher identity refers to ‘the development of the professional role as a researcher, who develops awareness of or becomes engaged in conducting research’ (98). According to Ping, Schellings, and Beijaard (Citation2018), teacher educators’ teacher identity is closely related to their role as teachers of teachers. Smith (Citation2011) identified the following expected roles of teacher educators: the versatile pedagogue and teacher educator as a role model, as a researcher, and as an administrator.
In terms of the relationship between teaching and research, this understanding suggests that teacher educators’ identities as teachers and as researchers are more balanced. Teacher educators are involved in conducting academic research and practitioner research. Ping, Schellings, and Beijaard (Citation2018) noted that self-study research is important type of practitioner research among teacher educators. This research allows them to reflect on their teaching practices, hence leading to improvement. The role of academic research – research aiming to develop theoretical knowledge (Ping, Schellings, and Beijaard Citation2018) is emphasised more extensively. Griffiths, Thompson, and Hryniewicz (Citation2014) have studied landmarks in the professional and academic development of mid-career teacher educators. The authors argue that more experienced teacher educators see research development as a benefit in terms of developing new perspectives, which can be transformative personally as well as academically. While teacher educators in this understanding teach and do research, these two activities are seen as separate and the tensions between the two may exist (Smith and Flores Citation2019; see also Griffiths, Thompson, and Hryniewicz Citation2010). For example, the study by Vanassche and Kelchtermans (Citation2014) described teacher educators as ‘pedagogues’ and ‘reflective teachers’, or ‘teacher educators of subject knowledge’, but it appears that the role of research is not reflected in these teacher educators’ identities. Hökkä, Eteläpelto, and Rasku-Puttonen (Citation2012) explored how Finnish teacher educators practice agency in negotiating their professional identities and show that teacher educators manifested a strong sense of agency when describing their work as teachers and that agency played important role in the construction of their teacher identity. On the other hand, the authors observed that the construction of teacher educators’ researcher identity was subjugated to teacher identity and was characterised by a lack of resources. Tryggvason’s (Citation2012) study showed that subject teacher educators wished that research would play a larger part in their identity as subject teacher educators.
Many studies emphasise the role of socialisation into a new community of practice or collective identity (Tryggvason Citation2012) as part of teacher educators’ identity development (Viczeko and Wright Citation2010; Hökkä, Eteläpelto, and Rasku-Puttonen Citation2012). Arguably, to strengthen the researcher identities of teacher educators, socialisation via for example, teacher education doctoral seminars may be beneficial. For example, Gregory et al. (Citation2017) argued that doctoral seminars can provide a space for collaboration, reflection, and support in transitioning from a role of a teacher to a role of a teacher educator. Arguably, these kinds of professional activities for teacher educators could help strengthen their research competence to avoid, as noted by Smith and Flores (Citation2019), the impoverishment of the quality of teacher education research. Teacher educators, however, worry that research can hinder their teaching quality (Smith and Flores Citation2019). In all, we see that the research path to the profession may be a central factor relating to teacher educators’ teacher identity. Research-oriented teacher identity can be typical for teacher educators who have completed their doctoral degree, have little teaching experience at schools and who see the role of research and teaching as separate in their work.
Research and teaching-oriented teacher identity
‘Research and teaching-oriented teacher identity’ is the third understanding of teacher educators’ teacher identities. Our interpretations of the studies by Cao et al. (Citation2019, Citation2021), Lunenberg (Citation2010), Murray, Czerniawski, and Barber (Citation2011), White et al. (Citation2020), and Yuan (Citation2015, Citation2017) led us to construct and label this understanding, although these studies did not explore teacher identity. This understanding of teacher educators’ teacher identities suggests that teacher educators are seen as academics in full sense. They not only work as teachers, but their research work enhances their academic role as professionals in the field (Lopes et al. Citation2014). Teacher educators are seen as having strong researcher and teacher identities. In countries such as Finland, Ireland, and Norway, research has a critical role in teacher education (Cao et al. Citation2021), and teacher educators conduct research and develop an academic identity (MacPhall and O’sullivan Citation2019). For example, Cao et al. (Citation2019) explored 115 teacher educators’ perceptions of their approaches to teaching and the closeness of their research and teaching and showed the close relationship between teacher educators’ student-focused approach to teaching and their perceptions of an intensive nexus between their research and teaching in teacher education. Moreover, research and teaching are not only close activities, but they are seen as integrated in what Yuan (Citation2017) termed as ‘symbiotic relationship’ between research and teaching (see also Murray, Czerniawski, and Barber Citation2011). For example, in a study by Yuan (Citation2015), two participants discursively constructed the identities of ‘accidental teacher educator’, ‘teacher educator-researcher’, ‘struggling researcher’, ‘teacher of teachers’, and ‘inactive researcher’ in their professional work, which goes to show that the role of research is significant for these teacher educators. We agree with Yuan (Citation2017, 2019), Flores (Citation2018) and Cao et al. (Citation2019) that teacher educators’ research and teaching are linked reciprocally. Cao et al. (Citation2021) found that Finnish teacher educators integrate research and teaching by: 1) basing teaching content on research; 2) basing teaching methods and course design on research; 3) applying inquiry-oriented methods in teaching; 4) acting as researchers in teacher education and 5) encouraging student teachers’ involvement in research work.
A study by Murray, Czerniawski, and Barber (Citation2011) displayed how teacher educators can see their initial identity as once-a-school teacher, but after entering the university their identities are reconstructed around practice as a teacher educator and research engagement. This may result to teacher educators managing to ‘accommodate becoming and being an active researcher and an academic with a strong sense of practitioner identity’ (Murray, Czerniawski, and Barber Citation2011, 273). The study by Lopes et al. (Citation2014) showed how teacher educators can embrace research as one of their academic roles. The authors argued that it is very important to know how research activities empower teacher educators’ teaching activity and student learning as this discussion can assist in breaking the divide between teaching and research and seeing them as competing activities. Finally, teacher educators conduct academic research with varying focuses (Cao et al. Citation2019) but are also encouraged to conduct practitioner research as it may improve their practices. Furthermore, teacher educators engage in research-based teaching (see also, Kaasila, Lutovac, and Lauriala Citation2014). They provide their students a research-orientation towards their work, particularly the understanding of the relevance of the theoretical knowledge in practice (see e.g. Cao et al. Citation2019). In all, ‘research and teaching-oriented teacher identity’ can be typical for teacher educators who have completed their doctoral degree, have vast experience of teaching at universities and have internalised the idea of research-teaching nexus, therefore seeing the role of research and teaching as integrated in their work.
Comparing the understandings of teacher educators’ teacher identities
In sum, our findings displayed how teacher educators’ teacher identities are understood in the current research, including how the relation between research and teaching is seen (see the ).
Table 2. The understandings of teacher educators’ teacher identities in the current research.
In ‘Teaching-oriented teacher identity’, the role of teaching is highlighted as primary for teacher educators’ teacher identities. Teacher educators are seen especially as role models of teaching, and this defines their teacher identities. Teaching and research are seen as separate activities. In the ‘Towards research-oriented teacher identity’, research has a more extensive role and forms a central part of teacher educators’ work. Teacher educators’ researcher identity is under construction. Teaching and research are still seen as separate activities. Finally, in ‘Research and teaching-oriented teacher identity’, teaching and research are seen as integrated activities. Teacher educators are seen as academics in a full sense. Teacher educators see that research is enhancing the quality of their teaching and that teaching provides insights for their research. The examined studies did not explicitly define teacher educators’ teacher identities, but they provided some hints on how to define it.
Additionally, we noticed that teacher educators with different paths to the profession can hold different teacher identities. Teaching-oriented teacher identity can be typical especially for school mentors, who are not doing research but also to such teacher educators who had been teaching at schools for a long time before they started their work at university and who are preferring teacher’s profession. Research-oriented teacher identity can be typical for teacher educators who have completed their doctoral degree, who have little teaching experience at schools and who see the tasks of research and teaching as separate. Research and teaching-oriented identity can be typical for such teacher educators who have completed their doctoral degree and who see a close relation between research and teaching.
Critique of the research on teacher educators’ teacher identities and future directions
This meta-ethnography identified three understandings of teacher educators’ teacher identities in current research. While we separate the three understandings, the line between them is not always clear, and their characteristics may at times overlap. Naturally, the variety and complexity in teacher educators’ identities can stretch between the borders of these understandings. For example, ‘teaching-oriented teacher identity’ means that teacher educators can engage in practitioner research, and we argue that a part of this practitioner research can fulfil the standards of academic research. In this case, also teacher educators’ researcher identities can be seen as stronger, as in the ‘towards research-oriented teacher identity’. Moreover, the second and the third understandings have some similarities as it may be difficult to evaluate when research and teaching are integrated.
Identifying these understandings also provided us with insights into what the challenges are in the current research on teacher educators’ teacher identities. The central challenge we encountered when interpreting the findings of the examined studies were related to the terminology used for teacher educators’ identities and teacher identities, as well as the definitions of teacher identity. Most of the examined studies ignored the term teacher educators’ teacher identity. Although extensively used in research literature on academics, schoolteachers, and pre-service teachers, teacher identity appears to be a hidden term in research literature on teacher educators. By hidden term we refer to the fact that the term has not been used, however, the concept might had been studied under other terms. For the purposes of understanding and clarity, it would be important that teacher identity as a concept and term would be made more explicit in research on teacher educators. In hopes that this study could assist other researchers in resolving some challenges in the existing literature, we will next present the critiques and points for future directions in research on teacher educators’ teacher identities.
Unclear terminology
We observed that usually the studies examining teacher educators referred to their professional identities, academic identities, or identities, while only very few studies explored explicitly teacher educators’ teacher identities. Teacher identity appears to be a hidden term in research literature on teacher educators – carrying a narrow understanding or being ignored entirely. Based on the selected studies, it seems that the term teacher educator’s identity carries the same meaning as teacher educator’s professional identity, however, this connection has not been explicated enough clearly. A major challenge here is that the term teacher identity has been usually used in a very narrow way, perhaps even with a negative connotation, as something one should get rid of when working in higher education. For example, Griffiths, Thompson, and Hryniewicz (Citation2014) noted:
Like other researchers (Murray, Citation2008; Swennen, Jones, and Volman Citation2010), we found that the teacher identity persisted among some of the experienced teacher educators, in some cases surprisingly long after their transition into higher education. In the new university, this could partly be explained by the prominence of teacher education as a core activity (closely related to its history as a teacher training college) and the high value associated with this. (80)
Similarly, Williams, Ritter, and Bullock (Citation2012) noted that holding onto a teacher identity can have a risk of conservatism in teacher education. We agree with Griffiths, Thompson, and Hryniewicz (Citation2014), Murray (Citation2008), and Swennen, Jones, and Volman (Citation2010) that the existence of a teacher identity is crucial to most beginning teacher educators. On the other hand, we see that this way of thinking about teacher educators’ teacher identities reflects the teaching-oriented understanding of teacher identity, and it is also inconsistent with the ways teacher identity has been used in other contexts (academics, schoolteachers, pre-service teachers). We argue that the term is relevant for more experienced teacher educators, too. Furthermore, it is important to explore teacher educators’ sub-identities. We need to talk about teacher educators’ teacher identities, researcher identities, as well as the relations between them. Arguably, schoolteachers’ identities, which some literature refers to (for example, Swennen, Jones, and Volman Citation2010), can be considered as a sub-identity of teacher educators’ teacher identities in the case of those teacher educators who have earlier worked in schools. In all, we see that the unclear terminology is the biggest challenge in research on teacher educators’ identities and their sub-identities, and as such it can hinder the development of the field. In terms of the future directions, attempts to clarify the terminology would be welcome.
Unclear definitions
It appears that because of the messy terminology teacher educators’ teacher identities have been poorly defined and a relevant, holistic definition is lacking. We agree with the review studies of Swennen, Jones, and Volman (Citation2010) and Ping, Schellings, and Beijaard (Citation2018) that seeing themselves as role models can be one important aspect of teacher educators’ professional identities or identities, however, we argue that this issue is important also for their teacher identities. In addition, we observed that the role of engaging in research has been neglected in defining teacher identities of teacher educators. Building on prior research, we highlight that the future research needs to acknowledge that teacher educators’ identity refers to ‘the professional role as a teacher of teachers educating or cultivating future teachers’ (Ping, Schellings, and Beijaard Citation2018, 98) and that teacher educators are role models to their students (Lunenberg, Korthagen, and Swennen Citation2007). We also argue that the role of biographical factors (Gutman Citation2020; Williams, Ritter, and Bullock Citation2012), and communities where teacher educators work (Viczeko and Wright Citation2010; Hökkä, Eteläpelto, and Rasku-Puttonen Citation2012; Tryggvason Citation2012; Williams, Ritter, and Bullock Citation2012) are central for their teacher identities. As it applies to other academics’ teacher identities (Kaasila et al. Citation2021), one central aspect to teacher identities of teacher educators is research-teaching nexus, i.e. integrating teaching and research. We also argue that teacher identity development of teacher educators is a holistic and relational process, in which the relations between teaching and research, emotions and cognition, as well as between teacher educators and pre-service teachers play a key role (Kaasila et al. Citation2021). These suggestions, while limited, could be helpful in directing future research.
Research and teaching as separate activities
When it comes to teacher educators’ teacher identities, research and teaching have commonly been considered as separate activities. In the examined studies, we did not find a definition that would emphasise the role of research-teaching nexus or the closeness of research and teaching for teacher educators’ teacher identities. For example, Cao et al. (Citation2021) considered the closeness of research and teaching but did not directly explore the role of this closeness for teacher educators’ teacher identities. It is obvious that research-teaching nexus plays a central role in teacher educators’ professional identities (or identities), however, the role of the mentioned nexus for teacher educators’ teacher identities is important too but has been neglected (Cao et al. Citation2019; Lopes et al. Citation2014). We argue that this challenge should be addressed in the future studies. Being active in research is nonetheless important for teacher educators and their professional development, as is for all academics, and for many reasons. High quality research projects and publications are used as evaluation criteria to receive funding and promotion (Geschwind and Broström Citation2015; Cao et al. Citation2019). In addition, teacher educators who are active in research have better competency to teach pre-service teachers to conduct research (Lucas Citation2007). Moreover, while research is highly valued in academics’ careers and promotion, and teacher educators are often expected to prioritise research over teaching (Geschwind and Broström Citation2015), research-teaching nexus can arguably help balance research and teaching tasks. One interesting example of the development of teacher education is that in some contexts, for example in Hong Kong, there is an increasing number of ‘nontraditional teacher educators’ (Newberry Citation2014, 163; see also, Yuan Citation2020). These are teacher educators who have excellent research merits but have little or no school teaching experience (Yuan Citation2015). In future research, the role of teaching and research for teacher educators’ teacher identities should be explicated in a better way.
In the , we describe the relations between teacher educators’ sub-identities. We argue that teacher identity and researcher identity have a reciprocal connection where research-teaching nexus plays a central role.
Figure 1. The relations between teacher educators’ sub-identities.
Distinction between teacher educators and other academics
Most examined studies distinguish between teacher educators and academics of other disciplines. Many describe teacher educators in general terms as teachers of teachers (see e.g. Bouckaert and Kools Citation2018; Lunenberg, Dengerink, and Korthagen Citation2014) or for example as teachers in higher education (Swennen, Jones, and Volman Citation2010). White et al. (Citation2020) suggest that teacher educators do not seem to be able to agree on what their role or professional learning needs are. This might explain why teacher educators’ profession has been labelled as ‘the hidden profession with reports of a general lack of professional induction, mentoring and advice’ (White et al. Citation2020; see also Livingston Citation2014). While the profession of a teacher educator has some distinct characteristics from other academics, we argue that particularly in research-intensive universities teacher educators should be seen as academics in full sense. Therefore, and based on our knowledge about academics’ teacher identities (Kaasila et al. Citation2021), we also argue for the need to break the divide made in the literature between the teacher educators and other academics. We see that the way Griffiths, Thompson, and Hryniewicz (Citation2014) applied Åkerlind’s (Citation2008) model of an academic identity is one useful step in this direction. Åkerlind (Citation2008) provided the following categorisation of understanding an academic identity: fulfilling academic requirements as an academic duty or steppingstone; personal development as a route to self-understanding; establishing oneself in the field via personal achievement and wider recognition; and making a difference: enabling broader change in order to benefit a larger community. Griffiths, Thompson, and Hryniewicz (Citation2014) argued that although Åkerlind’s (Citation2008) study focused on academics’ researcher identities, the authors have found these categories relevant when considering landmarks in teaching. This suggests that in future explorations of teacher educators and their profession, one needs to consider the existing knowledge about academics’ identities. Arguably, in research-intensive universities, research strongly shapes academics’ and teacher educators’ teacher identities and teacher identities of academics may differ significantly from the identities of schoolteachers. Because teacher educators have different professional paths, we cannot consider them as one homogenous group. For example, their identities are constructed in diverse ways, as well as resistances around the idea of research engagement and having an identity as an academic (Murray, Czerniawski, and Barber Citation2011). To understand teacher educators’ identities and their sub-identities, it is important to distinguish between schoolteachers, college-based teacher educators and academic teacher educators in research-intensive universities. We agree with Smith and Flores (Citation2019) that ‘there is not a uniform model for teacher educators’ professional development, there is no one size that fits all’ (7).
Rather than an exhaustive literature review, this study provided a critical interpretive synthesis of the research on teacher educators’ teacher identities based on a small number of selected studies. We acknowledge that including a wider body of literature and employing different search criteria would have likely generated a broader understanding of teacher educators’ teacher identity than presented here. In addition, we opted for presenting our critique of the research in the field in a collective manner avoiding critical appraisal of the selected individual studies. While pointing to the matters that stretch beyond the single studies was a deliberate choice, we acknowledge that it makes it difficult for the reader to judge the validity of our interpretations of the single studies. In constructing the interpretive synthesis, interpretative bias is to be expected to some extent, however, we followed a good practice of multiple researchers interpreting the data to minimise the bias. Indeed, the major difficulty we encountered in this work was interpreting what do selected studies refer to with the use of the concept of teacher identity as most studies did not explicitly use nor define the term. On the other hand, this challenge points to the fact that further research in this domain is needed, specifically, it is an opportunity to clarify the concepts and terms used.
Implications for teacher education
Finally, there is much to learn from the current research about teacher educators’ work and their identities, including about the many challenges related to research in this domain. For example, Griffiths, Thompson, and Hryniewicz (Citation2014) demonstrated that early career teacher educators do not likely see themselves as researchers in the first five years in academia, which points to the need for time, opportunities and support allocated for them to conduct research. We also agree with Smith and Flores (Citation2019) that provision of sufficient resources for both teaching and research is needed, and the roles of teaching and research should be seen as complementary. Arguably, this would help teacher educators with ‘teaching-oriented teacher identity’ or ‘research-oriented teacher identity’ in their identity formation. We need more research about the identity transformation from schoolteacher-based teacher educators to academics, as it has been noticed that identity transformation where teachers become teacher educators is that of an ‘expert become novice’ and is therefore problematic (Amott Citation2018). Izadinia (Citation2014), as well as Smith and Flores (Citation2019) and many others have noticed that the tensions that teacher educators experience can hinder their professional development. We also argue that teacher educators should engage in identity work (Bennett Citation2017; Lutovac and Kaasila Citation2014, Citation2018a) because the tensions that they experience in constructing their identities seem to be at times left unresolved as seen in the first and second understandings. Dialogue between teacher educators’ former identities such as those of schoolteachers and present identities as teachers in higher education is needed and this dialogue has a central role in their identity development. It would be useful then to explore what role doing practitioner research has for teacher educators’ teacher identities. Finally, more research is needed to understand the complex relation between teacher educators’ identities and research-teaching nexus (see also, Kaasila et al. Citation2021). We agree with Cao et al. (Citation2021) that the challenges teacher educators meet in their work reflect the need to explore how to promote an enriching research-teaching nexus for them to fulfil their multiple roles.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Academy of Finland [Grant numbers 307672 and 332232] and the Eudaimonia Institute, University of Oulu. The Academy of Finland and the Eudaimonia Institute exercised no oversight in the design and execution of the research, nor the writing of this article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Raimo Kaasila
Raimo Kaasila, PhD is an Emeritus Professor of Teacher Education and Higher Education at the Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Oulu, Finland. His main research areas are professional development and identity formation in teacher education and higher education contexts.
Sonja Lutovac
Sonja Lutovac, PhD is an Associate professor at the Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Oulu, Finland. Her research focuses on professional development in initial teacher education, especially on future teachers’ professional identity.
Minna Uitto
Minna Uitto, PhD is a Professor of Subject Teacher Education at the Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Oulu, Finland. Her research focuses on the relationships and emotions of teachers’ work.
References
- Åkerlind, G. 2008. “An Academic Perspective on Research and Being a Researcher: An Integration of the Literature.” Studies in Higher Education 33 (1): 17–31. doi:10.1080/03075070701794775.
- Amott, P. 2018. “Identification–A Process of Self-Knowing Realised Within Narrative Practices for Teacher Educators During Times of Transition.” Professional Development in Education 44 (4): 476–491. doi:10.1080/19415257.2017.1381638.
- Annala, J., and M. Mäkinen. 2011. “The Research-Teaching Nexus in Higher Education Curriculum Design.” Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 8 (1): 3–25. doi:10.14288/tci.v8i1.2441.
- Beauchamp, C., and L. Thomas. 2009. “Understanding Teacher Identity: An Overview of Issues in the Literature and Implications for Teacher Education.” Cambridge Journal of Education 39 (2): 175–189. doi:10.1080/03057640902902252.
- Beijaard, D., P. C. Meijer, and N. Verloop. 2004. “Reconsidering Research on teachers’ Professional Identity.” Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2): 107–128. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2003.07.001.
- Bennett, L. 2017. “Social Media, academics’ Identity Work and the Good Teacher.” International Journal for Academic Development 22 (3): 245–256. doi:10.1080/1360144X.2017.1305961.
- Bouckaert, M., and Q. Kools. 2018. “Teacher Educators as Curriculum Developers: Exploration of a Professional Role.” European Journal of Teacher Education 41 (1): 32–49. doi:10.1080/02619768.2017.1393517.
- Boyd, P., and K. Harris. 2010. “Becoming a University Lecturer in Teacher Education: Expert School Teachers Reconstructing Their Pedagogy and Identity.” Professional Development in Education 36 (1–2): 9–24. doi:10.1080/19415250903454767.
- Campbell, R., P. Pound, M. Morgan, G. Draker-White, N. Britten, R. Pill, L. Yardley, C. Pope, and J. Donovan. 2011. “Evaluating Meta-Ethnography: Systematic Analysis and Synthesis of Qualitative Research.” Health Technology Assessment 15 (43): 1–164. doi:10.3310/hta15430.
- Cao, Y., L. Postareff, S. Lindblom-Ylänne, and A. Toom. 2019. “Teacher educators’ Approaches to Teaching and Connections with Their Perceptions of the Closeness of Their Research and Teaching.” Teaching and Teacher Education 85: 125–136. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2019.06.013.
- Cao, Y., L. Postareff, S. Lindblom-Ylänne, and A. Toom. 2021. “A Survey Research on Finnish Teacher educators’ Research-Teaching Integration and Its Relationship with Their Approaches to Teaching.” European Journal of Teacher Education 46 (1): 171–198. doi:10.1080/02619768.2021.1900111.
- Chetty, R., and F. Lubben. 2010. “The Scholarship of Research in Teacher Education in a Higher Education Institution in Transition: Issues of Identity.” Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (4): 813–820. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.018.
- Coate, K., R. Barnett, and G. Williams. 2001. “Relationships Between Teaching and Research in Higher Education in England.” Higher Education Quarterly 55 (2): 158–174. doi:10.1111/1468-2273.00180.
- Fink, A. 2013. Conducting Research Literature Review: From the Internet to Paper. 4th ed. California: Sage. Thousand Oaks.
- Flores, M. A. 2018. “Editorial. “Tensions and Possibilities in Teacher educators’ Roles and Professional Development.” European Journal of Teacher Education 41 (1): 1–3. doi:10.1080/02619768.2018.1402984.
- Geschwind, L., and A. Broström. 2015. “Managing the Teaching–Research Nexus: Ideals and Practice in Research-Oriented Universities.” Higher Education Research & Development 34 (1): 60–73. doi:10.1080/07294360.2014.934332.
- Gregory, K. H., M. M. Diacopoulos, A. Branyon, and B. M. Butler. 2017. “From Skepticism to Scholarship: Learning and Living Self-Study Research in a Doctoral Seminar.” Studying Teacher Education 13 (3): 257–274. doi:10.1080/17425964.2017.1365702.
- Griffiths, R. 2004. “Knowledge Production and the Research–Teaching Nexus: The Case of the Built Environment Disciplines.” Studies in Higher Education 29 6 (6): 709–726. doi:10.1080/0307507042000287212.
- Griffiths, V., S. Thompson, and L. Hryniewicz. 2010. “Developing a Research Profile: Mentoring and Support for Teacher Educators.” Professional Development in Education 36 (1): 245–262. doi:10.1080/19415250903457166.
- Griffiths, V., S. Thompson, and L. Hryniewicz. 2014. “Landmarks in the Professional and Academic Development of Mid-Career Teacher Educators.” European Journal of Teacher Education 37 (1): 74–90. doi:10.1080/02619768.2013.825241.
- Gutman, M. 2020. ““Balance as a Way of lifework”: Early Career Choices Among Israeli Senior Teacher Educators.” Teaching Education 33 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1080/10476210.2020.1793938.
- Harland, T. 2016. “Teaching to Enhance Research.” Higher Education Research & Development 35 (3): 461‒472. doi:10.1080/07294360.2015.1107876.
- Hökkä, P., A. Eteläpelto, and H. Rasku-Puttonen. 2012. “The Professional Agency of Teacher Educators Amid Academic Discourses.” Journal of Education for Teaching 38 (1): 83–102. doi:10.1080/02607476.2012.643659.
- Holappa, A., E. Lassila, S. Lutovac, and M. Uitto. 2022. “Vulnerability as an Emotional Dimension in Student teachers’ Narrative Identities Told with Self-Portraits.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 66 (5): 893–906. doi:10.1080/00313831.2021.1939144.
- Izadinia, M. 2014. “Teacher educators’ Identity: A Review of Literature.” European Journal of Teacher Education 37 (4): 426–441. doi:10.1080/02619768.2014.947025.
- Kaasila, R., S. Lutovac, J. Komulainen, and M. Maikkola. 2021. “From Fragmented Toward Relational Academic Teacher Identity: The Role of Research-Teaching Nexus.” Higher Education 82 (3): 583–598. doi:10.1007/s10734-020-00670-8.
- Kaasila, R., S. Lutovac, and A. Lauriala. 2014. “The Meaning of Teaching Practice in Developing Research-Based Teacher Education in Mathematics Education Context in Finland.” In Practical Knowledge in Teacher Education – Approaches to Teacher Internship Programs, edited by J. C. de Mora and K. Wood, 31–43. London: Routledge.
- Khan, H. 2011. “Becoming Teacher Educators in Pakistan: Voices from the Government Colleges of Education.” Journal of Education for Teaching 37 (3): 325–335. doi:10.1080/02607476.2011.588022.
- Livingston, K. 2014. “Teacher Educators: Hidden Professionals?” European Journal of Education 49 (2): 218–232. doi:10.1111/ejed.12074.
- Lopes, A., P. Boyd, N. Andrew, and F. Pereira. 2014. “The Research-Teaching Nexus in Nurse and Teacher Education: Contributions of an Ecological Approach to Academic Identities in Professional Fields.” Higher Education 68 (2): 167–183. doi:10.1007/s10734-013-9700-2.
- Lucas, L. 2007. “Research and Teaching Work Within University Education Departments: Fragmentation or Integration?” Journal of Further and Higher Education 31 (1): 17–29. doi:10.1080/03098770601167849.
- Lunenberg, M. 2010. “Characteristics, Scholarship and Research of Teacher Educators.” In International Encyclopedia of Education, edited by P. Peterson, E. Baker, and B. McGaw, 676–680. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00674-6.
- Lunenberg, M., J. Dengerink, and F. Korthagen. 2014. “The Professional Teacher Educator: Roles, Behaviour, and Professional Development of Teacher Educators.” Professional Learning. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam.
- Lunenberg, M., F. Korthagen, and A. Swennen. 2007. “The Teacher Educator as a Role Model.” Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (5): 586–601. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.001.
- Lutovac, S., and R. Kaasila. 2014. “Pre-Service teachers’ Future-Oriented Mathematical Identity Work.” Educational Studies in Mathematics 85 (1): 129–142. doi:10.1007/s10649-013-9500-8.
- Lutovac, S., and R. Kaasila. 2018a. “An Elementary Teacher’s Narrative-Identity Work at Two Points in Time Two Decades Apart.” Educational Studies in Mathematics 98 (3): 253–267. doi:10.1007/s10649-018-9816-5.
- Lutovac, S., and R. Kaasila. 2018b. “Future Directions in Research on Mathematics-Related Teacher Identity.” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 16 (4): 759–776. doi:10.1007/s10763-017-9796-4.
- Lutovac, S., and R. Kaasila. 2019. “Methodological Landscape in Research on Teacher Identity in Mathematics Education: A Review.” ZDM Mathematics Education 51 (3): 505–515. doi:10.1007/s11858-018-1009-2.
- MacPhall, A., and M. O’sullivan. 2019. “Challenges for Irish Teacher Educators in Being Active Users and Producers of Research.” European Journal of Teacher Education 42 (4): 492–506. doi:10.1080/02619768.2019.1641486.
- Murray, J. 2008. “Teacher Educators’ Induction into Higher Education: Work-Based Learning in the Micro Communities of Teacher Education.” European Journal of Teacher Education 31 (2): 117–133. doi:10.1080/02619760802000099.
- Murray, J., G. Czerniawski, and P. Barber. 2011. “Teacher educators’ Identities and Work in England at the Beginning of the Second Decade of the Twenty-First Century.” Journal of Education for Teaching 37 (3): 261–277. doi:10.1080/02607476.2011.588014.
- Newberry, M. 2014. “Teacher Educator Identity Development of the Nontraditional Teacher Educator.” Studying Teacher Education 10 (2): 163–178. doi:10.1080/17425964.2014.903834.
- Noblit, G. W., and R. D. Hare. 1988. Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. Sage: Newbury Park.
- Ping, C., C. Schellings, and D. Beijaard. 2018. “Teacher educators’ Professional Learning: A Literature Review.” Teaching and Teacher Education 75: 93–104. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2018.06.003.
- Richter, E., M. Brunner, and D. Richter. 2021. “Teacher educators’ Task Perception and Its Relationship to Professional Identity and Teaching Practice.” Teaching and Teacher Education 101: 103303. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2021.103303.
- Robertson, J. 2007. “Beyond the ‘Research/Teaching nexus’: Exploring the Complexity of Academic Experience.” Studies in Higher Education 32 (5): 541‒556. doi:10.1080/03075070701476043.
- Smith, K. 2011. “‘The Multi-Faceted Teacher Educator – a Norwegian perspective’.” Journal of Education for Teaching 37 (3): 337–349. doi:10.1080/02607476.2011.588024.
- Smith, K. 2017. “Learning from the Past to Shape the Future.” European Journal of Teacher Education 40 (5): 630–646. doi:10.1080/02619768.2017.1385058.
- Smith, K., and M. Flores. 2019. “Teacher Educators as Teachers and as Researchers.” European Journal of Teacher Education 42 (4): 429–432. doi:10.1080/02619768.2019.1648972.
- Snoek, M., A. Swennen, and M. van der Klink. 2011. “The Quality of Teacher Educators in the European Policy Debate: Actions and Measures to Improve the Professionalism of Teacher Educators.” Professional Development in Education 37 (5): 651–664. doi:10.1080/19415257.2011.616095.
- Soundy, A., and N. Heneghan. 2022. “Meta-Ethnography.” International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 15 (1): 266–286. doi:10.1080/1750984X.2021.1966822.
- Swennen, A., K. Jones, and M. Volman. 2010. “Teacher Educators: Their Identities, Sub‐identities and Implications for Professional Development.” Professional Development in Education 36 (1–2): 131–148. doi:10.1080/19415250903457893.
- Tight, M. 2016. “Examining the Research/Teaching Nexus.” European Journal of Higher Education 6 (4): 293‒311. doi:10.1080/21568235.2016.1224674.
- Tryggvason, M. -T. 2012. “Perceptions of Identity Among Finnish University-Based Subject Teacher Educators.” European Journal of Teacher Education 35 (3): 289–303. doi:10.1080/02619768.2011.633998.
- Vanassche, E., and G. Kelchtermans. 2014. “Teacher educators’ Professionalism in Practice: Positioning Theory and Personal Interpretative Framework.” Teaching and Teacher Education 44: 117–127. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.08.006.
- van Langveld, T., J. Schoonenboom, M. Volman, G. Croiset, and J. Beishuizen. 2017. “Developing a Teacher Identity in the University Context: A Systematic Review of the Literature.” Higher Education Research & Development 36 (2): 325–342. doi:10.1080/07294360.2016.1208154.
- van Winkel, M. R., R. P. van der Rijst, J. van Driel, and J. H. van Driel. 2017. “Identities of Research-Active Academics in New Universities: Towards a Complete Academic Profession Cross-Cutting Different World of Practice.” Journal of Further and Higher Education 42 (4): 539–555. doi:10.1080/0309877X.2017.1301407.
- Viczeko, M., and L. L. Wright. 2010. “Negotiating Identities in the Transition from Graduate Student to Teacher Educator.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 35 (1): 14–26. doi:10.14221/ajte.2010v35n1.3.
- Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- White, S., J. Murray, A. L. Goodwin, C. Kosnik, and C. Beck. 2020. “On the Shoulder of Giants: Advice for Beginning Teacher Educators.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 49 (5): 566–579. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2020.1756223.
- Williams, J., J. Ritter, and S. M. Bullock. 2012. “Understanding the Complexity of Becoming a Teacher Educator: Experience, Belonging, and Practice Within a Professional Learning Community.” Studying Teacher Education 8 (3): 245–260. doi:10.1080/17425964.2012.719130.
- Yuan, R. 2015. “Understanding Higher Education-Based Teacher educators’ Identities in Hong Kong: A Sociocultural Linguistic Perspective.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 44 (4): 379–400. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2015.1094779.
- Yuan, R. 2017. “‘This Game is Not Easy to play’: A Narrative Inquiry into a Novice EFL Teacher Educator’s Research and Publishing Experiences.” Professional Development in Education 43 (3): 474–491. doi:10.1080/19415257.2016.1182936.
- Yuan, R. 2019. “A Comparative Study on Language Teacher educators’ Ideal Identities in China: More Than Just Finding a Middle Ground.” Journal of Education for Teaching 45 (2): 186–199. doi:10.1080/02607476.2018.1548173.
- Yuan, R. 2020. “Novice Nontraditional Teacher educators’ Identity (Re)construction in Higher Education: A Hong Kong Perspective.” International Journal of Educational Research 99 99: 101508. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101508.