Abstract
What the thesis is about
This thesis aims to understand how different academic development/faculty development (AD/FD) models influence the formation and growth of a developer’s professional identity. For this purpose, A Model of Academic/Faculty Developers’ Formation and Growth of Professional Identity was developed from thematic analyses of the past 25 years of the AD literature and an interview data from my study in New Zealand and Japan. For accuracy, I refer to AD as FD when referring to AD in the Japanese context, which is the term used in that context.
Figure 1. A Model of Academic/Faculty Developers’ Formation and Growth of Professional Identity
Why this topic is important to study
This topic is important to study because a developer’s professional identity impacts on the quality of work they do in the sense that what developers prioritise in work is believed to make an important difference (Sternszus, 2016). I argue that a developer’s professional identity impacts on all areas of AD/FD work: research, teaching, and service. Although it is clear that there are many different ways of organising AD/FD, there has been very little empirical research that seeks an understanding of diverse AD/FD models and how these determine the ways in which individuals operate within AD/FD units worldwide. As such, this study contributes to an individual’s understanding of the complexity of AD/FD models through a comparative study of two countries with different university educational systems. Importantly, the outcomes of this research contribute more widely to our understanding of AD/FD as they show how a range of different workplace and affective factors influence professional identity. These factors are clearly separated in the constructed A Model of Academic/Faculty Developers’ Formation and Growth of Professional Identity (Figure 1), while each is on a continuum that operates differently in particular contexts. The model has clear utility for organising future AD/FD identity research and for supporting conversations between developers about what is important to them, in terms of organisation, practice and values.
Below are three research questions that have guided me in this exploration:
1. What factors influence the formation and growth of a developer’s professional identity?
2. How do these factors affect a developer’s professional identity?
3. How does professional identity impact on AD/FD work?
A supplementary question of why individuals choose to be developers will also be examined.
How I went about the research
I take a world view of social constructivism in which I seek understanding of truth or reality through interaction with others. This has informed my research methodology of adopting a life history approach in my qualitative multi-case study by putting myself in the other’s shoes and co-constructing interpretations with my study participants. My primary source of data collection has been semi-structured interviews conducted with 19 current and past developers at the University of Otago, New Zealand and The University of Tokyo, Japan. I conducted thematic analysis to elicit influential themes.
The main findings and my major contribution to knowledge
Analysing both New Zealand and Japanese cases provided the opportunity to elicit new ideas through comparison. All developers migrated to AD/FD with a nuanced emotional trajectory. Workplace factors were the main determinants of their professional identity in both settings. It is notable that this finding is where the study makes its major contribution, since workplace factors have hardly been mentioned in past AD literature. Moreover, the study of affective factors in relation to institutional values, culture, and resources has shown how developers felt they were valued against the three ‘dials’ (liminality, agency, and community) which functioned as their psychological barometer. Echoing the AD literature, the majority of developers in both New Zealand and Japanese cases embraced the continuing challenge for AD/FD of struggling for legitimacy and accountability within and beyond their institutions. Generally, they seemed to deal well with the ambiguous, uncertain, and complex nature of AD/FD and had their own unique approaches to deal with this. In a way, developers in both cases lived well with liminality in that developers in both New Zealand and Japan reduced the degree of liminality in their respective ways: in New Zealand, developers regarded themselves strongly as broadly skilled academics with permanent employment conditions; in the Japanese case, developers largely regarded themselves not as academics of FD, but academics in their respective home fields with permanent positions. The livelihood of the academics in Japan was not endangered by the common features of FD—ambiguity, uncertainty, and complexity—because FD, for most, was only a temporary role. Both models were strikingly different in the arrangement of the workplace factors, yet both lowered the degree of liminality, which was a significant finding of this study.
The implications of the study for theory and practice and future research
This thesis strengthens the theory and practice of AD/FD. From a theoretical point of view, there are three major implications. First, the workplace factors (Role, Employment, and Structure) which have hardly been touched on in AD literature were found to have greater impact than affective factors (liminality, agency and community) which have previously received more attention. Developers in the sharply contrasting cultures of New Zealand and Japan were found to live well in relatively low degrees of liminality, but in different ways. This suggests the possibility of generalisation in future research for how developers might go about mitigating negative features of ambiguity, uncertainty, and complexity in AD/FD, in their local contexts. Third, this study has allowed me to bridge two contrasting cultures in AD/FD. To the present, the Japanese higher education research community has been argued as being ‘rather independent from the international network, even in the field of comparative research’ (Yonezawa, 2015, p. 8). A new approach of connecting the two has been argued for as a pressing need to meet institutional and societal needs in this era of globalisation where intercultural and interdisciplinary collaboration has become the norm to solve wicked problems. I believe conducting this comparative research has contributed to meet this pressing need from the field of AD/FD.
Meanwhile, from a practical point of view, there are two major implications. First, the outcomes of this comparative research contribute more widely to an individual’s understanding of AD/FD. Second, the study demonstrates how a range of different workplace and affective factors influence professional identity. The constructed A Model of Academic/Faculty Developers’ Formation and Growth of Professional Identity has potential for organising future AD/FD identity research, and for encouraging conversations between developers about what is important to them in terms of practice and values.
To conclude, I state that workplace factors of Role, Employment, and Structure are crucial factors when considering the process of how developers form and grow a professional identity. This is especially so if developers are to continue playing a meaningful role to meet the needs of all stakeholders in their respective institutions and society.