Here's One I Prepared Earlier.

Academic developer identity: how we know who we are
Shelley Kinash and Kayleen Wood

This paper explores academic developer identity by applying self-concept theory and appreciative inquiry to the personal journeys of two academic developers. Self-attribution, social comparison and reflected appraisals are presented and applied to explain how academic developers form their identities. Sociological principles are incorporated to describe the recursive informing of academic development and developer identities. The presentation of implications positions academic developers as higher education leaders.

Keywords: academic developer; identity; self-concept theory; appreciative inquiry

Introduction
In the tertiary environment, the landscape of academic development units has evolved from activist voices articulating what was taught, and to whom (Lee, Manathunga, & Kandlbinder, 2010), to a primary focus on how teaching and learning occurs in a climate of professional development (Clegg, 2003). Carew, Lefoe, Bell, and Armour (2008) unpacked the contested context of academic development in which academic developers interweave theory and practice, pro-activity and responsiveness, and discipline-specific and university-wide supports. Who we (the authors of this paper) are in our roles as academic developers and how we interpret our ‘selves’ determines how we work to bring about academic development’s emerging ethos in relation to research and service to the broader university’s and societal endeavours (Harland & Staniforth, 2003, 2008).

This paper is written by two academic developers, one of whom is also the unit director. Through the methodology of appreciative inquiry (AI) (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2003; Reed, 2007) the commonality we have discovered with one another, and most of our academic developer colleagues, is our passion for our field and our opportune entry into the terrain (Fraser, 1999). Our writing partnership produces rich contextual constructions in that I (Shelley) am an ‘insider’ (Fetterman, 1998; MacKenzie, McShane, & Wilcox, 2007), having been a university academic for 16 years, and Kayleen has the fresh insight that only ‘outsider’ status will catalyse (Kinash, 2006). In addition, whereas I am on the metaphorical right side of the tracks with an academic appointment and having been a teaching academic, she is a victim of the stigma (Goffman, 1959) of being on the ‘wrong’ side, with a general staff appointment and coming from industry (Harland & Staniforth, 2008).

Method
AI was chosen as the method for this inquiry because it created the framework to analyse our situated perspectives (Haraway, 1998) on identity questions of academic development in a rich context of self-concept theory. Cooperrider and Whitney (2003) defined AI as, “the art and practice of asking questions that strengthen a system’s capacity to apprehend, anticipate and heighten positive potential” (p. 173). The ‘system’ explored in this article is that of academic development in the univer- sity context. The questions posed are about the identity of academic developers, how that identity is formed, and the implications for academic development.

The empirical data forming the basis for the research are the articulation and juxtapositioning of the personal journeys of partnering academic developers – one an ‘academic’ academic developer and the other a ‘professional’ academic devel- oper (Harland & Staniforth, 2003, 2008). In using a sample size of two to inform this inquiry, we acknowledge the importance of ‘thick description’ and seeking personal constructions of meaning in experience (Agee, 2009; Donham, Heinrich, & Bostwick, 2010). AI was used to adopt and apply the processes pioneered and advocated in academic development literature in that we:

• shared our personal journeys as academic developers (pioneered by Stefani [1999]);
• used our personal journeys to provoke “unruly questions” (as advocated by Peseta et al. [2005, p. 60]);
• interpreted the implications for academic developer identity through the lens of self-concept theory, in acknowledgement of Carew et al.’s (2008) compelling testament to the ubiquity of theory.

Whereas all of the academic development literature pays at least occasional homage to a positive, cheerful stance toward our field, the distinctive contribution of this paper is that we do so explicitly and transparently. AI provided the framework for us to take an optimistic and appreciative stance on the positioning and status of academic developers within higher education.

The structure of this research and paper follows the four phases of AI as outlined by Cooperrider and Whitney (2003): (1) discovery (asking questions); (2) dream (envisioning possibilities); (3) design (applying possibilities to the context); and (4) destiny (actioning the sustainable change). The ‘discovery’ phase of this research consisted of us articulating our histories as academic developers, collecting and analysing artefacts of that journey. The questions that we asked were about how we know who we are as academic developers. We applied self-concept theory and academic devel- opment literature to extend beyond the authors’ identities to elements held in common with other academic developers. Interpreted through the framework of AI, this analysis comprised the interwoven ‘dream’ and ‘design’ phases, in that we considered the possibilities for the contribution of academic developers to higher education given the particularities of the academic development context. Finally, the ‘destiny’ phase of the research consisted of synthesising outcomes of the other phases to articulate recommendations and implications for higher education academic development.

Self-concept defined
Our definition of ‘self-concept’ is collections of inter-related beliefs about who we are (Goffman, 1959; Gorrell, 1990; Rosenberg, 1989; Gecas, 1982; Marsh, 1990). It is important to recognise that self-concept is a socially constructed means of organising and theorising our beliefs about who we are. Applying the lens of self-concept is one way of conceptualising the phenomena and is not intended as a positivist depiction of our reality. Self-concept includes many allied concepts such as ‘self-esteem’ (how good I feel about myself) and ‘self-efficacy’ (my belief that I can achieve specific goals). We subscribe to a spiral model of self-concept wherein the ‘I’ can be concep- tualised as the centre (Kinash, 1995; Pyryt & Mendaglio, 1994; Rosenberg & Kaplan, 1982). There are multiple dimensions of self-concept and some are closer to the ‘I’ and others are farther away. Whereas there are elements of self-concept that seem stable across environments, people and contexts (global self-concept), people are also malleable and how we perceive ourselves varies according to our circumstances (Pyryt & Mendaglio, 1994). In other words, there are certain elements of Kayleen- ness and Shelley-ness that are constants no matter whom we are with and what we are doing. We are identifiable to others and to ourselves by our constant characteristics. We are also adaptable and metaphorically chameleon in our contexts.

As academic developers, when we are at work and in interaction with our academic colleagues, intellectual elements of our self-concept are salient and reflected in the vocabulary of our dialogue. In the spiral model of self-concept, identity is most robust when the individual integrates community norms and values, which are central to self-concept within this perspective (Henkel, 2005). Identity is constructed along two interactive axes, internal and external, and individual and collective, in a continuous and reflexive process (Henkel, 2005) to achieve dynamic homeostasis, preserving the character of the self through growth. As organic, open identities, we use internal processes of review to scan our environment and adapt to changing factors, while staying focused on our core competencies. These modifications culmi- nate in our quantitative and qualitative ability to respond to future contingencies (Emerson, 1954), which has proved itself over and over in our journeys through the faculties, schools, disciplines and diverse personalities of the academics with whom we work. In recognition of the intricate university dynamic of economics and pedagogy, the teaching, learning and research nexus has become the new paradigm where the university as a business entity sustains itself. These changes have not been simply driven from outside by external forces. Explained by the theory of hegemony (Humphreys & Brown, 2002), universities have been complicit in, and active agents of, their own transformation (Marginson, 1999), recognising the need for diverse academic developers including those who are able to see from the outside in and from the inside out.

Discovery phase: self-concepts of the authors
Our AI addressed the question of ‘what are our self-concepts as academic developers?’. In other words, who are we, the authors, within this context? This empirical discovery phase was an essential component of our research. Academic identity is not a fixed, unified constant across all persons hired into this role, but a uniquely applied and enacted construct with commonalities rather than essentialisms. Reflection, conversation, constant comparison and examination of artefacts led to the articulation of explicit depictions of our self-concepts. It was an element of self-concept that drew me (Shelley) to the field of academic development. I see myself as a leader and have always found resonance with pursuits that have a social justice component:
    
    Once there was a seemingly dangerous river. Person after person came floating by flailing their arms and calling for help. Passersby rescued person after person, pulling them out of the river. Finally, along came a person who walked upstream to see from where the drowning people were coming. It turns out that the bridge across the river was weak and people were falling through to the water below. The bridge was repaired and the near drownings ceased.

I like to see myself as that person who metaphorically investigates upstream and catalyses the bridge repair. In fact, the compliment that I have heard most often throughout my career is that I am good at building bridges. This compliment rein- forces my self-esteem and my motivation to work as an academic developer. Using this river analogy is not to say that academics are the equivalent of ‘near-drowning floaters’. In fact, it is usually quite the opposite in that the vast majority of academ- ics are competent and talented. Using the metaphor of swimming, my role is most akin to that of stroke improvement, in that I observe academics’ strengths and sup- port them only where they specifically want and/or need my help. This is a comple- mentary role for one’s self-concept. We are more likely to carry out roles when we feel successful in these pursuits (De Cieri & Kramar, 2004). It is rewarding to work in academic development because teaching academics how to write learning out- comes and align them with assessment tasks, for example, is linked to positive change in the student educational experience (Morss & Donaghy, 1998). Harland and Staniforth’s (2008) research on academic developer identities from six countries indicated that a helper value-base was one of the few elements held in common by most academic developers. A key component of academic developer self-concept is the macro-influence and contribution.

Academia found me (Kayleen) in a serendipitous sequence of events, but still orchestrated by my subliminal search for a meaningful avenue of contribution and voice. As a business professional and communicator since 1993, I am now an outsider challenged with imposter syndrome (Leary, Patton, Orlando, & Funk, 2000), launched into academic development, forming a conduit between the processing of the inputs/students of the university, the outputs/graduate outcomes and industry relevance, and the processors/academics (Rhoades & Slaughter, 1997). Where Shelley’s role might be described as general manager, I am the production manager, directly involved in research, grant- and contract-writing, and generating secondary revenue (both financial and figurative) for the institution.

In my role as academic developer, I like to see myself as the person who helps others hone their message and find their voice (Lavelle, 1997). My reward is the sense of achievement I inculcate in academics, when the teaching and learning grant proposal is finalised and the application submitted. A complementary key compo- nent of academic developer self-concept is the micro-influence and contribution. My self-concept is in alignment with what Rhoades and Slaughter (1997) call a managerial professional, marked by the characteristics of a traditional liberal professional. I am the bridge between faculty and administration, but not wholly in either category. I translate the academics’ pedagogical world into accessible public discourse. This role is reconcilable with my sense of corporate self. My self-concept has been defined by my ideological and political position in interaction with the interests of the stakeholders (Goffman, 1959) in private enter- prise and male-dominated professional organisations over the past 18 years. My sense of self was shaped by the command-and-control leadership style (Dubrin, 2001; Powell & Graves, 2003) of these business entities. Towards the other end of the continuum of organisational styles, I now find myself in a profession described as primarily female orientated (Haraway, 1998). The academic development unit is frequented by members, including Shelley and me, who exhibit cooperative and empowering styles of leadership, encourage participation in decision-making, and nurture others to achieve (Acker, 1990; Powell & Graves, 2003). Each requires a different level of immersion in the pool, a different amount of stroke-correction, and sometimes saving from drowning.

Dream and design phases: academic developer/development identity – how we know who we are
Within the context of academic development the dream and design phases of AI are cohesive and interactive. The dream of what academic identity can be and accom- plish is reflexively interactive within the intrinsic, unconscious design process by which our identities are informed. For the academic developer, conceptualisation of who we are is perhaps less important than how we know who we are because our role is inextricably informed by the roles and identities of those working around us and where we work. While not implying that academic developers and academic development are homogeneous, our theme-based inquiry into the people we are within the bounds of academic development illustrates a merging of personal self and work self that is undeniable.

Self-concept theory tells us that there are three ways that we know who we are (Pyryt & Mendaglio, 1994). One means is ‘self-attribution’ (Yara, 2010). This means that we observe ourselves. We note our successes and our challenges and use this to inform our identities. For academic developers, the successes that we attribute to ourselves depend on the experiences of others (i.e. secondary self-attribution). One of the functions of an academic developer is to support academics’ self-nomination for citations recognising contribution to student learning. This process is already once removed in that the academics are cited for their contributions to their students’ learning. The academic developers are subsequently commended on the basis of the number of successful nominations for their university. Secondary self-attribution is further complicated because an ethical and effective academic developer does not write the nomination for the academic, but creates the conditions that empower the academic to write a successful application, such as through building confidence and helping the academic find her unique voice. This can be confronting to the academic developers’ self-concepts in that one of the capacities that likely persuaded the institution to hire them is their articulate and expressive written communications. Academic developers cannot override the self-expression of the academic, even when it is not up to standard. Within the theory of self-attribution, this means that the academic developer is sometimes in the position of being judged on others’ work, and possibly, work considered uncommendable. When the results are returned, does the academic attribute the number of awards to their own self-concept? As argued earlier, it is difficult not to interpret the results as a reflection of self. Such are the secondary complications of academic developer self-attribution.

Another way in which we know who we are is through ‘social comparison’ (Bui & Pelham, 1999; Burleson, Leach, & Harrington, 2005; Vohs & Heatherton, 2004). What this means is that we compare ourselves to others and, based on how we ‘measure up’, decide who we are. Upward comparison means that we compare ourselves with others who are higher ranked or of a higher figurative caste than ourselves. Too much upward comparison can be hard on one’s self-esteem and become depressing. Downward comparison means that we make ourselves feel better by ranking ourselves against those whom society deems to be lesser. In universities, it is much easier to compare upwardly rather than downwardly. One quickly forgets that only 3% of the entire tertiary educated population has achieved a PhD (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003). Within the ivory tower, one develops the distorted view that nearly every citizen has a doctorate. On campus there are always those who have published more, read more, earned more competitive grant income and been invited to perform more keynote addresses. The game of conversationally one-upping one another is commonplace.

Again, academic developers are in particularly precarious positions. Academic developers find themselves figuratively stacking their blocks on the table building a tower high enough that academics will see them as worthy colleagues. While it is sociologically necessary to have colleagues in a lesser position in order to engage in self-esteem-building downward comparison, those deemed to be lesser are often disrespected. Whereas academics will not overtly ask their faculty colleagues direct questions about what, how often, and where they publish, they will, and do, ask academic developers. It is often open season on scepticism for academic developers’ credentials.

To cross the drawbridge to the ivory tower of academia is to present a very different facade as compared with what academics commonly and collectively refer to as the real world (Foucault, 1972b; Heidegger, 1977). In that corporate world I, Kayleen, was not called upon to prove myself on a day to day, case by case basis. The demand to prove one’s worthiness and to continually reclaim one’s place in the academy appears to be a universal experience of academic developers (Harland & Staniforth, 2003, 2008). Attribution theory of behaviour (Robbins, Millett, Cacioppe, & Waters-Marsh, 1998) ensures that my designation and inclusion in a particular organisation or professional body ascribes a given level of expertise and respect. There is a master–servant relationship that persists over time as clients come to me with problems to be solved or statutory requirements to be fulfilled, and I as the deemed authority relieve them of anxiety and fear. I wear the mask of Kayleen the accountant or business consultant and no one tries to remove the mask (Donahue, Robins, Roberts, & John, 1993). On campus, I am no longer the smartest person in the room. This subset of the population is heavily skewed towards the pointy end of the bell curve, and there is a tussle for lesser and lesser figurative, and sometimes physical, space. The academics I work alongside are all experts in their respective fields and want to rank me before they will disclose their Achilles’ heel, which is exactly what I am here to nurture, add value to and mould into a promotion of themselves, thereby creating a business plan or proposal to sell themselves for figurative and literal profit.

The third means of informing one’s self-concept is called ‘reflected appraisals’ (Amorose, 2002; Bois, Sarrazin, Brustad, Chanal, & Trouilloud, 2005; Hergovich, Sirsch, & Felinger, 2002; Quinlivan & Leary, 2005). We decide who we are based on what we perceive others think of us. The key word is perception. There is often a difference between how we think someone sees us and how they actually do. In fact, one of the key strategies of therapists is to reconcile perceptions so that there is a closer match between people’s perceptions of how they think others see them and how others actually see them. The other complicating variable in reflected appraisals is that different people have different valences. In other words, some people’s views matter to us more than others. Within the university, for example, it is more likely that the academic’s self-concept is more influenced by whether she thinks that her Dean likes her than by a colleague in another faculty. Depending on whether the affiliation to the career or the university is stronger, some inter-university academic developers have a higher valence for one another’s self-concept, whereas for others, intra-university Deans and Pro Vice-Chancellors carry greater weight.

The need to conform within the existing paradigm is exacerbated when academ- ics privilege social identification with those above them. This homosocial reproduc- tion ensures the continuation of rites and traditions (Foucault, 1972a, 1972b). Success and progression must be earned in the same way as the incumbents (Kennedy, 1998; Elliott & Smith, 2004). Academic developers need to develop thick skin and/or consider the source of negative feedback, explicitly assessing the relative valence. The nature of academic development means that people in these roles figuratively put their heads where bullets fly. Changing student evaluation of teaching and thereby messing (Devault, 1990; Moss, 2009) with professional development reviews and promotion applications does not put academic developers in high esteem of others, or (through the process of reflected appraisals) of oneself. Supervising curriculum review and challenging the efficacy of assessment will not win popularity contests for academic developers, and yet are critical elements of our role. Through the self-filtered judgements of academic clients, academic developers decide who we are and whether we can stand, and even be warmed by, the heat.

In summary, there are three key ways that academic developers inform their self-concepts. One is self-attribution. The outcomes of our work reveal our specific strengths and weaknesses. For example, one academic developer takes pride in the number of citations awarded to the academics he has supported. Another academic developer recognises her strength in framing teaching and learning research. Another means of informing self-concept is social comparison. As academic devel- opers we compare ourselves with one another across universities, and we compare ourselves with the academics and chancellery within our home institution. Finally, we know who we are through reflected appraisals. We perceive what and how these others think of us, and filter this to inform how we think about ourselves.

These three theories of self-concept formation are grounded on a Western, individualist paradigm. Even though each situates the individual as a social self, the theories are primarily drawn from social psychology rather than sociology. Who is this ‘self’ in the context of other selves? How do my comparisons against you make me feel about myself? How does how I think you judge me make me feel about myself? Considered in isolation, these theories are narcissistic and convey a false sense of intent and control, whereas the context of academic developers is altruistic rather than self-absorbed, and interdependent rather than independent.

In order for self-concept theory to be informative regarding the identity of academic developers, we must interpret the theories through an ontological overlay. Writing in the context of academic development, Lee and McWilliam (2008) discussed a Foucauldian perspective on identity. Foucault (1972a, 1972b) revealed the history of subjective meanings, unconscious consensus on truth and social behav- iours dynamically developed in a time and place context. Applied to self-concept, this means we are not free spirits with uniquely defined and self-determined identi- ties. As much as we might attempt to redefine ourselves through interrupting, challenging and critiquing the power forces that shape our identities (Peseta et al., 2005), we are bound by the threads that interweave us and, furthermore, we cannot see that from which we are looking out. Each self-identity is informed by and informs the contextual group identity. This social self, or self in the context of oth- ers, explains why there is such an emphasis in the literature on the identity of the field of academic development. Who we are as academic developers at one and the same time is reflexively (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000; Kincheloe & Berry, 2004) determined by and determines the meaning of the field of academic development.

Literature indicates that undefined identity as academic developers may arise from an amorphous identity of academic development centres. Harland and Staniforth (2008) and Land (2001) presented the identity of university academic development centres as “fragmented”, defining the term as holding few characteris- tics in common, including its ontology. Palmer, Holt, and Challis (2010, p. 171) depicted many academic development centres as “turbulent environment[s]” owing to unstable, transitory structures and executive leadership and changing mandates. MacKenzie et al. (2007) described the academic development role as increasingly “performative”, which means that academic developers are measured on the basis of external indicators of value-added rather than authentically enacting values of higher education.

Lack of solid career identification makes personal identity more important. Henkel’s (2005) academic identity theory explains that this is because people within minimally defined and weakly bounded contexts do not have the security of community attitudes and values. People in tight, definitive communities have vernacular and shared understandings that define not only their group, but also themselves. The literature we have reviewed throughout this article indicates that academic developers do not have the benefit of these defining ways of knowing and being. Specific to academic development, Harland and Staniforth (2003, p. 26) wrote, “As ‘regular academics’, neither of us recalls being concerned about ‘identity’ until we started our careers in academic development”. It is, therefore, not surprising that some academic developers portray selfhood as an identity crisis (Lee & McWilliam, 2008).

There is a growing body of knowledge about the disparate ways in which aca- demic developers see themselves. Just as academic development identity is pre- sented as diverse and conflicted, so too is academic developer identity (MacKenzie et al., 2007). Academic developers assert that their work is not understood by those outside of university academic development centres (Harland & Staniforth, 2003, 2008; MacKenzie et al., 2007) and that conceptualisation is highly variable by the academic developers themselves (Fraser, 1999; Harland & Staniforth, 2003, 2008). Further, analyses of the place of academic developers in universities reveal that persons working in these roles are stigmatised victims of hegemonic forces (Harland & Staniforth, 2008). Being marginalised within their place of employment further exacerbates a lost sense of self.

Destiny phase: implications for academic development
The final phase of AI research is posing the question of how to activate and sustain the vision and design over time and in complex environments. Trying to locate our selves within the dialectical tension of academic development as a discipline or as a managerial tool (Grant, 2007), and somewhere inside the acknowledgement of teaching and learning as a credible/creditable pursuit of continuing professional development (Clegg, 2003) allows us to create corridors for information, learning and respect, connecting university hierarchy with the individuals of the institution. Instead of polarised activities, we see faculty academics and academic developers, and teaching, learning and research as scholarship partners, with the integration of all parts of the academic personality forming a cohesive whole. Academics innovate in teaching and learning through identifying and applying evidence-based approaches to enhancement of student learning. Academic developers are teaching and learning innovators through identifying and applying developments in higher education across universities and by enhancing scholarship beyond the disciplinary boundaries. Academic developers require dynamic, positively informed identities in order to develop and maintain the courage that this leadership position requires. Beyond the individuals, the nexus of research with learning and teaching means that academics actively research in their own classrooms and recursively apply their findings to enhance their teaching and their students’ learning, whereas academic developers are Handal’s (1999) “critical friend(s)”, providing balance and direction, while remaining impartial with a “new leaderly disposition” (Lee & McWilliam, 2008, p. 75).

Reflexive inquiry into the experience of being an academic developer reveals four recommendations. First, use the self in academic development, engaging with academics, using one’s personal strengths and building relationships. Second, embrace the leadership role of academic development, envisioning, guiding and mentoring the teaching and learning process. Third, be kind to oneself as academic developer and to colleagues in the same occupation. Academic developers face numerous challenges and must strive to remain confident, positive and optimistic in order to influence change. Fourth, seek opportunities to contribute to a collective identity of academic development. Examples of collective contribution include collaborating on inter-institutional grant proposals and writing projects in the domain of academic development. In summary, recommendations are to strengthen one’s position as an individual and unique academic developer and use that self-identity to develop a collective identity of the field of academic development.

Conclusion The gap in the literature addressed through the present article is an empirical the- ory-based depiction of the processes by which academic developer identity is informed. This article applies AI and self-concept theory to the personal journeys of academic developers to inform how we know who we are. The implication of this exploration is that understanding the processes that inform our identities will help academic developers self-efficaciously assume our rightful places as higher educa- tion leaders (Taylor, 2005). However, as Land (2001) asserted, our roles as academic developers mean that the better we are at facilitating change, the less others will know that we were instrumental in its orchestration. With the expansion of the knowledge-based economy and the need to increase the capacity to serve it, the relevance of academic developers into the future is in creating the climate to nurture change. We acknowledge the positive experiences and strength-base of our study to encourage widespread inclusion, growth and development, as opposed to looking to the deficit model and seeking to repair or reform. Far from being invisible or even redundant in the future, our interpretation is that the role of the academic developer is assured, positive, active and sustainable.

Reference List available on request.