A Qualitative Case Study on the Organizational Identity of Faculty Members
Year: 2014
Type: article
Abstract: The purpose of this qualitative case study is to investigate common issues and factors associated with or- ganizational identity from viewpoint of faculty members employed during 2011-2012 year in Faculty of Education at Mersin University in Mersin, Turkey. The sample of this study consisted of 14 faculty members, including professors, associate professors, and assistant professors from Faculty of Education. The data was gathered by utilizing semi-structured interview method, which consisted of 16 interview ques- tions developed by researcher. The data, collected from interviews, was content-analyzed by identifying, coding, and categorizing primary patterns of data. Analysis of data revealed that there are a number of common issues and factors associated with organizational identity of faculty members. As a result of analysis, three main categories and a number of sub-categories emerged: Identity-related issues, identity- relevant outcomes and administrative issues. Considering these results, it may be proposed that interviewed faculty members do not identify themselves with their faculty or sub-group of faculty but rather as discrete individuals who as a whole comprise faculty organization.KeywordsAdministrative Issues, Alienation, Faculty Members, Identity-related Issues, Identity-related Outcomes, Organizational Commitment, Organizational Identity, Organizational Image.Almost over world, profound long-term changes have reshaped all aspects of work and identity around an idealized image of corporate efficiency, a strong managerial culture, entrepreneurialism, and profit-making ideals (Winter, 2009, p. 121). These changes were complex responses from higher education institutions to globalization, technological developments, and changes in government funding (Churchman, 2006). Researchers have shown particular interest in changing nature of work, predominantly in how an academician contextualizes their identity within this framework (Billiot, 2010; Churchman, 2006; Clegg, 2008; Harris, 2005; Jawitz, 2009; Nixon, 1996; Winter, 2009).Many definitions of identity have been proposed by sociology, organizational behavior, social psychology, and communication researchers view this construct as a key for explaining and predicting an individual's attitudes and behaviors (Billiot, 2010; Churchman, 2006; Clegg, 2008; Edwards, 2005; Riketta, 2005). For example, Clegg (2008) proposed that identity is a multiple and shifting term exists alongside other aspects of how people understand their personhood and ways of being in world. (p. 329). Identity has been interpreted as a sense of self representing an ongoing effort of making sense of who we are in a continuum which links past with present and future (Billiot, 2010; Geijsel & Meijers, 2005; Henkel, 2000). Specifically, it is argued in literature that individual in an context constructs their identity, or sense of self, via their image of what comprises the academic: their past experiences and their understanding of current circumstances (Billiot, 2010; Henkel, 2000). Furthermore, Harris (2005) referred to university as a complex and differentiated institution where various constructions of academic coexist.Billiot (2010) argued that changing social, economic, and institutional contexts affect identity of individual academician. She noted that historically, universities have been viewed as a collective of scholars holding collegiality, collaborative management, freedom, ideological rewards, and peer esteem in high regard, but nowadays these values have been challenged by revised institutional ones which demand ideological engagement and endorsement of economic and managerial priorities.In other words, changing institutional priorities have forced staff to redefine their identity and those of their colleagues. …
Author: Sıdıka GİZİR
Language: English
Domain: Social Sciences
SDG: Quality education
Open Access status: diamond
OpenAlex ID: W2018195305