Access to this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Content available from British Educational Research Journal
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Br Educ Res J. 2024;00:1–27.
|
1
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/berj
Received: 3 0 April 2024
|
Accepted: 11 November 2024
DOI: 10 .1002/ ber j.40 98
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The role of autonomy in forming an integrated
identity among early career academics
Irena Kuzborska1 | David O'Reilly1 | Katie Smith1 |
Agata A. Lambrechts2 | Annis Stenson3
This is an op en access article unde r the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Lic ense, which permi ts use, dist ributi on
and reproduction in any medium, provided the orig inal work is proper ly cited.
© 2024 The Aut hor(s). British Educational Research Journal publi shed by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British
Educational Research Association.
1Department of Educ ation, Universit y of
Yor k , Yo r k, U K
2Institute of Communication and Public
Policy, Università Della Svizzera Italiana,
Lugano, Switzerland
3CAS School of Social Sciences and
Humanities, Coventry University, Coventr y,
UK
Correspondence
Irena Kuzborska, De partment of Education,
Universi ty of York, York YO10 5DD, UK.
Email: irena.kuzborska@york.ac.uk
Funding information
The study was funded by th e University
of York Graduate Student As sociat ion
Community.
Abstract
The formation of teacher identity is a complex and
strenuous process. Teachers are expected to form
multiple identities based on institutional values and
regulations; however, these identities can sometimes
conflict with one's personal values and goals, leading
to less integration. According to self- determination
theory, forming an integrated identity is crucial for
teachers' well- being and effective performance. To
promote an integrated identity, it is essential to sat-
isfy the need for autonomy, defined in this study as
the need to have a choice and the ability to self-
determine one's behaviours. While much is known
about the construction of social identity, the forma-
tion of an integrated identity is less understood. To fill
this gap and support the professional development of
early career academics (ECAs), this study adopts the
concepts of organismic integration and basic psycho-
logical needs. It examines the extent to which ECAs'
identity adoption is integrated (autonomous) or intro-
jected (controlled) and the degree to which autonomy
satisfaction is associated with adopting particular
identities. A total of 176 ECAs teaching at various
UK universities completed an online questionnaire
based on the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction
and Frustration Scale; 25 of them also participated
in a semi- structured interview. Generally high levels
of autonomy satisfaction were determined, but the
reasons given indicated the formation of externally
2
|
KUZBORSK A et al.
INTRODUCTION
Identities play a powerful role in motivating learning, including the learning associated with
teacher education. Teachers' sense of self—their perceptions of who they are, how they
view their classrooms, their approach to teaching a subject and their understanding and
compliance with institutional expectations—can influence their pedagogical choices, their
students' learning and their own professional commitment, confidence and job satisfac-
tion (Goh et al., 2005; Kelchtermans & Vandenberghe, 1994; McAdams & McLean, 2013;
Nichols et al., 2017; Zembylas & Chubbuck, 2015). Furthermore, developing identities that
align with one's values, interests and goals is essential for teachers' vitality, well- being and
full functioning, as proposed by self- determination theory (SDT). More integrated identities
lead to greater well- being and higher performance quality (DeHaan et al., 2015; Ryan &
Deci, 2017; Ryan & Frederick, 19 97; Ryan & Hawley, 2016). Therefore, examining teacher
identity formation is crucial for understanding teachers' practices, decision- making and pro-
fessional development.
Much research on teacher identity has focused on understanding how teachers form
self- representations and the factors that influence these representations. Studies have
shown that teachers shape their identities in response to numerous historical, cultural, so-
cial and political factors, which are often complex and intertwined. For instance, teachers'
identity construction is influenced by self- perception (Bilgen & Richards, 2016; Park, 2012;
Pavlenko, 2003), relationships with students and colleagues (Bale & Anderson, 2022;
regulated and introjected identities. Implications for
developing effective professional preparation pro-
grammes are discussed.
KEYWORDS
autonomy, early career academics, integrated identity, UK
contex t
Key insights
What is the main issue that the paper addresses?
Forming integrated identities is critical for teachers' full functioning and well- being.
However, teacher identity research has primarily focused on understanding how
teachers form self- representations and the factors that influence these representa-
tions, while offering limited insight into how teachers assimilate and integrate multi-
ple, sometimes conflicting, identities.
What are the main insights that the paper provides?
Early career academics tend to endorse externally imposed institutional values and
regulations, often forming externally regulated and introjected identities as a result.
They also tend not to evaluate how well these external values and regulations align
with their own values, needs and goals.
|
3
AUTON OM Y AND INTEGR ATED ID ENT IT Y FORMATIO N
Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017; Yayli, 2016), perspectives on specific subjects they teach
(Clandinin et al., 2009; Lee, 2013; Trent, 2010) and expectations for future job prospects
(Czerniawski, 2 011; Day et al., 2006). Institutional requirements also play a role, and these
demands may sometimes lead to feelings of insecurity, instability and a lack of coherence in
teachers' identities (Cooper & Olson, 1996; Donato et al., 2016; MacLure, 1993; Nias, 1989;
Trent, 2016). More recently, studies emphasise teachers as active agents capable of shaping
and reshaping both situations and identities (Bartlett & Holland, 2002; Holland et al., 1998),
revealing that identities are not static. Rather, they are continuously negotiated and con-
structed (Ben Said, 2016; Ben Said & Shegar, 2013; Donato et al., 2016). Costley (2016)
summarises this by stating that teachers are not ‘automatons who simply fall in line with
social structures without question’ (p. 77).
However, while this body of research has highlighted the complexity of identity forma-
tion, it has shed little light on how teachers assimilate and integrate multiple, sometimes
conflicting, identities. To address this gap, this study adopts organismic integration the-
ory (OIT) (Ryan et al., 1985; Ryan & Hawley, 2016) and basic psychological needs theory
(BPNT) (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan, 1995), two sub- theories of SDT. In alignment with SDT,
we differentiate between ‘identity’ and ‘self’, defining the self as an active, agentic entity
that experiences its actions as self- determined and identity as a collection of social self-
representations that can be integrated into the self to varying degrees (Ryan & Deci, 2017).
The degree to which identities are integrated into the self is predictive of both performance
quality and well- being. We also focus on autonomy as a crucial factor that promotes the
formation of integrated identity. Autonomy, one of the three basic psychological needs, is
defined as the need to self- determine one's actions and to feel that these actions align with
one's authentic values and interests (Ryan & Deci, 2017, p. 10). In this context, autonomy is
not mere independence from external influences; rather, even externally motivated actions
can be autonomous if they are personally valued. For example, teachers can comply with
institutional regulations while acting autonomously if they view these regulations as valu-
able. Nonetheless, the highest level of autonomy is achieved when external values align with
one's own values, interests and goals. This alignment results in more integrated identities
and, in turn, greater well- being and performance quality. In other words, greater auton-
omy satisfaction enables teachers to explore and commit to identities, while suppressed
autonomy may hinder identity formation. Research also suggests that teachers with high
autonomy satisfaction exhibit stronger identity commitments and are more engaged and
productive than those with lower autonomy satisfaction (Bartholomew et al., 2011; Luyckx
et al., 2009; Sheldon & Krieger, 2007). Importantly, autonomous actions are experienced
through self- reflection and conscious awareness of the extent to which external regulations
feel self- determined rather than imposed.
In emphasising integrated identity formation as essential to both well- being and perfor-
mance quality, we focused on early career academics (ECAs), also known in UK univer-
sities as graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) (both terms, ECAs and GTAs, will be used
interchangeably in this paper). For this study, ECAs are defined as postgraduate doctoral
researchers who are employed part- time to teach within higher education (HE) institutions.
ECAs play a critical role in HE sectors worldwide (e.g. Meadows et al., 2015), yet little is
known about their teaching practices and identities. This study, therefore, specifically exam-
ines the extent to which ECAs' identities are integrated or introjected, as well as the degree
to which autonomy satisfaction is associated with adopting particular identities. A total of
176 UK- based ECAs, studying and teaching at universities in England (159), Wales (8),
Scotland (7) and Northern Ireland (2), completed an online questionnaire based on the Basic
Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (Chen et al., 2015), with 25 ECAs
also participating in follow- up semi- structured interviews. Both quantitative and qualitative
data were analysed. This study is the first to examine the role of autonomy satisfaction in
4
|
KUZBORSK A et al.
the formation of ECAs' integrated identities, providing valuable insights for educators and
programme developers who work with ECAs.
THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL BACKGROUND
Self- determination theory and the formation of an integrated identity
SDT is a framework for understanding human motivation and personality development that
emphasises people's active, social and integrative tendencies, which support the satisfac-
tion of three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence and relatedness. The theory
also highlights the need- supportive conditions that allow these tendencies to be realised.
SDT includes six mini- theories, two of which—OIT (Ryan et al., 1985; Ryan & Hawley, 2016)
and BPNT (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan, 1995)—were adopted in this study to explain the pro-
cess of integrated identity formation.
OIT explores how extrinsic values and regulations are internalised and the factors that
promote or inhibit this internalisation. Internalisation is a natural process driven by an inher-
ent human tendency to organise and integrate extrinsic values and regulations into personal
values and motivations, which is essential for individual and societal growth and develop-
ment. By fully internalising social values and regulations, individuals can experience auton-
omy, develop personal and social competencies, connect with others and live in harmony
within their communities. In other words, internalisation supports the satisfaction of auton-
omy, competence and relatedness needs, which BPNT identifies as critical for full function-
ing and well- being (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan, 1995). However, internalisation is a complex
process that can vary significantly. The degree to which extrinsic values and regulations
are internalised depends on the type of extrinsic motivation, which is always instrumental in
nature and varies in its degree of autonomy and underlying causes (in contrast to intrinsic
motivation, which drives behaviour based on internally perceived autonomy and internal
rewards).
OIT distinguishes four major types of extrinsically motivated actions: externally regulated
actions; introjected actions; identified actions; and integrated actions. Externally regulated
actions depend on external rewards or punishments and are the most controlled. While such
actions can be effective, they often lack sustainability and can lead to poor performance.
Introjected (or self- controlled) actions are based on self- imposed controls driven by feelings
of worth and affective consequences (e.g. satisfaction, pride vs. shame, guilt). While these
controls come from within the individual, they are also influenced by perceived approval from
others, making introjected actions internally controlling. Although introjected actions are
often more enduring than externally regulated actions, they are not self- determined; rather,
they are motivated by self- evaluative pressures to behave in specific ways. Consequently,
introjected actions frequently result in social conformity and the adoption of values, prac-
tices and qualities that may be incongruent with the self.
Identified actions are personally valued, considered important and consciously endorsed
by the self, meaning that they align with one's values, goals and needs. While identified
actions are more autonomous than external or introjected actions, they may not fully align
with other internalised values and goals, meaning that they are not entirely integrated into
the individual's identity. Actions are considered integrated when they are fully self- endorsed
and have been assimilated with other identifications, values and needs—what Ryan and
Deci (2017) describe as being congruent ‘with other aspects of one's self’ (p. 188). Such
actions are the most autonomous and, therefore, the most satisfying and fulfilling.
Similar to the internalisation of extrinsic values and behaviours, social identities can
also be externally regulated, introjected, identified or integrated to varying degrees (Ryan
|
5
AUTON OM Y AND INTEGR ATED ID ENT IT Y FORMATIO N
& Deci, 2017, pp. 382–392). While individuals are often subject to external expectations
regarding characteristics and roles when engaging in particular activities—and may feel
pressured to accept certain identities and reject others—it is only through forming integrated
identities that individuals can achieve vitality, full functioning and well- being. As Ryan and
Deci (2017, p. 379) state: ‘the most important predictor of wellness both within and across
roles would be the extent to which a person feels able to act in accordance with his or her
own choices and values’.
Autonomy support is essential for promoting the internalisation of extrinsic values and
behaviours and fostering the formation of more integrated identities. According to Ryan
and Deci (2017, p. 204), ‘autonomy support allows the individual to be more proactive in the
process of assimilation and transforming external practices into one's identity and style of
life’. However, they also note that ‘it is typically the degree to which an action is experienced
as autonomous that functionally matters most’ (p. 197). Thus, according to OIT, autonomy
satisfaction facilitates the formation of an integrated identity, which in turn supports the sat-
isfaction of psychological needs, thus creating ‘a reciprocal and dynamic process’ (Ryan &
Deci, 2017, p. 388). With regard to teacher identity formation specifically, if teachers feel that
they have autonomy in their teaching, they are more likely to form identities that align with
their values, needs and interests. If, however, they feel pressured (externally or internally) to
adopt an identity that does not align with their personal values and goals, the formation of an
integrated identity may be hindered. While recognising the vital role of autonomy support in
identity formation, this paper focuses solely on feelings of autonomy satisfaction (the extent
and type of needs support are discussed elsewhere).
The distinction between identity and self
SDT distinguishes between identit y and self. Following social cognitive theory (Ba ndura, 1986),
we define identity as individuals' perceptions of who they are and how others perceive them.
For instance, Korthagen (2004) describes identity as ‘an unconscious body of needs, im-
ages, feelings, values, role models, previous experiences and behavioural tendencies,
which together create a sense of identity’ (p. 85). Building on this, Pennington (2015) sug-
gests that identity ‘can be thought of as a type of performance, an enacting and positioning
of the self within specific contexts and within society’ (p. 17). Identity, therefore, includes
numerous interrelated facets that shift in response to context and social interactions, allow-
ing individuals to connect with specific social groups and institutions.
In contrast, SDT views the self not just as a cognitive representation or image developed
through experience, but as an inherent ‘self- as- process’ (Ryan & Deci, 2017, p. 52) through
which a person organises and regulates experiences based on their values, beliefs and
interests. Ryan and Deci (2017) explain that the self ‘is phenomenally experienced as both
a centre of experience and as the initiator and regulator of volitional behaviour’ (p. 52).
This perspective emphasises an active, agentic self that experiences behaviours as self-
determined rather than as controlled by others. The self functions as an active regulator,
observer and evaluator of one's actions, or, as Kuhl and Kazén (1994) describe, a ‘self-
compatibility checker’ capable of reflecting on and evaluating personal behaviours.
Educational researchers such as Dewey (1938), Polkinghorne (1988) and Rodgers and
Scott (2008) have made similar distinctions between identity and self, highlighting agency
and coherence as key attributes of the self. Polkinghorne (1988), for example, defines the
self as ‘a configuring of personal events into a historical unity’ (p. 150), while Rodgers and
Scott (2008) describe the self as ‘the meaning maker and identity as the meaning made’
(p. 739). This concept of self aligns with Gee's (2001) idea of a ‘core identity’, which Gee
explains is stable across contexts, as opposed to other identities that relate to external
6
|
KUZBORSK A et al.
‘performances in society’ (p. 99). Dewey (1938) further noted that a lack of coherence within
the self can negatively impact well- being: ‘A fully integrated personality … exists only when
successive experiences are integrated with one another’ (p. 44).
Closely tied to the self is the concept of authenticity, which refers to behaviours that are
genuine and self- directed rather than externally imposed. Authentic behaviour, according to
Ryan and Deci (2017), ‘is authored or endorsed by the self (i.e. it is autonomous), and it is
not self- deceptive but reflects a considered, meaningful, and open grappling with what is ac-
tually occurring’ (p. 396). The degree to which behaviours are self- authored reflects the ex-
tent to which identities are integrated into the self. Conversely, introjected identities—those
adopted under pressure or control—‘have a less authentic fit’ (Ryan & Deci, 2017, p. 386)
and are often pursued to seek social acceptance or appear worthy to others. Such poorly
integrated identities arise when roles and values conflict with or restrict the self.
In summary, self differs from identity in that while people may possess multiple identities,
they have only one self. Each identity is shaped by values and norms that ‘may be more or
less fully integrated within the self’ (Ryan & Deci, 2017, p. 382). Becoming self- authoring
and self- determined teachers is essential for personal well- being and, we argue, should be
a primary goal of teacher education programmes.
Research on GTA identity development
In line with research on teacher identity, GTA identity has largely been studied from a social-
cognitive perspective, focusing on socialisation processes and contextual factors that influ-
ence identity formation in a new academic community. A prominent finding in this research
is that GTAs and their roles are often depicted negatively. GTAs are sometimes labelled as
‘the donkeys in the department’ (Park & Ramos, 2002, p. 53) due to heavy workloads and
under- appreciated labour (Rao et al., 2021). At other times, they are described as enacting
complex, dynamic and unstable roles, such as being ‘sometimes fish and sometimes fowl’
(Winstone & Moore, 2 017, p. 499, original emphasis) or ‘postgraduate chameleons’ (Harland
& Plangger, 2004), adapting to diverse expectations from both academic staff and students
(Bale & Anderson, 2022; Land et al., 2014). GTAs often struggle with these oscillating roles,
finding it challenging to integrate their various identities coherently (Cho et al., 2011; Jazvac-
Martek, 2009; Keefer, 2015; Muzaka, 2009; Raineri, 2015; Winstone & Moore, 2017).
The role of social interactions and others' perceptions is fundamental in identity develop-
ment (Alsup, 2006; Beauchamp & Thomas, 2 011; Fairbrother, 2012; G ee, 2001; Hallman, 2015;
McCall, 2003; Winstone & Moore, 2017). It is important for GTAs to adopt roles that are pos-
itively conceptualised and seen as valuable contributions to departmental teaching, rather
than negative ones that reinforce marginalisation. Much of the literature on GTA identity
implicitly depicts GTAs as teaching assistants rather than actual teachers. Their roles often
entail supporting lecturers with teaching, grading, administrative tasks and lab demonstra-
tions. Consequently, GTAs report a lack of ownership and autonomy over their teaching
activities, which they view as a hindrance to their learning and growth (Fairbrother, 2012;
Harland & Plangger, 2004; Muzaka, 2009; Park & Ramos, 2002; Winstone & Moore, 2017).
For example, in Fairbrother's (2012) study reflecting on her own GTA experience, a sense of
autonomy in designing her own teaching materials was crucial, contrasting with an assistant
role that would limit her agency. Similarly, in Winstone and Moore's (2017 ) study of nine psy-
chology GTAs, autonomy was a key factor in developing a GTA identity. While struggling to
balance student and teacher roles, the GTAs valued opportunities to make their own choices
about teaching content and activities, allowing them to ‘experiment with the role of “teacher”’
(Winstone & Moore, 2 017, p. 497). Conversely, in Park and Ramos's (2002) study, 11 GTAs
reported a lack of freedom in determining their teaching, selecting materials and designing
|
7
AUTON OM Y AND INTEGR ATED ID ENT IT Y FORMATIO N
assessments, leading them to feel that ‘creativity was inevitably suppressed by the role
they had to play’ (p. 51). Other studies have shown that GTAs feel empowered when their
teaching roles are positively valued by others, whereas feeling undervalued creates threats
to their identity development (Muzaka, 2009; Park, 2002).
Despite these challenges, GTAs appreciate teaching opportunities, which they believe
contribute to their teacher identity development and aid their future pursuit of academic po-
sitions (Jordan & Howe, 2018; Mantai, 2019; Rao et al., 2021). However, fierce competition
among GTAs can create feelings of insecurity and compel them to compete against one
another (Rao et al., 2021). A shortage of academic positions further intensifies the pressure
to prove their value and raises concerns about potential exploitation (Heijstra et al., 2017;
Thwaites & Pressland, 2017).
In summary, research on GTA identity has shown that GTA identities are complex,
multifaceted, dynamic and socially constructed. GTAs often find themselves shifting be-
tween roles as students, researchers and teachers, balancing time across these roles and
adapting to the differing beliefs, values and expectations of lecturers and students (Bale &
Anderson, 2022; Land et al., 2014). While previous studies have highlighted the contextual
factors that influence GTA identity formation, little is known about the extent to which these
factors and external regulations align with GTAs' own values, interests and inclinations. This
understanding is essential because actions—including identity formation—that are inte-
grated within the self (i.e. self- determined) are foundational for vitality and well- being. Thus,
to address this gap, this study posed the following research questions:
1. To what extent do GTAs feel they have autonomy in their teaching?
2. How is autonomy satisfaction associated with the development of particular identities?
METHODOLOGY
Participants and recruitment
To circulate the call for participation, we compiled and utilised a database of relevant con-
tacts and forums, including local and national GTA- related social media groups and organi-
sations (e.g. student associations and union branches), newsletters and digests, and GTA
administrator email addresses from UK university webpages.
The recruitment process yielded a total of 176 questionnaire respondents who were UK-
based GTAs studying at universities in England (159), Wales (8), Scotland (7) and Northern
Ireland (2). An additional 27 respondents started the questionnaire but did not proceed be-
yond the background information questions and were thus excluded from the analyses. The
176 participants (115 female, 52 male, 4 non- binary, 2 gender- fluid, 1 agender and 2 who
preferred not to say) were aged 22–55 (Mdn = 27, IQR = 6) and comprised 5 first- language
(L1) English EU students, 30 second- language (L2) English EU students, 115 L1 English
home students, 14 L1 English non- EU international students and 12 L2 English non- EU in-
ternational students. Of these, 147 were full- time PhD researchers, 15 were part- time PhD
researchers, 10 had completed their PhD and 4 selected ‘other’. Participants had a median
of 17 months (IQR = 15) of GTA experience and 6 months (IQR = 24) of experience in other
teaching roles.
In their GTA roles, most participants (n = 134) taught only undergraduate (UG) students,
while 36 taught both UG and postgraduate (PG) students, and 6 taught only PG students. A
total of 79 GTAs taught Social Science subjects, 59 taught Arts and Humanities, 35 taught
STEM subjects and 3 taught miscellaneous or other subjects. GTAs reported a median of 4 h
teaching per week (IQR = 3), with most (n = 164) contracted for a specific period, including
8
|
KUZBORSK A et al.
one term/semester (n = 61), half a year (n = 1), two terms/semesters (n = 27), 1 year (n = 3 8),
2 years (n = 2), 3 years (n = 28), 4 years (n = 1), 5 years (n = 2), 6 years (n = 2) or a variable
amount (n = 2). One GTA was contracted for a specific number of hours, eight GTAs were
on zero- hours contracts and three responded with ‘other’. The median reported pay per
hour was £13.75 (IQR = 1.92) and per month was £765 (IQR = 770). After completing the
questionnaire, follow- up interviews were conducted with 25 participants. Interviewees were
selected to ensure as wide a representation as possible regarding gender, age, type (L1/L2
English, home/EU/non- EU), years of teaching experience and discipline, from the pool of 78
respondents (44%) who left their email addresses to indicate a willingness to be interviewed.
Interviewees' background information is shown in Table 1.
Data collection instruments
Questionnaire
We first surveyed GTAs via a specially designed online questionnaire that involved a mix of
closed and open- ended questions. The first part of the questionnaire collected background
information on participants' gender, age, current student status (e.g. full- time PhD student,
L2 English EU student), university location, GTA experience, other teaching experience and
details about their current GTA role, including the subjects and types of students taught, the
balance of in- person versus online teaching and average hours and pay. Information was
also collected on the types of feedback GTAs received, its frequency and their perceptions
of its value.
To investigate GTAs' satisfaction with the three basic psychological needs of autonomy,
relatedness and competence, we consulted Chen et al.'s BPNS scale (Chen et al., 2015) and
designed the statements to suit our study's purposes. The statements asked participants to
rate the extent to which they were true in their experience on a seven- point scale ranging
from 1 (not at all) through 4 (somewhat true) to 7 (very true), with a ‘does not apply’ option
also provided. The autonomy statements focused on participants' freedom to express ideas
and opinions about teaching, their freedom to do their job as they believe it should be done
and their freedom to make decisions when designing instructional materials. Mean ratings
were also calculated.
Interview
A total of 25 out of 176 respondents (14%) participated in follow- up, semi- structured inter-
views to discuss their responses and related issues in more detail. In contrast to the ques-
tionnaire, which measured GTAs' levels of autonomy satisfaction in teaching in general,
the purpose of the interviews was to obtain an in- depth understanding of GTAs' perceived
autonomy when engaged in specific teaching practices, as well as the reasons for their
satisfaction or dissatisfaction with autonomy. The interviews also provided GTAs with an
opportunity to reflect more closely on their satisfaction with autonomy. From this data, we
aimed to determine how the reasons for certain decisions reflected the types of identities
that GTAs were forming.
Thus, during the interviews, we first invited GTAs to confirm their feelings of autonomy in
their teaching and to share specific examples of when they felt autonomous (or not). We then
asked GTAs how they felt about having (or not having) autonomy in their teaching and why
they felt that way. For example: ‘What do you think about not being able to suggest your own
teaching materials?’ We also developed a set of prompts to elicit GTAs' responses regarding
|
9
AUTON OM Y AND INTEGR ATED ID ENT IT Y FORMATIO N
TAB LE 1 Interviewee background information.
Pseudonym Gender Age Typ e
GTA teaching
experience
Other teaching
experience Subject(s) taught Contract
Ella Female 26 L1 E U 3 0 History One term/semester, £13.45 p/h
Sophia Female 28 L1 home 28 0History One term/semester, £15.60 p/h
Mia Female 26 L1 home 3 0 Psychology Entire PhD, £8.50 p/h
Luna Female 25 L1 n o n - EU 12 24 English One term/semester, £15 p/h
Isla Female 28 L1 home 16 59 Education £14 p/h, no/zero- hours contract
Olivia Female 39 L1 home 27 18 Social policy, social
work
£30.26 p/h, no/zero- hours contract
Lucy Female 27 L1 home 18 12 Archaeology £13.45 p/h, contracts for each module
Lily Female 26 L1 home 26 0 Media and
communications, film
studies
Contract unspecified, £43 p/h
Ava Female 29 L1 home 048 Psychosocial
analysis of of fending
behaviour
Three academic years, £816 p/m
Tom Male —L1 home 15 0Sociology One term/semester, £9.09 p/h
Chloe Female 44 L1 n o n - EU 16 0Law Three academic years, £1260 p/m
Aria Female 25 L1 home 12 0 Social policy,
sociology- based
subjects
One term/semester, £450 p/m
Ivy Female 27 L1 home 18 12 Sociology One term/semester, £12 p/h
Ruby Female 30 L1 home 17 0 German, modern
languages
Contract unspecified, £15.12 p/h
John Male 44 L2 EU 60 0Sociology One academic year, £1000 p/m
Liam Male 25 L2 EU 60 12 Mathematics One academic year, £13.25 p/h
Cora Female 28 L2 EU 15 60 Music education One academic year, £13.45 p/h
Theo Male 54 L1 home 15 0Historiography,
primary sources,
history
One term/semester, £15.12 p/h
(Continues)
10
|
KUZBORSK A et al.
Pseudonym Gender Age Typ e
GTA teaching
experience
Other teaching
experience Subject(s) taught Contract
Maria Female 29 L1 home 16 2Philosophy Two terms/semesters, £17.57 p/h
Clara Female 27 L2 EU 412 Sociology Two terms/semesters, £80 p/h
(lecture), £35 p/h (tutorial/seminar)
Julia Female 26 L1 home 2 0 Global health One term/semester, £25 p/h (one
role), £17 p/h (other role)
Rose Female 26 L1 home 14 10 Classics and
mediaeval French
One academic year, £25.50 p/h
Sara Female 28 L1 home 25 0Criminology Three academic years, £1300 p/m
Max Male 31 L1 non - E U 12 24 History One term/semester, £13.45 p/h
Noa Non- binary 27 L1 home 35 0History Two terms/semesters, £13.45 p/h
Average 33.4 18.76 11.7 2 £18.1 p/h or £965.2 p/m
TAB LE 1 (Continued)
|
11
AUTON OM Y AND INTEGR ATED ID ENT IT Y FORMATIO N
certain teaching practices (e.g. the design of teaching materials/activities). Finally, the GTAs
were asked if they had any other comments they wanted to discuss during the interview.
All the interview questions were enthusiastically received and extensively discussed by
the GTAs, generating valuable data. The GTAs appreciated the opportunity to share their
teaching practices and express their opinions. On average, an interview lasted about 1 h.
Piloting and procedure
First, a draft of the questionnaire and interview questions was prepared, discussed among
the authors, refined and then presented to a pilot participant (an L1 English home student),
who responded to the questions and provided feedback. As a result, the questionnaire and
interview schedule were modified for the main study.
The main questionnaire data were collected online from November 2020 to February
2021. The interviews took place online in the weeks that followed and were conducted one-
on- one and shared among the authors. As a thank you for their participation, at the end of
both the questionnaire and the interview, participants were given the option to enter a prize
draw for a £10 retail voucher. The study was funded by the University of York Graduate
Association Community.
Data analysis
The analysis of the questionnaire data
Questionnaire data were downloaded into MS Excel and CSV files and analysed both manu-
ally and using the R programming language (R Core Team, 2022). Interviews were tran-
scribed verbatim into text files and coded using NVivo Collaboration Cloud.
We first employed descriptive statistics (measures of central tendency and spread) to
understand GTAs' levels of autonomy need satisfaction in the questionnaire responses. For
convenience, mean ratings in the lower, middle and upper thirds of the original seven- point
scale (1 = not true at all, 4 = somewhat true, 7 = very true) are referred to as ‘low’ (1 to <3),
‘moderate’ (3 to <5) and ‘high’ (5 to 7), respectively. This enabled some comparability with
previous studies that used a five- point scale (e.g. Chen et al., 2015), for which an equivalent
interpretation is ‘low’ (1 to <2.33), ‘moderate’ (2.33 to < 3.67) and ‘high’ (3.67 to 5). To esti-
mate the internal consistency of the three autonomy items for the different GTA types, instru-
ment reliability was computed via the ufs: Quantitative Analysis Made Accessible package
in R (Peters & Gruijters, 2023), using ordinal omega as a more robust and appropriate alter-
native to traditional Cronbach's alpha (McNeish, 2018).
Given the exploratory nature of the current study, we primarily focused on the levels and
spread of the ratings. However, the first- language status of GTAs emerged as an important
theme in the interviews. To understand the magnitude of differences in overall autonomy
need satisfaction ratings between L1 and L2 English GTA subgroups, and given the non-
normal distributions, we calculated robust Cohen's d estimates to show standardised dif-
ferences between 20% trimmed mean ratings using the akp.effect function in the R WRS2
package (Mair & Wilcox, 2020) (for convenience, we report the untrimmed descriptive sta-
tistics in the main paper, while the results of normality checks and corresponding robust
20% trimmed means and standard deviations are reported on the study's Open Science
Framework page). The effect size was interpreted as small (0.2), medium (0.5) and large
(0.8) (Cohen, 198 8), with an indication of statistical significance at the 0.05 level provided,
based on whether or not the 95% confidence intervals contained 0.
12
|
KUZBORSK A et al.
The analysis of interview data
The data from the interviews and answers to the open- ended questionnaire questions were
analysed using the inductive thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006). First, we
were interested in the types of decisions that GTAs felt they had (or did not have) autonomy
over and identified two major themes: teaching approaches and content. Under the theme
of teaching approaches, we coded classroom activities, choice of activities and length of
activities. Topics and choice of topics were subsumed under the theme of content. We then
examined the reasons influencing satisfaction or frustration with the need for autonomy.
The main reasons for satisfaction with autonomy (or, more accurately, GTAs' acceptance
of the lack of autonomy) included GTAs' limited teaching experience, a lack of subject ex-
pertise, L2 GTA status, the type of subject taught, the COVID- 19 situation and low pay. The
reasons for frustration with the lack of autonomy included the inability to express themselves
and be recognised, the inability to develop new skills and display them on their CV and the
inability to cater to students' needs. Finally, after identifying these reasons, we determined
how the reasons reflected the types of identities that GTAs were forming. For example, the
reluctance to develop their own content due to low pay would be associated with the forma-
tion of an externally regulated identity; the frustration with the lack of autonomy stemming
from the deprived opportunity to gain recognition, develop new skills for their CV or cater to
students' needs would be considered related to the formation of introjected identities. Such
motives, while internal, depend on GTAs' feelings of worth and perceived approval from
others, whether from senior colleagues or students, and are therefore always introjected.
To ensure data reliability, each author coded the interviews they had conducted, with at
least one of these being second- coded by another author. Throughout the coding process,
the authors met in pairs and as a whole team to ensure a consistent approach, discuss and
resolve issues and merge duplicate codes.
Positionality
We acknowledge that our own backgrounds could have influenced the participants' re-
sponses to our questions and our interpretations of their accounts (Creswell, 2007; Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Therefore, to ensure the credibility of our study, we provide clarification of
our positions. All five authors had considerable experience teaching GTAs at different UK
universities and could relate to some of the challenges that GTAs shared with us. At the
time of data collection, three of the five authors—Author 3, Author 4 and Author 5—were
also doctoral students and could empathise with GTAs regarding the challenges of shift-
ing between the roles of doctoral student, researcher and teacher. Author 1 had 6 years of
experience as a GTA coordinator and could appreciate a range of frustrations that GTAs
expressed, such as insufficient payment for their work. Author 2 had experience as both a
former GTA and a lecturer and module leader, and thus, like Author 1, had insight into the co-
ordination of GTA work from opposing perspectives. However, while being highly sensitive to
these issues and respectful of the GTAs' experiences, we also maintained enough distance
to avoid sharing our own experiences and influencing theirs. The aim was to explore their
perceptions of roles and practices in a non- judgemental way.
Ethical issues
The study received full ethical approval from the University of York Department of Education
Ethics Committee. Before completing the questionnaires and participating in the interviews,
|
13
AUTON OM Y AND INTEGR ATED ID ENT IT Y FORMATIO N
the participants were informed about what would be involved in taking part, including issues
such as data storage and usage, as well as their right to withdraw. The data provided by
questionnaire- only participants (i.e. those who did not leave their email address for a follow- up
interview) were anonymous at the point of collection. Identifiable data provided by participants
who expressed a wish to be interviewed were anonymised 4 weeks after the interviews.
RES U LTS
We first present the questionnaire results of GTAs' satisfaction levels of autonomy and then
provide further details of our in- depth analysis of GTAs' interpretations of autonomy satisfac-
tion, as reported in the interviews.
GTAs' satisfaction of the autonomy need
Table 2 and Figure 1 show the average and the spread of participants' autonomy ratings,
specifically, their responses to ‘I feel free to…’ statements using a scale from 1 (not true at
all) to 7 (very true).
Autonomy was relatively high overall (M = 5.17, SD = 1.45) and for L1 and L2 English GTA
subgroups (respectively, M = 5.12, SD = 1. 40, M = 5.30, SD = 1.59). Overall, GTAs had the high-
est autonomy for doing their job the way they think it can be done best (Q2, M = 5.32, SD = 1.5 8)
and the lowest, moderate- level autonomy when making their own decisions in designing in-
structional materials (M = 4.97, SD = 1.87). Instrument reliability was high overall (0.83) and
for L1 and L2 English GTA subgroups (0.80, 0.91), suggesting good internal consistency for
questionnaire items. Finally, the effect size showed only a negligible difference between the
mean ratings of L1 and L2 English GTA subgroups for the overall scale (robust d = −0.18 [−0.54,
0.27]), which was not statistically significant according to the 95% confidence intervals.
Autonomy satisfaction and its association with the formation of
particular identities
High levels of autonomy satisfaction were also reported in the interviews. Many GTAs felt
they had a lot of freedom in their teaching and in the way they wanted to deliver the content.
TAB LE 2 Average (mean), spread (standard deviation) and instrument reliability of autonomy ratings for all
GTAs and L1 and L2 English subgroups, for ‘I feel free to…’ statements rated 1 (not at all) through 4 (somewhat
true) to 7 (very true).
GTA subgroup
Item
L1 English
(n = 134)
L2 English
(n = 42) All (n = 176 )
Q1 express my ideas and opinions about
teaching
5.04 (1. 68) 5.35 (1.7 2) 5.11 (1. 6 9)
Q2 do my job the way I think it could best be
done
5.35 (1.54) 5. 24 (1.69) 5.32 (1.58)
Q3 make my own decisions (when designing
materials)
4.92 (1.88) 5 .14 (1. 8 9) 4 .9 7 (1.87)
Autonomy scale mean 5.12 (1.4 0) 5.30 (1.59) 5.1 7 (1. 4 5 )
Instrument reliability (ordinal omega) 0.80 0.91 0.83
14
|
KUZBORSK A et al.
However, the content of their teaching was usually predetermined. In this section, we focus
solely on GTAs' perceived freedom to design their own content. Since the majority of GTAs
agreed with the predetermined content, we first present the reasons influencing their agree-
ment and only then introduce the GTAs who emphasised the importance of having the au-
tonomy to design their own materials. Their reasons for why autonomy was important to
them will also be considered. We conclude the section with the frustrations that a few GTAs
expressed regarding existing institutional policies.
GTAs' satisfaction with the imposed content and the reasons for their
satisfaction
As the interview results showed, GTAs' freedom was restricted regarding the teaching con-
tent but not the teaching approaches. For example, as GTA Maria noted, she had ‘freedom
over the choice of activities, over the length of activities and classroom organisation … [but
she] had no control over the choice of materials to use’. Similarly, Mia felt that she ‘had the
freedom when it comes to these discussion points on how to actually get them to discuss,
but otherwise, there's not really much freedom’.
Not all GTAs had the freedom to deliver the content in their own way. Noa is one of them:
I had very little freedom in how I was delivering the teaching … We were basi-
cally given set syllabi and sort of set instructions for basically the overview of
how the class is supposed to go. And we really weren't given much freedom to
deviate from that.
When commenting on the restricted choice of content and materials design, many GTAs re-
ported that this restriction aligned with their GTA roles. For example, GTA Cora pointed out that
she was appointed ‘to facilitate learning’, not to do ‘a bigger job than the GTA job’. Therefore,
she did not feel the need to design her own materials. Cora also emphasised her lack of teach-
ing experience and the fact that she was a second- language speaker. Additionally, due to in-
sufficient GTA pay, she was juggling two jobs while also studying for her degree, and she was
therefore ‘happy not to have too much content to decide on [herself]’. Thus, when Cora was
asked if she wished to have the freedom to design her own materials, she responded:
FIGURE 1 Boxplots per item showing average (horizontal line = median, filled circle = mean) spread (box
height = interquartile range, vertical line = ±1.5 × interquartile range) of autonomy ratings for all GTAs and L1 and
L2 English subgroups for ‘I feel free to…’ statements rated 1 (not at all) through 4 (somewhat true) to 7 (very
tr ue) .
|
15
AUTON OM Y AND INTEGR ATED ID ENT IT Y FORMATIO N
At this point of my teaching career, no, because I still consider myself quite in-
experienced, at least in higher education, given also that English is not my first
language, so that's an extra challenge obviously. So, I'm honestly happy not to
have too much content to decide on myself. … I'm a GTA, this means that I have
to adjust my GTA work with a PhD, and I do another work as well, just [to] pay my
rent out and just basically to survive, to live, basically. So, this means that if I had
to decide my content entirely, then it would take me much longer.
Other GTAs also highlighted their limited status and conflicting responsibilities within the de-
partment. Having a dual identity as both teachers and students was especially worrisome for
GTAs. Isla, for example, when asked to comment on her teaching experience, chose to discuss
how she felt ‘like a lesser member of the department’ and how she had to juggle her GTA work
with her PhD studies:
It made me feel very much like a lesser member of the department … but cer-
tain members of management definitely make you feel like you're not impor tant
enough to be taking that time with your problems, obviously … [Interviewer:
What would make you feel more a part of the department?] … I think it would
just be the acknowledgement of how stressful it is being a precarious worker …
being seen to be working on that [hourly contract], the contracts issues … You
have to do some [PhD] work and you are teaching, but you're also a student, so
you're in this really weird area where you're not really a student or staff.
The existing hourly contracts and low pay also impacted GTAs' motivation to design their own
materials. Many GTAs complained about feeling exploited and undervalued. Lily, for example,
expressed the following frustration when asked about her freedom to design her own materials:
I am performing a kind of a stopgap role here until they kind of find a more long-
term solution, a permanent staff member. And that is difficult because you know
we're also all kind of … want to hopefully get a permanent role in academia. We
are to feel very appreciative of being chosen to carry out big responsibilities. I've
had like conflicting feelings where I'm like, ‘You trust me to create the content,
you know that's really nice and that's going to look great on my CV and I need
an ultra- competitive CV, but at the same time I'm not being paid for this and I'm
being exploited to create this content, but if I don't create this content, my CV
won't be competitive enough and I won't get the permanent job that I hope to
get.’ So, you're just stuck in a catch where you know you don't want to say ‘yes’,
but you can't say ‘no’.
GTA Clara was similarly open about her dissatisfaction with the lack of appreciation for her
work. She commented:
Honestly, the reason why I'd taken a follow- up interview was because I wanted
to render about just how underpaid we are, because it's a disgrace … our will-
ingness to deliver good teaching to students … you really want to make this
difference in a student's life, and so you're driven by this idealism, and they may
just abuse that shamelessly. They know we have this inherent drive to deliver
good stuff and to do our job well, and they know that we'll do it regardless of
how badly they pay us. It's almost like yeah it's a form of care work or something
that's just underpaid, because it will get done anyway.
16
|
KUZBORSK A et al.
GTAs Mia, Maria and Isla also felt they did not have enough expertise to develop their
own materials and preferred the assigned content. As Maria explained, ‘the module coor-
dinator was definitely the expert, and [she] was not, so [she] was happy to follow his lead,
and it seemed to work well in previous years’. Mia likewise admitted that she was not ‘an
expert in some of the stuff’ that she teaches, so she preferred the predetermined content.
However, she also added that if ‘it [the content she taught] was in kind of [her] area, it
would be nice to have some leadership in designing the materials’. Isla also confessed
that having too much freedom could be ‘quite stressful’. Although she was given freedom
to design her own materials, she felt that such freedom was not ‘in a good way’ because
she lacked subject knowledge. Isla said:
I think they [module leaders] gave too much freedom. And I think that was an
issue with the fact that it was a module that I didn't know the content of. And
I got the sheet of [possible questions], ‘maybe ask these questions’, but there
were no real activities, and such freedom, but not in a good way … It was
quite stressful.
Similarly, Noa found it ‘quite difficult to write [his] own lesson plans’:
I did have to write my own lesson plans. So the actual specific, you know, blow
by blow thing like tasks in classes. That was down to me. But it was exclusively
having to go off the readings that had already been set for the students. And I
found that quite difficult in a lot of ways.
The COVID- 19 situation also impacted GTAs' freedom to design their own materials. For ex-
ample, Julia did not wish to design her own materials and was quite happy that she could use
existing materials during challenging times:
I think, for my level of experience and for when it was [during COVID- 19], I was
sort of scared that they would say, ‘just do whatever you want’, and that would
have been. I'd like to be involved with the future planning of activities, but for that
time that it was, I was pretty happy [with the given materials].
Furthermore, according to some GTAs, the autonomy to design materials was restricted by the
type of subject they taught. Subjects such as sociology or drama are open to various interpre-
tations and are, therefore, less restrictive in content and teaching methods. John, for example,
expressed the following belief about the teaching of sociology:
Since sociology itself is a very intellectual space, there are different ways of
having your voice heard and interpreting certain theories or even concerning
research methodologies. It's kind of very empirical, so you speak from your own
expertise, and you think about what really matters.
Other subjects, such as research methods, were described as ‘very set in stone’ (Isla) and were
taught as prescribed. Isla stated:
I think it depended on the module. Things like research methods were very
set in stone, as you would imagine, it is a right and a wrong way of going
about things. So, we followed the workbook first … They also given us slides,
which is really helpful and I just followed the slides. We had discussion points
on that.
|
17
AUTON OM Y AND INTEGR ATED ID ENT IT Y FORMATIO N
The teaching of the foundations of English was also very prescriptive, according to Luna. While
she ‘didn't like that [prescriptive content] so much’, she believed that because ‘it was the foun-
dation of English, they wanted it to be as similar for everyone as possible’, so she ‘[had] to do
what they wanted’. Luna commented:
I taught foundations of English … and that one was much more like, ‘These are
the things that you're going to teach them, and here are the documents, and
these are some seminar questions that you can ask’, and so it was like very
much more prescriptive. I didn't like that so much, but, you know, you have to do
what they want. And I think, ‘fair enough’, because foundations of English, every-
one has to take it, and so they wanted it to be as similar for everyone as possible.
Similarly, Max noted that history was a subject that ‘follows a basic pattern’:
I suppose, teaching history to first- year undergraduates, sort of follows a basic
pattern, really, which then broadens it up to wider discussions. And I suppose as
a good seminar leader, you should be more adapting to what the students want
than maybe what your lesson plan dictates.
GTAs' preference for designing their own content and the reasons for their
preference
While the majority of GTAs endorsed the imposed practices for various reasons, some noted
that being involved in discussions about content and classroom activities was important.
Ruby's comment below reflects this preference:
The teaching that I did in the autumn term was a very fixed unit on a module
that was in relation to the topic area that my research is related to. So I was sort
of brought onto the module by members of staff in my department to do that
specific unit. And they, for that unit, really had me involved in the initial meetings
before the semester started about what structure the module was going to take,
and how they were thinking that they might like the seminars to go, given that
it was all going to be online for that semester … But I think being involved in
that process with the staff at least made me feel like I was being consulted and
involved.
A few GTAs, such as Lily and Ella, appreciated the flexibility to design their own materials,
which allowed them to develop their creativity and feel valued. For example, Ella, who ‘had quite
a bit of freedom’ in her teaching, ‘enjoyed getting creative with the syllabus’. Similarly, Lily, who
taught at two universities, appreciated the opportunity to create her own materials, which she
felt could enhance her CV. Being trusted to design her own materials, Lily also felt respected
and valued. She stated:
At my PhD institution, I have no freedom in making my own decisions about
teaching. We are given normally a document or a set of kind of basic slides in
advance that show me what I need to do … that preparation is straightforward,
it's very simple, it's very easy, it's very quick. On the other hand, you don't get
the creativity, you know the things that we need to talk about, and that's kind of
just you know instructed to me. With the other institution, I get a lot of freedom
18
|
KUZBORSK A et al.
to draw on my own research interest and to pick out examples that are really ex-
citing … I have enjoyed it, and they treat me, to be honest with you, at the other
institution, I am treated with a lot of respect. And I'm given this kind of creative
freedom because they trust me to come up with something that's going to be
engaging and they trust my research expertise … and that's great and I feel very
valued at this other institution. But if I don't create this content, my CV won't be
competitive enough and I won't get the permanent job.
For other GTAs, like John, Liam and Olivia, flexibility in materials design allowed them to re-
spond better to students' needs and knowledge gaps. For instance, John mentioned that while
there were ‘some predetermined suggestions for workshop or seminar activities, there was
quite a lot of autonomy’, allowing him to ‘respond to students' needs and adapt to where they
are’. Similarly, Liam emphasised that the freedom to design his own materials enabled him to
address student feedback, as indicated in the following comment:
There are some courses where I'm free to choose whatever I want to talk about
in my seminars and in that case … I use the feedback from the assignment
they've handed in to know where they'll be lacking knowledge, and I use that to
explain to them.
Olivia also noted that she could better tailor the content to students' needs if she had flexibility
in the materials design:
I prefer the flexibility because it rather tailors the teaching to the students.
Because if they're all getting it [content], if they all understand it, fine, we'll move
quite quickly through any sort of basics.
GTAs' frustration with existing institutional policies
Two GTAs expressed strong frustration regarding their lack of power to influence university
assessment policies. For example, Clara described being ‘in this weird in- between posi-
tion’ where GTAs are thrust to the forefront and left alone to handle difficulties. Particularly
concerned about student well- being during the COVID- 19 pandemic, Clara criticised the
university's assessment system but felt powerless to make changes to support students:
They [students] perceive us to be on the university side, where to them, we are
sort of lecturers or teachers or the people who are in power, which we're not.
We're in this weird in- between position and I sometimes wish we could do more.
I'm so powerless when it comes to these things. I want to tell my students that I
hear them and I hear that they're afraid of the exam and I hear that their parents
died of COVID and I hear that none of this is normal, but at the same time I'm
completely powerless when it comes to setting exams … all of that is done by the
university or the department and we have absolutely no saying in that. So I feel
like it's almost like the university throws us out there to the front … and we're in
this in- between space and it's quite painful to be in that in- between space, be-
cause you feel the students and you really want to do something, but you can't.
Another GTA, Cora, felt uncomfortable with the department's expectations regarding student
engagement and found herself unable to resist them. Reflecting on her autonomy in teaching,
Cora reported:
|
19
AUTON OM Y AND INTEGR ATED ID ENT IT Y FORMATIO N
The only issue that I would say I feel with the staff members in this regard is that
my views about teaching sometimes are not the same. For example, sometimes
I would like to be more direct with my students … I raised this with my manager
and other members of the staff, but this particular specific thing has never been
really welcomed, because we always focus around the idea that we can't ask
students, we can't basically force the student to engage with something if they
don't want. But then sometimes I feel that the disengagement could be in a way
solved, that if I had the chance to call them by name, one by one, and ask ‘what
do you think?’, and just making questions, this might prompt discussion in a very
gentle way. But then staff members were a bit reluctant about this because they
perceive it as something that would force the students. And I disagree, honestly,
because I think that sometimes discussions are also probably by putting people
in an uncomfortable position … asking them questions related to the discussion
which in a way requires them to be there and to be engaged.
Cora's comment indicates her belief in the value of placing students in an ‘uncomfortable posi-
tion’, yet her perspective was not supported by her tutors.
In summary, GTAs reported a high degree of satisfaction with their autonomy in both the
questionnaire and interviews. However, while they had the freedom to deliver content as
they saw fit, the content itself was predetermined. The main reasons that GTAs accepted
the institutionally imposed practices and enacted them willingly included their perceptions
of these practices as aligned with their roles, their status as PhD students, their teaching
in English as the second language and the low compensation for GTAs. Other contributing
factors were the types of subjects they taught, their lack of teaching experience, their limited
expertise and the impact of COVID- 19. A few GTAs also appreciated the choices available
to them and emphasised the new competencies they could develop for their CVs, recog-
nition from both students and senior staff members, and appropriate support for students.
Nevertheless, these motives stemmed from the GTAs' internal judgements and evaluations,
which were merely perceived as obligations they ‘should’ or ‘must’ fulfil to be recognised
as ‘good’ GTAs, thus leading to the formation of introjected identities. Only two GTAs ex-
pressed frustration and powerlessness regarding entrenched university assessment poli-
cies and norms, feeling that these conflicted with their personal values and interests.
DISCUSSION
According to OIT, the internalisation of extrinsic values, behaviours and roles—including the
formation of social identities—is a natural process that fulfils the fundamental psychologi-
cal needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. Satisfying these needs provides the
energy for discovery and learning, including the learning of teaching, and is critical for social
integration and well- being (Luyckx et al., 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2 017). While need- supportive
conditions are essential for facilitating greater internalisation and integration, the degree to
which needs satisfaction is experienced during identity formation strongly influences the
content of those identities (Ryan & Deci, 2 017). For example, variations in autonomy satis-
faction will affect the extent to which identities are integrated and cohesive. Thus, based on
these assumptions, we sought to determine GTAs' levels of autonomy satisfaction and how
this satisfaction influenced the development of their particular identities. Using an adapted
BPNT questionnaire (Chen et al., 2015), we identified generally high levels of autonomy
satisfaction. Although we are not aware of any other application of the BPNT with early ca-
reer academics, our results are comparable to Chen et al.'s (2015) finding that young adults
reported moderate to high autonomy satisfaction levels—high among respondents from the
20
|
KUZBORSK A et al.
United States, Peru and Belgium and moderate among Chinese respondents—although the
focus and participant types differed from ours.
The interview results further revealed that GTAs' autonomy was primarily related to the
delivery of materials. While many GTAs had the freedom to teach content as they wished, the
materials themselves were often predetermined. Additionally, many GTAs willingly accepted
the externally imposed content. Although we previously argued that even externally pre-
scribed practices could be autonomous if endorsed as valuable or important, GTAs hardly
questioned how these imposed values and practices aligned with their own values, interests
and needs. Instead, they appeared preoccupied with institutional expectations and driven
by self- evaluative pressures to conform. A few GTAs preferred to design their own content;
however, their reasons for doing so were often self- controlled rather than self- determined.
For instance, GTAs wanted to develop skills to enhance their CVs or to feel valued by their
institution, thus indicating that they were primarily concerned with external rewards and in-
ternal judgements. Thus, while GTAs endorsed externally prescribed practices, these prac-
tices seemed merely introjected rather than integrated into their self, leading to the formation
of introjected identities.
Compliance with introjected standards and demands can bring some satisfaction but
may also result in unstable self- esteem and an unhealthy pursuit of others' approval of their
performance (Deci & Ryan, 1995; Ryan & Brown, 2006). Moreover, as Ryan and Deci (2017,
p. 383) noted, such forms of identity ‘can fail to provide either authentic meaning or deep
connections, and thus serve as poor vehicles for a flourishing life’. In contrast, when in-
dividuals act more autonomously, they ‘bring into the action the whole of their resources,
interests, and capacities’ (Ryan & Deci, 2017, p. 97). Research on GTAs has also shown
that feeling valued, supported and trusted to experiment with their new teacher identity—as
found in Fairbrother's (2012) and Winstone and Moore's (2017) studies—empowered GTAs.
Conversely, when GTAs were relegated to assistant roles, their creativity was stifled, as
noted in Park and Ramos's (2002) study. In other words, autonomy allowed GTAs to feel like
valued contributors to their community, rather than ‘just the mules of the department’ (Park
& Ramos, 2002, p. 51).
Admittedly, early career academics occupy less powerful positions in academia, possess
limited resources, work on temporary teaching contracts and face fierce competition along
with other pressures. Consequently, they may believe they have little choice but to meet
their employer's demands and feel that their worth depends on displaying certain character-
istics and behaviours, as well as achieving external standards. We also acknowledge that
GTAs' choices are greatly influenced by a lack of sufficient recognition and remuneration for
their work, as highlighted in many of their comments. GTAs explicitly expressed frustration
over the minimal compensation for the substantial responsibilities they shoulder and their
feelings of being ‘exploited’ and ‘shamelessly abused’; similar frustrations have been doc-
umented in other studies (Park, 2002; Park & Ramos, 2002; Standen, 2018). Therefore, as
long as GTAs are treated as low- paid facilitators of learning rather than as teachers, they
are likely to feel comfortable receiving clear instructions with predetermined content and
pre- planned activities. However, if GTAs are viewed as valued and resourceful members of
the community, they may appreciate authentic practices more.
It is also worth noting that internally controlled motives and external rewards may apply to
many early career academics. For example, in a longitudinal study with beginning teachers,
Reynolds (1996) observed that these teachers accepted institutional requirements and es-
tablished standards because ‘their primary goal was to “blend in” to their surrounding land-
scape in order to survive “induction” and to be “enculturated” as a “good teacher” according
to prescribed definitions and scripts’ (p. 75). However, Reynolds (1996) also documented
that after 3 years, the teachers' views changed. Exposed to diverse practices, they experi-
enced confusion and conflict, prompting them to challenge their beliefs about themselves
|
21
AUTON OM Y AND INTEGR ATED ID ENT IT Y FORMATIO N
and their teaching. Some teachers expressed concerns about the dominance of a discourse
they now saw as robbing individuals of the ‘potential to become something other than what
has been predicted’ (Reynolds, 1996, p. 75). Such internalisation processes are similar to
the results of our study, which indicated that social conformity was important to GTAs, al-
though we did not observe the development of these processes over time. These findings
thus suggest that there may be similar developmental stages in the formation of teacher
identities. For example, the formation of a teacher identity for an early career academic may
begin with introjection, as novice academics may feel that their worth depends on enacting
an identity defined by their institution. However, over time, with more practice and reflection,
they may begin to question the value of imposed practices and how those values align with
their personal values, interests and needs. Nevertheless, it is important to note here that,
according to OIT, there are no specific progressions in which external regulation or introjec-
tion represent certain stages of development. Instead, as Ryan and Deci (2017) explain, the
focus is ‘on the degree of internalization of a particular regulation and its underlying value at
a particular time’ (p. 199). In other words, what matters most is the extent to which imposed
standards, roles and behaviours are internalised and accepted as valuable or important.
If people fully approve of the value of a specific social practice, they can identify with it
and integrate it into their overall value system. Thus, according to OIT, the formation of an
integrated identity does not necessarily progress through specific developmental stages.
Rather, individuals' capacities, experiences and the support they receive are most import-
ant. Despite these developmental assumptions and the limited research on the formation
of an integrated teacher identity, further studies are needed to understand how teachers at
different career stages develop their identities and which factors influence the formation of
an integrated identity.
Critical to developing an integrated identity are teachers' capacities for reflection and
opportunities for reflection. As Ryan and Deci (2017, p. 56) posited, ‘there are degrees of
autonomy and … the extent of autonomy is often dependent upon the extent to which the
individual has mindfully and reflectively identified with and integrated a particular regulation
or value’ (Ryan & Deci, 2017, p. 56, italics in original). Through such reflection, Ryan and
Deci (2017) add, teachers ‘can disengage from the power struggle that is implicit in both
external and introjected regulation, instead focusing on the meaning of the activity and its
value or utility’ (p. 198). Thus, to form autonomous and integrated identities, high levels of
self- reflection—where teachers consider externally imposed actions in terms of their own
values, goals and interests—are essential, as are openness and flexibility to adjust previ-
ously held values. Given the importance of reflection in forming an integrated identity, vari-
ous opportunities should be created for GTAs to engage with their teaching reflectively and
express their feelings about dominant practices. This engagement will help them develop a
clear understanding of their expected professional identities, associated roles and respon-
sibilities. Understanding what it means to be a member of a specific discourse community
should then serve as the foundation for creating and defining their new professional identi-
ties while balancing them with their personal identities. Such a critical approach to educat-
ing early career academics about their new discourse communities will not only help them
participate in community practices more harmoniously but also empower them to challenge
established institutional norms and initiate change (Barnett, 1997; Bartlett, 199 0).
CONCLUSION
In our study, we collected data from GTAs teaching at a wide range of universities in the
United Kingdom and provided novel insights into the formation of an integrated identity. We
first found generally high levels of GTAs' satisfaction regarding their need for autonomy. We
22
|
KUZBORSK A et al.
then identified recognition, compliance with institutional standards and external rewards
such as payment as the key factors influencing GTAs' practices and the formation of their
identities. We recognise that GTAs' busy schedules, their underpayment and the unstable
COVID- 19 situation may have hindered their ability to evaluate the imposed practices in
terms of alignment with their personal values and needs. Moreover, there are broader in-
stitutional values and regulations that dictate appropriate topics, methods of presentation
and interpretation; therefore, questioning these could be futile and risky. For example, as
Rodgers and Scott (2008) pointed out: ‘[t]eachers who enter the system hoping to define
their role may be at risk for a development mismatch between themselves and the context
in which they find themselves teaching’ (p. 751). Such struggles were also evident in com-
ments made by GTAs, such as Clara, who felt powerless to influence university assessment
policies during the pandemic. Similarly, GTA Cora's preferred methods for engaging stu-
dents were never welcomed by her module leaders. It is, therefore, likely that GTAs believed
that universities preferred them to enact roles defined by the institutions rather than roles
they would self- author. However, our results also showed that only two GTAs, Clara and
Cora, questioned the imposed practices and the opportunities for choice. Other GTAs did
not examine the extent to which their enacted roles aligned with their core values, intrinsic
inclinations and interests. Thus, arguing that the formation of an integrated identity, or, as
Ryan and Deci (2017, p. 55) describe it, acting with ‘the backing of the self’, is critical for
full functioning and well- being, we suggest that universities and departments should create
opportunities for GTAs to reflect on their socially constructed identities and evaluate when
and to what degree their actions stem from their genuine interests and capabilities, and
when they feel forced and alienated. The more actions are mindfully reflected upon and
self- endorsed, the more GTAs will feel content and well. We also invite GTAs to expand their
capacity for ‘self- authoring self’, to use Kegan's (1982) phrase, and to be able to self- author
their experiences rather than be authored by external demands. Undoubtedly, autonomy
support is also vital. It is important for departments to ignite GTAs' passion for teaching and
allow them to draw on their expertise, varied teaching and cultural experiences, and genuine
interests. This way, teaching can be enriched with a wealth of diverse resources and per-
spectives on effective teaching and learning, as well as meaningful topics for discussion. In
turn, this can cultivate an appreciation for other practices and values and expand our under-
standing and development of diverse ontological and epistemological standpoints that exist
in different academic cultures.
Finally, we would like to acknowledge the limitations of our study and provide some
suggestions for future research. While our varied sample allows for some generalisability
of our results to other GTAs employed in UK universities under similar working contracts,
potential issues with the measurement instruments should also be considered. First, to
determine the levels of need satisfaction, we used the adapted BPNS of Chen et al. (2015).
While the scale has been successfully utilised in various contexts and domains (Aelterman
et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2015; Haerens et al., 2013), in our study, it only yielded a general
understanding of GTAs' need satisfaction. In other words, the questionnaire items we ad-
opted allowed us to assess GTAs' feelings of autonomy regarding our specified practices
only; however, other important practices emerged from the interview discussions as well.
Therefore, to capture a broader range of GTAs' teaching practices, an alternative approach
would be to begin with data collection from interviews first and then design a questionnaire
informed by the interview data. Additionally, as our study results showed, GTAs were satis-
fied with compliance with institutional demands and hardly questioned the extent to which
these aligned with their personal values, needs and motives. To specifically direct attention
to the evaluation of the extent to which external values and regulations fit their own values,
needs and goals, more explicit questionnaire items should also be developed. Moreover,
in our study, we used a one- off semi- structured interview to further gauge GTAs' need
|
23
AUTON OM Y AND INTEGR ATED ID ENT IT Y FORMATIO N
satisfaction and the types of identities that GTAs formed. However, despite steps taken to
promote construct validity, we acknowledge that not all GTAs might have expressed their
views openly and reflectively during the interviews. Therefore, employing other data collec-
tion methods, such as semi- structured reflective diaries, could provide further insights into
how GTAs discern external values and regulations and their fit with their own values, needs
and inclinations. Longitudinal designs could also yield rich data on various contextual fac-
tors influencing the formation of an integrated identity. We also suggest that future research
on the construction of an integrated identity should be conducted in different teaching
contexts, such as those where academics work under varying contracts, have different
teaching experiences and are not faced with COVID- 19 challenges. Studies exploring the
relationships between autonomy satisfaction and the satisfaction of other basic psycho-
logical needs, such as competence and relatedness, are also needed. While autonomy
plays a special role as a need—since the other two needs depend on a person's freedom
to self- organise behaviour (Ryan & Deci, 2017, p. 250)—the balance in the satisfaction of
all needs is also crucial (Milyavskaya et al., 2009; Sheldon & Niemiec, 2006). Such studies
should also follow up with an exploration of the types of need support in different institu-
tions and how different types of support influence the formation of an integrated teacher
identity.
FUNDING INFORMATION
This study was funded by the University of York Graduate Student Association Community
that funded this project.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study will be available on the Open Science
Framework page at https://osf.io/2ce9d/ following an embargo from the date of publication
to allow for commercialisation of research findings.
ETHICS STATEMENT
This study received full ethical approval from the University of York Department of Education
Ethics Committee. Before questionnaires and interviews, the participants were informed
of what would be involved in taking part, and issues such as data storage and usage, and
their right to withdraw. The data provided by questionnaire- only participants (i.e. those who
did not leave their email address for a follow- up interview) were anonymous at the point of
collection. Identifiable data provided by the participants who expressed a wish to be inter-
viewed were anonymised 4 weeks after the interviews.
ORCID
Irena Kuzborska https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8719-2505
David O’Reilly https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0959-8315
Katie Smith https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7012-8825
Agata A. Lambrechts https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2907-7864
Annis Stenson https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1704-0618
REFERENCES
Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van den Berghe, L., De Meyer, J., & Haerens, L. (2014). Fostering a need-
supportive teaching style: Intervention effects on physical education teachers' beliefs and teaching behav-
iors. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 36(6), 595–609.
24
|
KUZBORSK A et al.
Alsup, J. (2006). Teacher identity discourses: Negotiating personal and professional spaces. Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Bale, R., & Anderson, M. (2022). Teacher identities of graduate teaching assistants: How we (de)legitimise GTAs'
role identities. Teaching in Higher Education, 29(5) , 113 3 – 114 8 . https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13562 517. 2022.
2109 015
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice- Hall.
Barnett, R. (1997). Higher education: A critical business. Oxford University Press.
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M., Bosch, J. A ., & Thøgersen- Ntoumani, C. (2011). Self-
determination theory and diminished functioning: The role of interpersonal control and psychological
need thwar ting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(11), 145 9 –1473. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/
01461 67211 41312
Bartlett, L. (1990). Teacher development through reflective thinking. In J. C. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second
language teacher education (pp. 202–214). Cambridge University Press.
Bartlett, L., & Holland, D. (2002). Theorizing the space of literacy practices. Ways of Knowing Journal, 2(1) ,
10– 22.
Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2011). New teachers' identity shifts at the boundary of teacher education
and initial practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 50, 6–13. https:// doi. org / 10. 1016/j. ijer.
2011. 04. 003
Ben Said, S. (2016). Teacher identity development in the midst of conflicting ideologies. In Y. L. Cheung, S. Ben
Said, & K. Park (Eds.), Advances and current trends in language teacher identity research (pp. 148–160).
Routledge.
Ben Said, S., & Shegar, C. (2013). Compliance, negotiation, and resistance in teachers' spatial construction of
professional identities. In S. Ben Said & L. J. Zhang (Eds.), Language teachers and teaching: Global per-
spectives, local initiatives (pp. 127–149). Routledge.
Bilgen, F. E., & Richards, K. (2016). Identity negotiations of TEFL teachers during a time of uncer tainty and re-
dundancy. In Y. L. Cheung, S. Ben Said, & K. Park (Eds.), Advances and current trends in language teacher
identity research (pp. 61–73). Routledge.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2),
77–101. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1191/ 14780 88706 qp063oa
Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., Van der Kaap- Deeder, J., et al. (2015). Basic
psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and
Emotion, 39, 216 –236. https:// doi. org / 10. 1007/ s1103 1- 014- 9450- 1
Cho, Y., Kim, N., Svinicki, D., & Decker, M. (2011). Exploring teaching concerns and characteristics of graduate
teaching assistants. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(3), 267–279. ht tps:// doi. or g/ 10. 1080/ 135 62 517. 2010.
524920
Clandinin, D. J., Downey, C. A., & Huber, J. (2009). Attending to changing landscapes: Shaping the inter woven
identities of teachers and teacher educators. Asia- Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37(2), 141–154.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 1359 8 6 60 90 280 6316
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrenc e Erlbaum.
Cooper, K., & Olson, M. (1996). The multiple ‘I's’ of teacher identity. In M. Kompf, T. Boak, W. R. Bond, & D. Dworet
(Eds .), Changing research and practice: teachers' professionalism, identities and knowledge (pp. 78 –89).
Falmer Pres s.
Costley, T. (2016). What's in a name? Power, space and the negotiation of identities. In Y. L. Cheung, S. Ben
Said, & K. Park (Eds.), Advances and current trends in language teacher identity research ( 74 – 85).
Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd e d.).
Sage.
Czerniawski, G. (2011). Emerging teachers– emerging identities: Trust and accountability in the construction of
newly qualif ied teachers in Nor way, Germany, and England. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(4),
431 – 44 7. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02619 768. 2011. 587114
Day, C., Kington, A., Stobart, G., & Sammons, P. (2006). The personal and professional selves of teachers: Stable
and unstable identities. British Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 601–616. ht tps:// doi. or g/ 10. 108 0/ 01411
920 60 07 75316
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self- esteem. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy,
agency, and self- esteem (pp. 31–49). Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (200 0). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self- determination
of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ S1532 7965P LI1104 _ 01
DeHaan, C. R., Hirai, T., & Ryan, R. M. (2015). Nussbaum's capabilities and self- determination theory's basic
psychological needs: Relating some fundamentals of human wellness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17,
1–13. https: // doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1090 2- 015 - 96 84 - y
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Collier Macmillan.
|
25
AUTON OM Y AND INTEGR ATED ID ENT IT Y FORMATIO N
Donato, R., Tucker, G. R., & Hendry, H. (2016). Developing professional identities in applied linguistics: From
doctoral study to professional practice. In Y. L. Cheung, S. Ben Said, & K. Park (Eds.), Advances and current
trends in language teacher identity research (pp. 217–234). Routledge.
Fairbrother, H. (2012). Creating space: Maximising the potential of the graduate teaching assistant role. Teaching
in Higher Education, 17, 353 –358. ht tps:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13562 517. 2012. 678601
Gee, J. P. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in educ ation. In W. G. Secada (Ed.), Review of research
in education (Vol. 25, pp. 99–125). American Educational Research Association.
Goh, C. C. M., Zhang, L. J., Ng, C. H., & Koh, G. H. (2005). Knowledge, beliefs and syllabus implementation: A
study of English language teachers in Singapore. National Institute of Education.
Haerens, L., Aelterman, N., Van den Berghe, L., De Meyer, J., Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2013). Observing
physical education teachers' need- supportive interactions in classroom settings. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 35(1) , 3 – 17.
Hallman, H. L. (2015). Teacher as ‘shape - shifter’: Exploring the intersection of new times and the teaching of
English language arts. Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education, 22(3), 282–293. https:// doi. org/
10. 1080/ 13586 84X. 2015. 1053789
Harland, T., & Plangger, G. (2004). The postgraduate chameleon: Changing roles in doctoral education. Active
Learning in Higher Education, 5, 73 –86. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 14697 87404 040462
Heijstra, T. M., Steinthorsdóttir, F. S., & Einarsdóttir, T. (2017). Academic career making and the double- edged
role of academic housework. Gender and Education, 29(6), 764 –780. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09540 253.
2016. 1171825
Holland, D., Skinner, D., Lachicotte, W., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Harvard
University Press.
Jazvac- Mar tek, M. (2009). Oscillating role identities: The academic experiences of education doctoral students.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46, 253 –264. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14703 29090
3068862
Jordan, K., & Howe, C. (2018). The perceived benefits and problems associated with teaching activities under-
taken by doctoral students. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(4), 504–521. https:// do i. org/ 10. 1080/ 13562 517.
2017. 1414787
Kajfez, R. L., & Matusovich, H. M. (2017). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness as motivators of graduate
teaching assistants. The Research Journal for Engineering Education, 106(2), 245 –272. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1002/ jee. 20167
Keefer, J. M. (2015). Experiencing doctoral liminality as a conceptual threshold and how supervisors can use
it. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52, 17–28. https: // doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14703 297. 2014.
981839
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self. Harvard University Press.
Kelchtermans, G., & Vandenberghe, R. (1994). Teachers' professional development: A biographical perspective.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(1), 45 –62. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00220 27940 260103
Korthagen, F. A. J. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in
teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 77–97. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tate. 2003. 10. 002
Kuhl, J., & Kazén, M. (1994). Self- discrimination and memory: State orientation and false self- ascription of as-
signed activities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(6) , 110 3 –1115. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/
0022- 3514. 66.6. 1103
Land, R., Rattray, J., & Vivian, P. (2014). Learning in the liminal space: A semiotic approach to threshold concepts.
Higher Education, 67, 199 –217. https:// doi. org / 10. 1007/ s1073 4- 013 - 9705 - x
Lee, I. (2013). Becoming a writing teacher: Using “identity” as an analytical lens to understand EFL writing teach-
ers' development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 330 –345. ht tps:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. j slw. 2012.
07. 0 01
Luyckx, K., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., & Duriez, B. (2009). Basic need satisfaction and identity forma-
tion: Bridging self- determination theory and process- oriented identity research. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 56(2), 276–288. ht tps: // doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0015349
MacLure, M. (1993). Arguing for yourself: Identity as an organising principle in teachers' jobs and lives. British
Educational Research Journal, 19(4), 311–32 2. https:// ww w. jstor. org/ stable/ 1500686
Mair, P., & Wilcox, R. (2020). Robust statistical methods in R using the WRS2 package. Behavior Research
Methods, 52, 464 –488. ht tps: // doi. org/ 10. 3758/ s1342 8- 019 - 01246 - w
Mantai, L. (2019). “Feeling more academic now”: Doctoral stories of becoming an academic. The Australian
Educational Researcher, 46(1), 137–153. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1338 4- 018- 0283- x
McAdams, D. P., & McLean, K. C. (2013). Narrative identity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(3),
233–238. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09637 21413 475622
McCall, G. J. (2003). The me and the not- me. In P. J. Bruke, T. J. Owens, R. T. Serpe, & P. A. Thoits (Eds.),
Advances in identity theory and research (pp. 11–25). Kluwer.
26
|
KUZBORSK A et al.
McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we'll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412–433.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ met00 00144
Meadows, K. N., Olsen, K. C., Dimitrov, N., & Dawson, D. L. (2015). Evaluating the differential impact of teach-
ing assistant training programs on international graduate student teaching. Canadian Journal of Higher
Education, 45(3), 34–55. https:// eric. ed. gov/? id= EJ108 5 351
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.).
Jossey Bass.
Milyavskaya, M., Gingras, I., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R., Gagnon, H., Fang, J., et al. (2009). Balance across
contexts: Importance of balanced need satisfaction across various life domains. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 35(8), 1031–10 45.
Muzaka, V. (2009). The niche of graduate teaching assistants (GTAs): Perceptions and reflections. Teaching in
Higher Education, 14, 1–12. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13562 51080 2602400
Nias, J. (1989). Primary teachers talking. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Nichols, S. L., Schutz, P. A., Rogers, K., & Bilica, K. (2017). Early career teachers' emotion and emerg-
ing teacher identities. Teachers and Teaching, 23(4), 406 –421. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13540 602. 2016.
12110 9 9
Park, C. (2002). Neither fish nor fowl? The perceived benefits and problems of using graduate teaching
assistants (GTAs) to teach undergraduate students. Higher Education Review, 35, 50 –62. Corpus ID:
53876672.
Park, C., & Ramos, M. (2002). The donkey in the department? Insights into the graduate teaching assistant (GTA)
experienc e in the UK. Journal of Graduate Education, 3, 47–53. Corpus ID: 74772980.
Park, G. (2012). “I am never afraid of being recognized as an NNES”: One teacher's journey in claiming
and embracing her nonnative- speaker identity. TESOL Quar terly, 46(1), 127–151. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/
tesq. 4
Pavlenko, A. (2003). “I never knew I was a bilingual”: Reimagining teacher identities in TESOL. Journal of
Language, Identity, and Education, 2(4), 251–268. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ S1532 7701J LIE02 04_ 2
Pennington, M. C. (2015). Teacher identit y in TESOL. A frames perspective. In Y. L. Cheung, S. Ben Said, & K.
Park (Eds.), Advances and current trends in language teacher identity research (pp. 16– 30). Routledge.
Peters, G. Y., & Gruijters, S. (2023). Ufs: A collection of utilities. R Package Version 0.5.5. https:// ufs. opens.
science
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. State University of New York.
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https:// www. R- proje ct. org
Raineri, N. (2015). Business doctoral education as a liminal period of transition: Comparing theor y and practice.
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 26, 99–107. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cpa. 2013. 11. 003
Rao, N., Hosein, A ., & Raaper, R. (2021). Doctoral students navigating the borderlands of academic teaching in
an era of precarity. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(3), 454 – 470. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13562 517. 2021.
1892 05 8
Reynolds, C. (1996). Cultural scripts for teachers: Identities and their relation to workplace landscapes. In M.
Kompf, T. Boak, W. R. Bond, & D. Dworet (Eds.), Changing research and practice: Teachers' professional-
ism, identities and knowledge (pp. 69–77). Falmer Press.
Rodgers, C. R., & Scott, K. H. (2008). The development of the personal self and professional identity in learning
to teach. In M. Cochran- Smith, S. Feiman- Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of re-
search on teacher education (3rd ed., pp. 732–755). Routledge.
Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality,
63(3 ) , 3 9 7– 4 2 7.
Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., & Deci, E. L. (1985). A motivational analysis of self determination and self- regulation
in education. In C. Ames & R . E. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: The classroom milieu
(pp. 13–51). Academic Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self- determination theory. Basic psychological needs in motivation, develop-
ment, and wellness. Guilford Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection
of well- being. Journal of Personality, 65(3), 529– 565. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 10 . 1111 / j. 14 6 7- 64 9 4 . 19 97. t b 0 0 3 2 6 . x
Ryan, R. M., & Hawley, P. (2016). Naturally good?: Basic psychological needs and the proximal and evolutionar y
bases of human benevolence. In K. W. Brown & M. Leary (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of hypo- egoic phe -
nomena (pp. 205 –222). Oxford University Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Brown, K. W. (2006). What is optimal self-esteem? The cultivation and consequences of contin-
gent vs. true self-esteem as viewed from the self-determination theory perspective. In M. H. Ker nis (Ed.),
Self-esteem issues and answers: A sourcebook on current perspectives‘ beliefs (pp. 125 –131). New York:
Psychology Press.
|
27
AUTON OM Y AND INTEGR ATED ID ENT IT Y FORMATIO N
Sheldon, K. M., & Krieger, L. S. (2007). Understanding the negative effects of legal educ ation on law students: A
longitudinal test of self- determination theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(6), 883 –897.
https:// doi. org / 10. 1177/ 01461 67207 301014
Sheldon, K. M., & Niemiec, C. P. (2006). It's not just the amount that counts: Balanced need satisfaction also
affects well- being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(2), 3 31 – 3 41.
Standen, A . (2018). Where teaching meets research: Engaging postgraduate teaching assistants with research-
based education. In V. C. H. Tong, A. Standen, & M. Sotiriou (Eds.), Shaping higher education with students:
Ways to connect research and teaching (pp. 41–52). UCL Press.
Thwaites, R., & Pressland, A . (2017). Introduction: Being an early career feminist academic in a changing acad-
emy. In R. Thwaites & A. Pressland (Eds.), Being an early career feminist academic (pp. 1–28). Palgrave
Macmillan.
Trent, J. (2010). Teacher education as identity construction: Insights from action research. Journal of Education
for Teaching, 36(2), 153 –16 8.
Trent, J. (2016). Towards a multifaceted, multidimensional framework for understanding teacher identity. In Y. L.
Cheung, S. Ben Said, & K. Park (Eds.), Advances and current trends in language teacher identity research
(pp. 48– 58). Routledge.
Winstone, N., & Moore, D. (2017). Sometimes fish, sometimes fowl? Liminality, identity work and identity mallea-
bility in graduate teaching assistants. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(5), 494–502.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14703 297. 2016. 1194769
Yayli, D. (2016). Tackling multiple identities in an EFL teaching context, Turkey. In Y. L. Cheung, S. Ben Said, & K.
Park (Eds.), Advances and current trends in language teacher identity research (pp. 186–199). Routledge.
Zembylas, M., & Chubbuck, S. (2015). Conceptualizing teacher identity: A political approach. In H. Fives & G. Gill
(Eds .), Handbook of research on teachers' beliefs (pp. 183–193). Routledge.
How to cite this article: Kuzborska, I., O’Reilly, D., Smith, K., Lambrechts, A. A. &
Stenson, A. (2024). The role of autonomy in forming an integrated identity among
early career academics. British Educational Research Journal, 00, 1–27. https://doi.
org/10.1002/berj.4098
