Academic identities and higher education change: reviewing the evidence

ABSTRACT

Background

The landscape of higher education continues to evolve in ways that have significant implications for the academic profession, including the shaping of academic identities. In a context of increasing marketisation, it is essential to understand more about the complex relationship between academic identities and structural change within the tertiary education sector.

Purpose

This study sought to review research evidence to gain insight into how academics are experiencing change in higher education environments, and how this may influence their work and identities.

Method

A literature review, which focused on empirical studies involving academics working in higher education, was conducted to examine the relationship between academic identities and the changing higher education context. A search identified 44 relevant articles and these were analysed using a content analysis approach.

Findings

According to the analysis of literature, a growing number of empirical studies is exploring how academics respond to, adapt to, and are vulnerable to changes in the higher education context. Studies drew attention to the fluid nature of identity processes during these changes, with academics sometimes developing hybrid identities, prioritising certain activities and/or seeking to achieve balance. Issues evident included high workload, with increases linked to administrative tasks and performance expectations.

Conclusions

The review of literature raises important questions about the core of the academic profession and the potential risk of detachment from its central principles. In a context of transition within higher education, it points to the need to value the agency of academics in their work and recognise this as integral to, rather than peripheral to, institutional decision-making.

KEYWORDS:

• Academic identities
• literature review
• higher education
• academic career
• academic value
• accountability

Introduction

Higher education is constantly evolving, with many structural and organisational changes in recent decades driven by the increasing marketisation of the tertiary sector (see, e.g. Skea 2021). Such developments, along with the accompanying discourses on performance and accountability, have had significant impacts on academics’ roles, responsibilities and identities (Dugas et al. 2020; Guzmán-Valenzuela and Barnett 2013). Recognising that the study of transformation in higher education institutions is crucial for understanding the present and future of academia in society (Cannizzo 2015), it is important to gain insight into the complex relationships between academic identity and institutional change. However, as Mula-Falcón, Caballero, and Segovia (2022) observe, there has been insufficient review of the literature on academic identity. To help address this need, the investigation reported in this paper conducted an in-depth review of relevant literature to explore how university academics are experiencing changes in higher education, and how these institutional shifts may influence their work and identities.

Background

Internationally, one of the key drivers of change in higher education has been the introduction of private sector management principles into the public institution of the university. Such a transformation in approach, with its focus on targets, audits and outcomes, and intensified assessment centring on matters of quality assurance, has brought about increasing performance demands on academic organisations and departments, and the individuals within them (Djerasimovic and Villani 2020; Evans 2022; Roberts 2019).

As higher education and research have been recognised as crucial to innovation and economic development, expectations in relation to those who work within these fields have risen considerably (Carvalho 2012; Magalhães and Amélia 2013). This has had significant implications for the academic profession, specifically in terms of the identities of those working in universities (Ball 2022), their wellbeing (Watts and Robertson 2011), and, more generally, ways of being and doing in academia (Phillips et al. 2023). Academic identity is a complex concept and defining it is a nuanced task (Phillips et al. 2023; Santos, Pereira, and Lopes 2016; Ybema et al. 2009). In our paper, academic identity is understood as fluid rather than static, and continuously evolving, with multiple dimensions. Ching (2021, 1) defines it as ‘the core attitudes that determine how individuals approach the concept of work’, and it is, therefore, an essential aspect that must be considered in relation to the emergence and development of an academic career. Academic identity encompasses self-identification, collegial relationships, disciplinary fields, roles, achievements, and societal expectations. It includes, too, academics’ search for coherence between the roles and responsibilities that they may hold in teaching, research, knowledge transfer and academic management (Borlaug, Maria Tellmann, and Vabø 2023; Phillips et al. 2023). It involves consideration of emotions, beliefs, and understandings in relation to individuals’ personal, professional, and institutional experiences (Fanghanel 2011).

As Clegg (2008) observes, institutional structures and dynamics play a crucial role in shaping academic identities. A range of studies has explored how political, cultural, and institutional changes affect identities (e.g. Cannizzo 2015; Skea 2021; Tülübaş and Göktürk 2020). It is evident that social context influences, and is influenced by, the identities of social actors: as Gumbi and McKenna (2020) suggest, for example, academic identities and institutional culture may mutually reinforce, or oppose one another. The nature of these interrelationships has a strong bearing on how academics perceive their activities, engage with knowledge, work with others within an institution, organise their teaching approaches, and attach meanings to their experiences. These factors, in turn, affect institutional dynamics and structures. The nuanced interplay between social and institutional contexts, external forces that shape identities, and individual agency is represented in social theory by the relationship between structure and agency (Giddens 2003).

The implementation of national or supranational programmes in higher education can galvanise the formation of structures that emphasise, for instance, targets and performance-driven aspects such as high student numbers, research impact, grant income and journal rank (Cannizzo 2015; Pianezzi, Nørreklit, and Cinquini 2020; Skea 2021). As institutions rely on academic individuals for reputation and income, there may be increasing demands on them to align their academic identities with corporate values to enhance the strategic positioning of the institution, as emphasised in discourses of excellence (Harris 2005; Nóvoa 2019). However, the adoption of market-oriented practices is far from straightforward, and is influenced in complicated ways by factors including individuals’ relationship to knowledge, professionalism, and the pedagogical aspects of the academic profession. According to Fanghanel (2011), academics’ personal histories, experiences and beliefs all affect their attitudes towards a market-driven institutional approach, leading to different views and behaviours – acceptance, adaptation, or resistance – and, thus, shaping their academic identities. This extends, as well, to the management of academics’ roles within the profession, and the conceptualisation of these roles as institutionalised positions that define functions and influence identity development (van Winkel et al. 2018).

Purpose

Within the context described above, this study sought to review research evidence in order to explore how academics are experiencing change in the higher education environment, and how this may influence their work and identities. Our investigation was informed by the following research questions: What are the main issues of debate in studies on academic identities? What are academics’ reactions and emerging identities in the contexts studied? and How do academics deal with their different roles?

Method

As noted above, the focus of our investigation was on academics working in higher education settings and their identities in the context of change in the higher education landscape. In order to address our research questions, we carried out a systematic literature review, thus methodically searching for, evaluating, and synthesising research evidence in our selected field of interest (Grant and Booth 2009). This process supports a logical and transparent literature analysis, also allowing for the identification of further research perspectives in the field (Tight 2019).

The review focused on empirical studies and the period of interest covered the years 2010 to 2022. These particular years were selected as, during this time span, universities experienced a broader consolidation and acceleration of reform processes, driven by the large-scale adaptation of institutional statutes to market-driven principles. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined using an approach based on the population, phenomena of interest and context (PICo) method (see further Aromataris and Munn 2020). The identification of articles involved the use of three databases that are internationally recognised for their quality and diversity of articles on educational research: Scopus, Web of Science, and EBSCO. The following search terms were employed: ‘Academic Identities’ AND ‘University OR College OR Higher Education’ AND ‘Democratisation OR Commodification OR Massification OR Managerialism OR Governance OR Knowledge Economy OR Neoliberalism OR Performativity’.

The stages of the literature search and its outcomes can be seen on the flowchart (based on PRISMA; Page et al. 2021) in Figure 1. Only peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals were considered. In terms of publication language, the selection was restricted to studies published in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, because this aligned with the linguistic proficiency of the researchers. Thus, four studies in languages other than those listed above, and four studies that were not articles (e.g. book chapters) were excluded from the review analysis. As depicted, the database search yielded a total of 341 documents. Once duplicates were removed, the title, abstract and keywords of the remaining 230 retrieved studies were screened.

Figure 1. Flowchart summarising findings from search strategy.

Flowchart based on PRISMA statement (Page et al. 2021)

During the screening stage, 54 studies that did not involve higher education academics as subjects (e.g. those with students as subjects) were excluded. Furthermore, 75 studies were disqualified because the topic of academic identities was treated peripherally, or there was a lack of direct engagement with the subject. In addition, 12 studies were excluded because they did not meet the criteria for individual empirical studies (e.g. literature reviews, meta-analyses, and conceptual studies). Further, 17 articles that were conducted outside of a university context (e.g. in corporate environments), and another 11 studies that did not maintain a clear link between academic identities and transformative processes in universities, were excluded.

After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 61 articles remained to be read in full and assessed for eligibility. This process determined that there were 17 articles that still did not meet our criteria. Those articles were duly excluded, for reasons that are given in Figure 1. This left a corpus of 44 articles to be included in the literature review analysis. Details of these 44 studies are listed in the Appendix (Table A1).

We employed a content analysis approach (Roberto, Hernández-Collado, and Baptista-Lucio 2013), guided by abductive inference (Gondim and Bendassolli 2014), to analyse the 44 articles included in our study. This method combines induction, where themes emerge from the data itself, and deduction, where we consider the existing logical framework, concepts, and theories. Electronic spreadsheets were set up and utilised to assist our examination of each of the 44 articles in relation to the research questions. A horizontal analysis was performed to ascertain, in detail, how each article related to the questions. A detailed vertical analysis was then conducted for each question, aggregating and considering all responses. This, together with the theoretical framework, facilitated the identification of thematic overlaps during the data analysis; namely, vulnerability/fragility, resistance and adaptation responses, and different roles in the academic career. The thematic organisation of the findings was identified, discussed, and agreed by the researchers.

Findings and discussion

Our detailed and methodological review of the 44 literature studies allowed us to address the research questions, thus providing insight into how academics have experienced change in the university landscape, and how change may influence their work and identities. Overall, it appeared from our review that, over the period of interest (2010–2022), there have been an increasing number of empirical studies focusing on the impact of university management change on academic identities. Most studies were carried out in the UK (29), with the remaining studies conducted in other parts of Europe (14), North America (4), Asia (7), Oceania (5), Africa (2), and Latin America (all 5 in Chile). Two studies discussed the UK and Australia in comparison.

Of the 44 studies included in the analysis, the vast majority (40) are qualitative in terms of methodology. A range of qualitative methods was employed, including interviews (predominantly), focus groups, autoethnography and biographical narratives. The remaining four studies adopt a quantitative approach, with questionnaires used to gather data. In terms of content coverage, we identified some studies that focus on the vulnerability of academic identities as a structural issue in the context of university policies and governance models. These studies emphasise change involving the commodification of education, a culture of competition, performance measurement, and agendas centred on impact and performativity (Chubb and Watermeyer 2017; Chubb, Watermeyer, and Wakeling 2017; Gaus and Hall 2015; Guzmán-Valenzuela and Barnett 2013; Nordbäck, Hakonen, and Tienari 2021; Poutanen 2022; Tandilashvili and Tandilashvili 2022; Watermeyer and Tomlinson 2022; Watson 2011), and highlight experiences in relation to identities, transitions and global models (Alkhateeb et al. 2020; Hladchenko and Westerheijden 2018; Saqipi and Rexhaj 2020). Some studies include analysis of data from academics who felt that their personal and professional values conflicted, or were in tension with, an environment that favoured entrepreneurial subjectivity. Our analysis also identified content related to responses to potential vulnerability, as well as emerging identities and the ways in which academics deal with, and experience, different roles.

In reporting our findings, we focus on three key themes that emerged from the analysis of content. Two of the themes relate to ways of being: ‘Resisting change’ and ‘Emerging identities’. The third theme, entitled ‘Dealing with different roles’, relates to ways of doing.

Resisting change

Some studies in our analysis focus on the notion of resistance as a potential response to change. At least three emphases in terms of resistance became evident through our examination of the articles. The overlapping nature of these emphases reflects the complexity of this concept and the multiple factors that influence individual responses within academia. The first emphasis, ‘identity as a discursive resource for resistance’, relates to the explicit raising and expression of concerns about the institutional context of managerialist demands (e.g. Lust, Huber, and Junne 2019). For instance, academics may use their agency to speak up against the quantifying and economic standards that are perceived as governing and controlling their work activities. Such resistance may be validated or explained in relation to professional autonomy, academic expertise, and disciplinary specificity.

The second emphasis involves ‘principled and values-based resistance’, which includes both collective resistance (Waitere et al. 2011) and individual defence of educational values (Winter and O’Donohue 2012). This type of resistance highlights a passion for knowledge and teaching, as well as educators’ sense of social responsibility (Fardella, Sisto Campos, and Jiménez Vargas 2015; Poutanen 2022; Selkrig, Manathunga, and Keamy 2021). However, there are indications that it could lead to the increased exploitation of academics in some situations. For example, educators’ enthusiasm for teaching and learning, and their commitment may make them more receptive to the intensified and precarious nature of work, which could, in certain circumstances, diminish academic autonomy. Furthermore, a narrative of change that emphasises individual or solitary identity may be a contributory factor in the observed decline of collegiality within the academic profession (Jiménez Peralta 2019; Watermeyer and Tomlinson 2022), as this could lead to a reinforcement of principles and identities that privilege notions of competitiveness and individualism rather than co-working and co-operation between colleagues. This form of resistance may also be influenced in complex and sometimes counterintuitive ways by cultural factors: for instance, responses can be driven by loyalty to the institution or collectivist values (Jones, Gardner, and Bui 2022; Shaw, Chapman, and Rumyantseva 2013). Put another way, in some circumstances, depending on the situation and context, ‘principled and value-based resistance’ can be a driver of individualism, and collectivism can be a driver of non-resistance.

A third manifestation of resistance is ‘strategic resistance’. This is likely to involve the nuanced negotiation of identity and might reflect tensions between intellectual and entrepreneurial academic activities. Those who practise strategic resistance may aim to maintain their authentic selves while realising a sense of synergy between different facets of identity: in such a situation, a combination of compliant and resistant practices could be evident (Martimianakis and Muzzin 2015; McCune 2021). This flexibility, driven by a commitment to creative and intellectually motivated contributions to knowledge (Edwards 2022), is more indicative of resilience than compromising principles, values, and professional integrity (see, for example, Chubb and Watermeyer 2017; Poutanen 2022; Tandilashvili and Tandilashvili 2022; Watermeyer and Tomlinson 2022). In this sense, negotiation practices can be seen not only as strategies of resistance but also as mechanisms that can lead to the emergence of alternative forms of identity: a theme that will be explored in the next subsection.

Emerging identities

Some of the studies that we examined investigate practices of negotiation, adoption and adaptation in the construction, maintenance and transformation of academic identities, as individuals managed perceived tensions (Chipindi and Vavrus 2018; Cisternas et al. 2021; Degn 2018; Edwards 2022; Jiménez Peralta 2019; Jones, Gardner, and Bui 2022; Shams 2019; Shaw, Chapman, and Rumyantseva 2013; K. Smith 2012; Tran, Burns, and Ollerhead 2017; Tülübaş and Göktürk 2020; Yating, Pang, and Yu 2018; Ylijoki 2014). Whilst Smith (2012) explores contexts involving a level of acceptance or sense of inevitability with regard to changes proposed by management that directly affect the academic profession, Ylijoki (2014) draws attention to characteristics indicative of a conformist identity, which was the identity of greatest prevalence among the interviewed individuals.

Changes can be understood as required adaptations, brought about by a sense of necessity due to a perceived lack of viable alternatives. It is noteworthy that this perspective seems to persist even when academics reject the values introduced by new managerialism (Yating, Pang, and Yu 2018) and when adjustments that relate to their work set off and progress in a direction which is takes them away from their professional and personal goals, values, and beliefs. According to the analysis of literature, the complex interplay between acceptance and rejection of change can lead individuals to adopt adaptive survival strategies in response to current policies, resulting in a range of emotional responses. For example, academics may experience enthusiasm and satisfaction at times, and frustration, anxiety, dissatisfaction, and a decreased sense of pride in their profession at others (Tandilashvili and Tandilashvili 2022; Tran, Burns, and Ollerhead 2017).

Significantly, scholars may also encounter ethical dilemmas, and experience navigating the intricacies of two codes of behaviour: adherence to academic integrity on the one hand, and conformity to the norms established by the culture of performativity on the other (Shams 2019; Tülübaş and Göktürk 2020), which may give rise to problematic concerns about academic identity, authenticity and societal contribution (e.g. Chubb and Watermeyer 2017; Watermeyer and Tomlinson 2022).

Our review of literature suggests, in some cases, the increasing emergence of more hybrid identities that have characteristics different from the tension between acceptance of, or resistance to, changes in academic life. Such studies indicate fluidity over time, in the sense that academics may construct contrasting and shifting versions of their identities at different junctures. For instance, at times, educators may adopt corporate values that align with managerial discourse, whilst, at other times, they may distance themselves by emphasising academic professional values (Degn 2018; Jiménez Peralta 2019; Shams 2019). Smith (2012, 155) refers to ‘Flexians’: these are individuals with a ‘chameleon-like identity’ who generate ‘malleable ideas that can be adapted for different audiences’.

Therefore, a concurrent reinforcement of, and resistance to, the discourse of change becomes evident, as academics endeavour to manage their ethical beliefs alongside maintenance of career security. The notion of the ‘calculating entrepreneur(s)’ (Tülübaş and Göktürk 2020, 211) is also evident in the literature, with reference to individuals who accept market demands and normalise performative cultural systems to advance their academic careers. In studies, this identity tends to be mentioned in relation to others rather than the self. In all, the analysis of reviewed articles indicates that emerging academic identities often involve negotiation, adaptation, and flexibility as hybrid identities, rather than rigid adherence to the extremes of conformity or resistance.

Dealing with different roles

The literature on academic identities has extensively explored the multifunctionality and diversity of roles inherent in contemporary academic careers. Our review of literature highlights how roles within academia equate to much more than task-based lists of responsibilities: rather, they represent positions that influence the development of individuals’ identities (van Winkel et al. 2018). A significant theme in the articles pertains to investigation of how individuals in academia deal with different roles in order to manage the multiple activities that are apparent within their professional careers.

Some of the included studies discuss how the restructuring of academic work has led to the emergence of a new professional prototype (Cisternas et al. 2021; Fardella, Sisto Campos, and Jiménez Vargas 2015; Ursin et al. 2020). This prototype emphasises the perceived importance attached to academics’ capability to balance and perform well across various roles within higher education, rather than concentrating on one role to the exclusion of others. These roles include teaching, research, knowledge transfer, and academic management. As well as this notion of multifunctionality, the literature also explores the fragmentation of teaching and research, and the sense of hierarchy within different dimensions of practice in the academic career. Studies aim to gain insight into the ways in which fragmentation may influence the identities of academics. The literature considers, for example, the significance of role prioritisation (e.g. an individual selecting one role rather than another despite external demands) and attempts to balance roles, typically in a context of high workload.

It is evident from the reviewed literature that that factors such as productivity assessment, knowledge application, impact measurement, and the securing of external funding are closely linked to the identities and disciplines that may be perceived to have the highest status in this value-system. Thus, in many structures, it is research activity, rather than the teaching of students, that has become prioritised and is associated with concepts of status, career advancement, and competitiveness in commercial contexts. However, this discourse may be seen to undermine the perceived worth of roles in academia that focus on teaching, even when these offer the provision of high-quality learning experiences for students. Hence, some structures may serve to reinforce the perception that the practice of teaching, on its own, somehow lacks academic validity (Degn 2018; Jiménez Peralta 2019; Shams 2019; K. Smith 2012; Tran, Burns, and Ollerhead 2017; Yating, Pang, and Yu 2018). This can result in tensions in academic identity dynamics (Dugas et al. 2018), and the under-prioritisation of teaching, making it all the more important to consider how teaching identities may be nurtured and sustained (McCune 2021). Further, some studies suggest that early-career academics are under greater stress in the contemporary university environment, as they endeavour to balance teaching with other institutional demands (e.g. Badiozaman 2021). To adapt to these expectations, many of them may prioritise certain roles and redefine their professional purpose.

In some contexts of transition and change, it is evident that participation in research activities may not always lead to a well-established researcher identity. For example, university governance reforms that focus on structural aspects can appear to have limited impact on researchers’ identities (Saqipi and Rexhaj 2020). Moreover, academics are often required to conduct research, but their primary focus may typically be on maintaining a teaching-centred identity. In such cases, research activity might only be associated with the gaining of postgraduate qualifications and perceptions of career progression, rather than actually being securely linked to professional identity (Gumbi and McKenna 2020).

Elsewhere, academics may insist that their primary role is teaching, whilst also adhering to management standards and complying with research publication requirements (Shaw, Chapman, and Rumyantseva 2013). Thus, in some situations, scholars may choose to redefine research activity and research roles as complementary to teaching roles and responsibilities, thereby emphasising the principle of educating the next generation to preserve their teaching identity. Moreover, Tülübaş and Göktürk (2020) note that many academics engaged in prescribed research activities elect, as well, to volunteer themselves for work which is focused on student learning. This is viewed as an expression of their deep identification with the role of the teacher and, along with this, a refusal to diminish its importance and worth in daily professional work. It is, of course, necessary, too, to consider the possibility of the opposite scenario, where individuals might identify primarily with research roles and not with teaching activities, or even in alignment with professional identities that do not involve identifying as a teacher at any point.

According to some studies, institutional fragmentation between activities is inevitable (e.g. Watson 2011). This position involves the acknowledgement that higher education organisations cannot necessarily achieve high quality across all domains at the same time. Rather, a better approach might involve focusing on the particular strengths and capabilities of their professional employees, whilst upholding the principles of diversity and quality, and valuing, in equal measure, different paths within the same institution. It is regarded as important for academics to have the flexibility to prioritise different aspects of their identity over time without facing career penalties (McCune 2021; Shaw, Chapman, and Rumyantseva 2013; van Winkel et al. 2018). Along such a trajectory, scholars are therefore allowed to pursue their interests, ambitions, and competencies, potentially leading to the experiencing of positive emotions in their professional practice (Lee, Jung, and Shin 2020).

The literature discusses, as well, strategies for the idea of balancing roles: giving appropriate weight not only to research and teaching but also to the ‘third mission’ (i.e. knowledge transfer, cooperation with society) (Pflüger and Mojescik 2021, 1430) and management activities (Aitken and O’Carroll 2020), despite the inherent tension that there may be between personal preferences and feasibility. McCune (2021) suggests that the main challenge in dealing with different roles may not, in fact, be the conflict between research and teaching, for example, but rather the tension between teaching and the current ways in which research is valued and measured. According to some studies, despite the variety of activities and differences between them, the challenge lies in the increased emphasis on performativity, bureaucracy, and administrative tasks (Cisternas et al. 2021; Ylijoki 2014). Administrative and related responsibilities could detract from research and teaching, further interfering with the connections between roles which are typically considered inherent to academic work (Edwards 2022; Gaus and Hall 2015; Selkrig, Manathunga, and Keamy 2021; Watermeyer and Tomlinson 2022; Winter and O’Donohue 2012) and part of academics’ societal engagement (Fardella, Sisto Campos, and Jiménez Vargas 2015).

With this in mind, some contend that managers should operationalise, as a priority, institutional development to support scholars in professionalisation programmes that integrate teaching, research, innovation, and other university activities (e.g. Saqipi and Rexhaj 2020). The advantages to such an approach might be that it is able to avoid privileging one activity over another, thereby recognising the significance of balancing functions to enhance the educational process. However, it also raises concerns about workload, especially if onerous administrative tasks and performance expectations are placed on academics. If not properly managed, this could risk interfering with the development and maintenance of any kind of optimal balance between activities.

Limitations and future research

Our literature review has considered a selection of 44 valuable research studies relating to the important area of academic identity and change in higher education. There are, inevitably, restrictions in the scope and other dimensions of our work. We acknowledge the potential bias introduced by the selection of literature in this study, such as our limitation of the search to articles published in the English, Spanish and Portuguese languages. It is not our intention to generalise from the study findings. We believe that the strength of this study lies in the valuable insights derived from the detailed synthesis of the literature that we undertook.

We suggest future research in four main areas. First, we recommend longitudinal and comparative studies to help understand better how academic identities develop over time and vary across different spatial dimensions. Second, we think that studies that explore the links between identity differences and responses to managerialist university contexts (e.g. considering differences in disciplinary group traditions, generational perspectives, and career stages) would be useful. There is a need, too, for further research into academic identity and higher education change from an intersectional perspective, exploring specific local, regional and cultural factors, including gender, ethnicity, and religion. Finally, given that most of the studies we included used qualitative methodology, the generation of studies using mixed method designs might further enrich investigations in this field.

Conclusions

As the higher education landscape is evolving with rapidity, it is perhaps more important than ever to understand the implications of tertiary education sector change in terms of learning, research, community and society (Cannizzo 2015). It is clear that increasing marketisation has influenced, and continues to affect, academics’ identities (Dugas et al. 2020; Guzmán-Valenzuela and Barnett 2013). Our literature review offers insight into the ways that academics are experiencing changes in higher education, and how these changes may influence their work and identities. The analysis has highlighted the fluid nature of identity processes during institutional change. For example, there was evidence of the development of hybrid identities, with some academics prioritising certain activities and others seeking an overall balance. High workload was a significant issue described in the literature, with increases associated with administrative tasks and performance expectations. In all, the reviewed literature raises crucial questions about identity in terms of academia’s professional core, relationships with the communities served by higher education, and the potential risk of detachment from higher education’s central principles. It highlights the importance of discussions about alternative ideas and concepts of education within the academic community. In a context of structural transformation in higher education, it points to the need to value the agency of academics in their research and teaching work, and understand their work as integral to, rather than peripheral to, institutional decision-making.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was co-funded by national funds, through the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, IP (FCT), under the multi-year funding awarded to CIIE [grants no. UIDB/00167/2020 and UIDP/00167/2020]; CIPES [grant no. UIDB/00757/2020].

Appendix

Table A1. Studies included in the review.

Author and date	Title
Aitken and O’Carroll (2020)	Academic Identity and Crossing Boundaries: The Role of the Programme Director in Postgraduate Taught Programmes
Alkhateeb et al. (2020)	The Reconstruction of Academic Identity through Language Policy: A Narrative Approach
Badiozaman (2021)	Early Career Academics’ Identity Development in a Changing HE Landscape: Insights from a Malaysian Private University
Chipindi and Vavrus (2018)	The Ontology of Mention: Contexts, Contests, and Constructs of Academic Identity among University of Zambia Faculty
Chubb and Watermeyer (2017)	Artifice or Integrity in the Marketization of Research Impact? Investigating the Moral Economy of (Pathways to) Impact Statements within Research Funding Proposals in the UK and Australia
Chubb, Watermeyer, and Wakeling (2017)	Fear and Loathing in the Academy? The Role of Emotion in Response to an Impact Agenda in the UK and Australia
Degn (2018)	Academic Sensemaking and Behavioural Responses: Exploring How Academics Perceive and Respond to Identity Threats in Times of Turmoil
Dugas et al. (2020)	‘I’m Being Pulled in Too Many Different Directions’: Academic Identity Tensions at Regional Public Universities in Challenging Economic Times
Dugas et al. (2018)	Shrinking Budgets, Growing Demands: Neoliberalism and Academic Identity Tension at Regional Public Universities
Edwards (2022)	Why Do Academics Do Unfunded Research? Resistance, Compliance and Identity in the UK Neo-Liberal University
Fardella Cisternas et al. (2021)	Exacerbated: Academic Identities and the Transformation of Chilean Higher Education
Fardella et al. (2015)	Nosotros los Académicos: Narrativas Identitarias y Autodefinición en la Universidad Actual [We the Academics: Identity Narratives and Self-definition in the Current University]
Gaus and Hall (2015)	Neoliberal Governance in Indonesian Universities: The Impact Upon Academic Identity
Gumbi and McKenna (2020)	Reimagining Academic Identities in Response to Research Demands at Universities of Technology
Guzmán-Valenzuela and Larraín (2016)	Tensions in the Construction of Academic Identities in a Chilean University
Guzmán-Valenzuela and Barnett (2013)	Academic Fragilities in a Marketised Age: The Case of Chile
Hladchenko (2020)	Academic Identities in Ukrainian Research Universities under Conditions of Means-Ends Decoupling at the State Level
Hladchenko and Westerheijden (2018)	Means-Ends Decoupling and Academic Identities in Ukrainian University after the Revolution of Dignity
Yating et al. (2018)	Academic Identities and University Faculty Responses to New Managerialist Reforms: Experiences from China
Jiménez Peralta (2019)	Identidad Académica: Una Franquicia en Construcción
Jones, Gardner, and Bui (2022)	Vietnamese Early Career Academics’ Identity Work: Balancing Tensions Between East and West
Lee, Jung, and Shin (2020)	Changes in Academics’ Identity, Job Satisfaction, and Job Stress Between 1992 and 2018 in South Korea
Lust, Huber, and Junne (2019)	Academic Identity as a Discursive Resource for Resistance: The Case of quality management in German Higher Education Institutions
Martimianakis and Muzzin (2015)	Discourses of Interdisciplinarity and the Shifting Topography of Academic Work: Generational Perspectives on Facilitating and Resisting Neoliberalism
McCune (2021)	Academic Identities in Contemporary Higher Education: Sustaining Identities That Value Teaching
Nordbäck, Hakonen, and Tienari (2021)	Academic Identities and Sense of Place: A Collaborative Autoethnography in the Neoliberal University
Pflüger and Mojescik (2021)	Governance of Academic Teaching: Why Universities Introduce Funding Programs for Teaching and Why Academic Teachers Participate
Poutanen (2022)	I Am Done with That Now’. Sense of Alienations in Finnish Academia
Saqipi and Rexhaj (2020)	Moving from Survival to Development: Experiences in Kosovo from Developing Academic Identity in a Transitional Context
Selkrig, Manathunga, and Keamy (2021)	Research Is … Making the Emotional Dimensions of Academics’ Research Visible
Shams (2019)	Managing Academic Identity Tensions in a Canadian Public University: The Role of Identity Work in Coping with Managerialism
Shaw, Chapman, and Rumyantseva (2013)	Organizational Culture in the Adoption of the Bologna Process: A Study of Academic Staff at a Ukrainian University
Smith (2017)	Target-Setting, Early-Career Academic Identities and the Measurement Culture of UK Higher Education
Smith (2012)	Fools, Facilitators and Flexians: Academic Identities in Marketised Environments
Tandilashvili and Tandilashvili (2022)	Academics’ Perception of Identity (Re)construction: A Value Conflict Created by Performance Orientation
Tran, Burns, and Ollerhead (2017)	ELT Lecturers’ Experiences of a New Research Policy: Exploring Emotion and Academic Identity
Tülübaş and Göktürk (2020)	Neoliberal Governmentality and Performativity Culture in Higher Education: Reflections on Academic Identity
Ursin et al. (2020)	Emotionally Loaded Identity and Agency in Finnish Academic Work
van Winkel et al. (2018)	Identities of Research-Active Academics in New Universities: Towards a Complete Academic Profession Cross-Cutting Different Worlds of Practice
Waitere et al. (2011)	Choosing Whether to Resist or Reinforce the New Managerialism: The Impact of Performance-Based Research Funding on Academic Identity
Watermeyer and Tomlinson (2022)	Competitive Accountability and the Dispossession of Academic Identity: Haunted by an Impact Phantom
Watson (2011)	Accountability, Transparency, Redundancy: Academic Identities in an Era of ‘Excellence’
Winter and O’Donohue (2012)	Academic Identity Tensions in the Public University: Which Values Really Matter?
Ylijoki (2014)	University Under Structural Reform: A Micro-Level Perspective