Facing inequalities in academia: China’s early-career academics, their identities and coping strategies

• In Event: Quality and Equity in reforming higher education programmes

Proposal

Introduction and research questions

China’s higher education has experienced tremendous growth since the Reform and Opening up, which relies heavily on the rapid development of the academic profession. In 2010, more than 60% of university academics are under 40-year old (Lian, 2012). However, early-career academics (ECAs) in China often face two sets of inequalities.

Structural inequalities: The academic honour system in China is a ladder-like system whereupon the acquirement of higher-level honour often depends on prior achieved titles and honours. For example, when applying for certain honorary titles or schemes, those who have multiple titles are often prioritised (Lu & Xie, 2017). Senior academics, making use of their already-claimed statues, might over-occupy opportunities, resources and honours (Ke, 2016). As a result, ECAs often find themselves in a disadvantageous position, trapped at the bottom of the academic hierarchy for the lack of resources and support (Fan & Jia, 2013; Lu & Chen, 2014).

Contextual inequalities: The influence of neo-liberalism and managerialism has led to a ‘managerial revolution’ at universities worldwide (Teelken, 2012), leading to increased demand for accountability and prevailing performative culture. In China, the introduction of a localised ‘tenure-track’ system has caused great controversies, resulting in short-sighted competition and heavy performative culture, often at the expense of a liberal academic environment and academics’ wellbeing (Chen, 2014; Huang, 2019).

Moreover, it is a particularly challenging journey for ECAs to develop their notions of professional self (Billot, 2010; Monk & McKay, 2017), who suffered from job insecurity and an increasingly competitive academic world. ECAs’ academic identity is influenced by political, institutional, and individual factors (Henkel, 2005). Universities are organisational contexts where academics construct their identities (Feather, 2010). They differ greatly in terms of types and levels (Gale, 2011), structures of departments and colleges (Mills, 2005), as well as supporting measures for academics’ professional development (Smith, 2010). Values, notions, activities, paradigms and the history of the disciplinary academic community are also strong factors that influence one’s academic identity (Becher & Trowler, 2001). At the individual level, one’s gender, race, age (Johnsrud & Sadao, 1998), notions and work preference formed during doctoral years (Feather, 2010), and work-life balance (Zhang, 2018), all affect an academic’s sense of self and professional development.

These studies speak to the importance of taking into account institutional and individual factors to understand the formation of academic identities and the academic profession in general. However, how those factors interact and internalise by the ECAs to influence their role choices and role expectations is under-researched, particularly when facing structural and contextual inequalities in academia. It also requires further exploration of how academic identities produce behaviours that might influence those social structures. Against the background, the study addresses the following research questions:
1. How do the structural and contextual inequalities affect ECAs’ academic identity in Chinese research universities?
2. How do their academic identities influence their coping strategies?

Theoretical and methodological considerations

The identity theory recognises the key features of identity as social products that involve reflexive self-meanings making through one’s interaction with social contexts and others (Stryker & Burke, 2000). Scholars also emphasise how individuals can ‘create, sustain, and change larger social structures’ as active agents (Burke & Reitzes, 1991, p. 239). The reciprocal relationship between individual self-meanings and social structure is created and preserved through one’s identity formation and lines of action. Informed by identity theory, we argue that ECA’s identities are shaped by the interplay of government policy, organisational reforms and academic norms. Academic identities, therefore, are internalised role expectations formed and sustained through the constant interaction between one’s self-meanings and those external factors. People’s behaviours are often aligned with the role expectations attached to the social positions of the agents (Stryker & Burke, 2000). Therefore, ECAs produce behaviours that express identities and subsequently adjust their strategies or identities when feedback doesn’t meet their expectations.

The study is a qualitative case study that empirically examines ECAs in a Chinese research university. It regards the importance of people’s active construction of meanings through their behaviours in institutional building and the profound influence of institutional arrangements on individuals’ notions and behaviours. As both ‘norm-abiding rule followers and self-interested rational actors’ (Steinmo, 2008, p.163), it is important to understand ECA’s formation of academic identity through their everyday activities, their contextualised interpretations and the broader socio-eco-political contexts. Hence, the study uses semi-structured interviews with ECAs (defined as academics within the first six years of their formal academic position) in the case university, accessed through purposive sampling and snowball sampling. Altogether the study collected data from 20 academics with varying disciplinary areas, length of work, gender, and research experiences. Serious ethical considerations are taken throughout the research, such as informed consent and anonymisation.

Findings and discussion

ECAs’ formation of academic identity is a process shaped by the negotiation of the external institutional environment and internalised role expectations. ECAs identify themselves, despite their differences, as researchers, teachers, members of certain universities, and family members/supporters. Such role expectation is formed by the interplay of external organisational and institutional contexts, and active self-agency, whose capacity is informed by past experiences, and oriented toward the present and the future. The study argues that the convergence, or divergence of the two factors influence ECAs’ formation of academic identity, i.e., the degree of consilience between social and individual role expectations, and the relative strength between external controlling factors and internal drives. It leads to various pathways in developing their academic identity.

Scholars aligning with varying pathways of identity formation often demonstrate different strategies in their everyday behaviours, including research and teaching practice, their engagement with social service and administrative work, their attitudes towards inequality, etc. For example, academics who tend to passively comply with the external environment often devote the majority of their time to research to produce publications and secure funding, while minimising their time in teaching and educating students. Those who demonstrate a resistant feature tend to follow their internal agency in research and teaching, taking a critical stance toward the performance-oriented academic culture prevailing in China.

Author

• Shuangmiao Han, Zhejiang University