Identity Development and Scholar-Practitioner Ideology

Abstract

In this article the author attempts to identify the processes associated with the development of identity as a scholar–practitioner and provide insight into how positionality in effecting change in our world is perceived. The author begins by presenting an overview of scholar–practitioner ideology, as well as an examination of the deconstruction and construction processes of self-identity within these principles. The ideas of “otherness” and liminality are employed in an effort to explain identity development as a personal journey that stands to profoundly infl uence those with whom one collaborates and/or leads.

The process of examining scholar practitioner leadership identity exposes the importance of developing an understanding of one’s identity as it relates to self as well as how it functions in relation to others. This requires that individuals identify the adopted associative virtues and dispositions of both their personal lives and professional roles. During development as a scholar–practitioner leader, the boundaries between private and public identity become blurred and those values and virtues deemed important in one aspect of life often spill over to the other. 
As I began the process of evaluating my own identity, I became aware that for the past few years, I had been involved in a process of deconstructing my beliefs and values and in uncovering my involvement and participation in traditions and systems that while not obvious or deliberate, often served to support inequity and injustice.

A crucial step in my identity development centers on deconstructing the actions and identity of individuals within and contexts of our specifi c relationships and exchanges. Derrida (1999) states:

Deconstruction is quite simply what happens. It is not simply the theoretical analyses of concepts, the speculative desedimentation of a conceptual tradition, of semantics. It is something, which does something, which tries to do something, to intervene and to welcome what happens, to be attentive to the event, the singularity of the event.

Therefore, I have adopted the practice of viewing my dealings with colleagues, students, or parents from the various perspectives of the cultures, ideals, and histories of everyone involved, including myself. Deal and Peterson (1990) recognize culture as broad and deep and defi ne it thusly, Culture is a historically rooted, socially transmitted set of deep patterns of thinking and ways of acting that give meaning to human experience, that unconsciously dictate how experience is seen, assessed and acted on.

Conclusion

In investigating the development of one’s identity as scholar practitioner it is necessary to fi rst come to an understanding of those elements that have shaped individual identity as well as the meaning of this identity as it relates to self and others. The process of viewing one’s identity requires recognition of how identities transform as they move fl uidly through various contexts. My personal identity is different from my cultural identity, yet still connected. It is here that I have come to recognize the importance of deconstructing my identity and placing 
it within those contexts that illuminate new meaning and reveal deeper understanding of the family in which I seek love and comfort, the society in which I dwell and work, and the career where I attempt to expose injustice and facilitate change. By developing an understanding of my culture, I have been able to identify various codes and uses of language that serve to maintain Euro-centric, bourgeoisie dominance. The deconstruction of my past has revealed personal entrenchment in a southern plantation mentality that maintains a white hierarchy.
This deconstruction process has caused confl iction about my identity as a scholar practitioner, my relationships with coworkers, colleagues, and even family. Although this progression has consisted of periods of doubt and confusion, it is interspersed with moments of clarity. I have adopted those dispositions associated with the scholar–practitioner leadership model and accept my roles of bricoleur and criticalist. I have developed a need to develop meaning and understanding of issues relating to the students I teach, the society in which I reside, and the relationships I form.