Business School
IDENTITIES IN A MULTI-PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TEAM:
A DISCURSIVE PERSPECTIVE
Master’s Thesis, Innovation Management Klaudia Lahtinen, 284368 7.5.2020
ABSTRACT
UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies Master’s Program in Innovation Management
LAHTINEN, KLAUDIA: Identities in a multi-professional development team: A discursive perspective.
Identiteetit moniammatillisessa kehitystiimissä: Diskursiivinen näkökulma.
Master’s Thesis: pages 89 and 1 appendix (6 pages) Supervisor: Pasi Hirvonen
May 2020
Key concepts: Multi-professional team, identity, discursive analysis
The purpose of the study is to explore the identities in a multi-professional development team from a discursive perspective. Organizations now days has a pressure to answer to the fast-moving environment and a multi-professional teams has been seen as one answer to this pressure. Identities in multi- professional teams has been broadly studied in the field of health studied. This study will contribute the prior studies with the business field context. In addition to that, this study will give a discursive perspective to identity construction. This study focuses on how identities are discursively constructed in a multi-professional development team.
The theoretical framework of this study is based on concepts of multi-professional team and identities.
The main identity theories that this study will be based on are social identity theory, self-categorization theory and identity theory. In the theoretical framework, this study proposes a new way to see team diversity in multi-professional team and also a new viewpoint to combine different identity theories to understand the concept of identity. As a conclusion this study combines a prior research and empirical study to present a new viewpoint to understand identities. The theoretical approach to this topic lies in social constructionism.
The empirical research of this study has a qualitative case approach. The study is conducted in a case organization and in one of its multi-professional team which consists of three smaller teams. The empirical data was gathered with five in-depth theme interviews of members of those three smaller teams.
The data of this study is analysed with discursive analysis. The results of the analysis bring into light the multiplicity of discourses, identity differences between different team members and also identity conflicts and threats.
The results of this study present a new viewpoint to understand an identity concept. In the model the self is discursively constructed from the three different perspectives. Those identity groups were based on a belonging to a group, having a certain role and the idea of oneself as an individual. Every member of a team discursively constructed the different identities differently than any other team member. That highlights the differences between members of one team and underlines the importance of leading employees as individuals rather than as a group. The results of this study contributes prior research by bringing a new viewpoint to understand how the idea of self is discursively constructed with different identities. The managerial implications point out how identities in a team can be understood. This study creates new possibilities for future studies as well.
TIIVISTELMÄ
ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO
Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta Kauppatieteiden laitos
Innovaatiojohtaminen
LAHTINEN, KLAUDIA: Identiteetit moniammatillisessa kehitystiimissä: Diskursiivinen näkökulma.
Identities in a multi-professional development team: A discursive perspective.
Pro Gradu -tutkielma: 89 sivua ja 1 liite (6 sivua) Tutkielman ohjaaja: Pasi Hirvonen
Toukokuu 2020
Avainsanat: Moniammatillinen tiimi, identiteetti, diskurssianalyysi
Tämän tutkimuksen tarkoitus on tutkia diskursiivisesta näkökulmasta identiteettejä moniammatillisessa kehitystiimissä. Nykypäivänä organisaatiot kohtaavat painetta vastata nopeasti muuttuvaan ympäristöön ja moniammatilliset tiimit on nähty yhtenä ratkaisuna tähän paineeseen. Identiteettejä moniammatillisessa tiimissä on tutkittu laajasti terveystutkimuksen piirissä. Tämä tutkimus antaa oman panoksensa tutkimuskenttään tuoden mukaan liike-elämän kontekstin. Tämä tutkimus keskittyy siihen, kuinka identiteetit ovat diskursiivisesti rakentuneet moniammatillisessa kehitystiimissä.
Tutkimuksen teoreettinen viitekehys pohjautuu moniammatillisen tiimin ja identiteetin käsitteisiin.
Tärkeimmät identiteetti teoriat, joihin tämä tutkimus perustuu ovat sosiaalisen identiteetin teoria, itsekategorisointi teoria sekä identiteettiteoria. Tämän tutkimuksen teoreettinen viitekehys esittää uutta tapaa tarkastella tiimin monimuotoisuutta moniammatillisessa tiimissä sekä lisäksi uutta tapaa yhdistellä eri identiteetti teorioita identiteetti käsitteen ymmärtämiseksi. Tämän tutkimuksen teoreettinen viitekehys pohjautuu sosiaaliseen konstruktionismiin.
Tämän tutkimuksen empiirinen tutkimus perustuu kvalitatiivisen tapaustutkimuksen lähestymistapaan.
Tutkimus toteutettiin esimerkkiyrityksessä ja yhdessä sen moniammatillisessa tiimissä, joka koostuu kolmesta pienemmästä tiimistä. Empiirinen aineisto kerättiin viidellä syvällisellä teemahaastattelulla, jotka tehtiin näiden kolmen pienemmän tiimin jäsenille. Tutkimuksen aineisto analysoitiin diskurssianalyysillä. Analyysin tulokset tuovat esille diskurssien monimuotoisuuden, identiteettien eroja tiimin jäsenten välillä sekä identiteettiristiriitoja ja –uhkia.
Tutkimuksen tulokset esittävät uuden lähestymistavan ymmärtää identiteetin käsitettä. Mallissa minuus on diskursiivisesti rakentunut kolmesta eri näkökulmasta. Nämä identiteettiryhmät pohjautuvat ryhmäjäsenyyteen, tietyn roolin omistamiseen ja käsitykseen itsestä yksilönä. Jokainen tiimin jäsen rakensi diskursiivisesti eri identiteetit eri tavalla kuin kukaan muu tiimin jäsen. Tämä korostaa erilaisuutta yhden tiimin jäsenten välillä ja painottaa sen tärkeyttä, että työntekijöitä tulisi johtaa yksilöinä ennemmin kuin yhtenä kokonaisena ryhmänä. Tutkimuksen tulokset tuovat aikaisempaan tutkimukseen uuden näkökulman ymmärtää, kuinka käsitys itsestä rakentuu diskursiivisesti erilaisilla identiteeteillä. Tämän tutkimuksen käytännön suositukset tuovat esille, kuinka identiteetit tiimissä voidaan ymmärtää. Tutkimus luo uusia mahdollisuuksia tulevaisuuden tutkimukselle.
TABLE OF CONTENT
1 INTRODUCTION ... 5
1.1 Identities in a multi-professional team ... 5
1.2 The purpose of the study ... 6
1.3 Key concepts of the study ... 8
1.4 Structure of the thesis ... 9
1.5 Ethical consideration ... 10
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ... 13
2.1 Multi-professional team ... 13
2.2 Identities ... 15
2.2.1 Identity theories... 15
2.2.2 Different identities ... 18
2.2.3 Identity work ... 20
2.2.4 Identity threats and conflicts ... 23
2.3 Social construction ... 24
2.4 Theoretical framework in this study ... 25
2.5 Discourse and identity ... 31
3 METHODOLOGY... 34
3.1 Methodological approach ... 34
3.2 Data collection ... 35
3.3 Analysis of the data ... 40
4 MULTIPLE DISCOURSES CONSRUCT IDENTITIES ... 44
4.1 Multiple discourses ... 44
4.2 Identity differences ... 47
4.2.1 Where do I belong to? ... 48
4.2.2 Who am I at work? ... 55
4.2.3 Who am I as a person? ... 61
4.3 Identity conflicts ... 65
4.4 Summary of the research results ... 67
5 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ... 71
5.1 Summary of the results ... 71
5.2 Key results... 72
5.3 Evaluation of the study, future study and managerial implications ... 78
REFERENCES... 81
APPENDIX 1: Data extracts in original language
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Identities in a multi-professional team
The topic of this research is identities in a multi-professional development team. Multi-professional team is a concept that is broadly used in a business field. Salas, Cooke and Rosen (2008) have pointed out that now days organizations have pressure to enhanced responsiveness and flexibility together with fast product and service development. To reach this goals it is crucial to have a broad range of skills and resources that is impossible for individuals. Organizations aim to answer this pressure by creating teams that have this broad range of resources and skills. (Salas et al. 2008.) This is why I am interested in a teams that are multi-professional.
Many researchers have found positive impacts of using multi-professional team to enhance the processes of the organization. It is evidenced that multi-professional teams have greater innovativeness than what mono-professional teams have (Liff & Wikström 2015). From those point of views, it is important to have research on multi-professional teams in which there are this broad range of resources and skills. I will study a concept of multi-professional teams from an identity perspective.
Identities in multi-professional team contexts are broadly studied in field of healthcare and human services (e.g. Forsyth & Mason 2017; Mitchell, Parker, Giles & White 2010; Nylén 2018). My study will contribute prior research with the knowledge of identities in business field. More in detail, I will study how identities occur in teams that consist of members with different professional backgrounds.
The identity is a very extensive concept and it is studied from many different perspectives. The main identity theories that are used to create understanding of identity concept are social identity theory, identity theory and self-categorization but I will mostly draw on to the social identity theory. Different researchers have used a broad range of different identity concepts, types and forms. The identity types that I will use can be seen as social identities, roles identities and person identities. In addition to these identity perspectives, I will also point out the concepts of identity work, identity threats and identity conflicts.
My approach to this research topic is in social construction. Social construction is a framework which suggest that our social reality is constructed in social interaction. From that approach the interest is in
language. In my study I am going to study identities and when people are telling about themselves, they use discourses which are representing their social reality. (Burr 2015; Gergen 1999; Jokinen 1999).
Because of that I am interested in language that people use when they are talking about themselves.
My research context in this study is in business field. I will study the identities in a case organization and in one of its multi-professional team. This organization operates in construction field and its main operations are located in Finland. The multi-professional team is a development team which consist of three smaller teams and all of these teams have their own specialities. The purpose of this development team is to develop the organization and its products. In my empirical study I will study the identities within this team and how these identities are constructed through discourses.
1.2 The purpose of the study
The goal of this study is to provide a knowledge of identities in multi-professional team where team members have different professional backgrounds and belong to two teams. I aim to understand how and what kind of identities discursively occur in multi-professional development team. The results of my study can help leaders of multi-professional team to develop their teams by taking in the consideration different identities that might occur within the team. Based on the purpose of this study the main research question of this study is:
R1: How identities are discursively constructed in a multi-professional development team?
In addition to the main research question, I have created three sub-question that are going to help me to answer to the main research question. I have divided the questions by three different themes which are related to multiplicity of identities, identity differences and identity conflicts. These themes are going to be visible both in my theoretical framework and also in my empirical study. To find answers within these three different themes with a discourse analysis, I address the following sub-questions:
SQ1: What kind of identities team members have? How they come visible through discourses?
SQ2: How identities between team members discursively differ from one another?
SQ3: How conflicts between different identities can be seen from the discourses?
By answering these question this study will create a new viewpoint to an identity concept. Because the identity field is very extensively studied from multiple different perspectives, I will bring together a broad range of prior research to understand the research field of identity and with the help of empirical study I will create a one viewpoint to the identity concept.
I am going to combine different ideas of prior research to create a simpler understanding of identity concept. Then I will conduct an empirical research to study how identities occur in multi-professional team in a real life context. Comparing the understanding of prior research and results of my own empirical research to each other I will create a new viewpoint to identity concept which takes into consideration both the prior research and empirical study.
Even though the context of this study is in multi-professional context in business field, the viewpoint of this study can be used in another kind of contexts as well. This viewpoint will give tools to conceptualize the identities in different situations and in different contexts. With this study the individuals can be seen as their own individuals and not as a group of people. This can help leaders to analyse the own team and therefore develop the team.
This study will highlight the fact that people have multiple identities and everyone constructs their own idea of their self differently. The own idea of self is always different from others and that makes us humans unique. The results of this study argue that employees should not be managed as a group of people but rather than that they should be managed as individuals.
I will answer to the research questions by theoretical framework and empirical study. Theoretical framework will consist of prior research which are related to multi-professional team, identity theories, different identity concepts, identity work and identity conflicts and threats. Besides that, in the theoretical framework I will explain how the social construction is used as an approach in this study.
The empirical study will consist of five in-depth interviews in a case organization and in one of its multi- professional team. More in detail, the interviews that I am going to conduct are theme interviews. After the interviews I will do a transcription of them and do a discourse analysis. I chose discourse analysis because identities are very much linked to discourses that people use when they are talking about themselves. That is why discourse analysis is broadly used in the research field of identities.
1.3 Key concepts of the study
The main concepts related to my study are multi-professional team and identities. In addition to multi- professional team, I am also looking that kind of team from a team diversity perspective. Further on, I am going to use different perspectives to look more in detail the identity concept. Those are related to identity theories, different identity concepts, identity work and identity threat and conflicts. In this section I am shortly presenting what I am meaning with those concepts in this study.
The concept of ‘team’ refers to a collaborative effort where two or more people join together to achieve mutual goals that they would not be able to achieve individually (Huxham 1996). Multi-professional team, on the other hand, refers to a team that gives knowledge across occupational boundaries for the use of organization (Oborn & Dawson 2010). This kind of multi-professional team has a broad range of resources and skills (Salas et al. 2008).
Team diversity is a concept that refers to a differences within a team or a group and it can be seen from many perspective, for example, bio-demographic diversity, task-related diversity (Milliken & Martins 1996) and job-related diversity (Simons, Pelled & Smith 1999). In addition to that, I will present a deep level or attitudinal diversity by Harrison, Price and Bell (1998).
The identity theories that I am using in this study are social identity theory (Tajfel 1978), identity theory (Burke & Stets 2009) and self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oaks, Reicher & Wetherell 1987).
A theory that I will mostly draw on to is social identity theory which is extensively used in a field of psychology and social psychology.
The most important identity concepts that I am going to refer to in this study are social identity (Tajfel 1972), professional identity (e.g. Pratt, Rockmann & Kaufmann 2006; Ibarra 1999), group identity (e.g.
Tajfel & Turner 1979), team identity (e.g. Horwitz & Horwitz 2007; Liff & Wikström 2015), organizational identity (e.g. Hogg & Terry 2000), role identity (e.g. Stets & Burke 2000), person identity (e.g. Stets 1995; Stets and Burke 1996) and self-identity (e.g. Giddens 1991; Watson 2008).
Identity work refers to ‘the range of activities individuals engage in to create, present, and sustain
personal identities that are congruent with and supportive of the self-concept’ (Snow & Anderson 1987, 1348). Another extensively cited formulation is presented by Sveningsson and Alvesson (2003, 1165) and they describe that, ‘identity work refers to people being engaged in forming, repairing, maintaining, strengthening or revising the constructions that are productive of a sense of coherence and distinctiveness’. In addition to that, I am going to use some idea of identity work by Watson (2008) and present how discourses are linked to that.
The last concepts that are important to describe in here are the identity threat and identity conflict. Many researchers have already presented the concept of identity threat (e.g. Hogg & Terry 2000), especially threat to professional identity is visible in many prior research (e.g. Liff & Wikström 2015; Mitchell, Parker & Giles 2011). The concept of threat to professional identity refers to perception of risk that a profession ́s knowledge and skills, work-related values or professional role is about to decrease (Steele, Spencer & Aronson 2002). The identity conflicts are important to take in the consideration since it is evidenced that individuals are able to use conflicting identities at the same time in the same social interaction (Shotter & Cergen 1989; Potter & Wetherell 1987).
1.4 Structure of the thesis
In this chapter 1, which is introduction, I have introduced the content of this study. I have presented the topic of this research, the purpose of the study, key concepts and, now I will describe the structure of the thesis. By understanding these aspects, it can help a reader to read the rest of the study.
The chapter 2 consist of theoretical background. In this section I am presenting the main concepts of this study with prior research. This chapter is divided into five main sections. The first sections will present the ideas of multi-professional team. Then I will explain the identity concept from different perspectives.
The third section will explain how the social construction is seen as an approach in this study. In the fourth section I will bring together all the presented ideas by prior research and present a theoretical framework of this study. The last section will point out the link between discourses and identities.
The methodology of this study will be presented in the chapter 3. This chapter has three different sections which are methodological approach, data collection and analysis of the data. More in detail, after I have
presented my methodological approach of this study, I will present the research context, main ideas of theme interview, my data collection process, main ideas of discourse analysis and lastly, my data analysis process.
The chapter 4 will be focusing on the results of my empirical study. I have divided this chapter into a four smaller sections that are answering to my research question and the sub-questions. The first section will present the multiple discourses that were found from the data. In the second section, I will go deeper into the data and analyse all the different identities and how they differ from one team member to another.
The third section is going to bring to light the identity threats and identity conflicts that were visible in the data. In the last section of that chapter I will conclude all of these previous sections of the chapter and present the summary of results of my empirical research.
The last section of this whole study is going to be about conclusion and discussion. In this chapter I will present the summary of the results, key results, evaluation of the study and managerial implication. In this chapter I will compare the theoretical framework and empirical study to create and present a new viewpoint to study identity concept.
1.5 Ethical consideration
I have taken into consideration a few main things that are related to this study and to this research topic.
Kylmä, Pietilä and Vehviläinen-Julkunen (2002) have pointed out that there are three main categories when it comes to ethical considerations in a research process. Those are the ethical justification of research topic, data collection methods and also the analysing and reporting of research findings. In this section I will present how I have considered these ethical perspectives in different phases of my research process.
When choosing my research topic, at first I have considered how the topic has been studied before and the relevance of the study. Besides that, I have argued how my study will contribute the previous studies.
In the section of theoretical background, I will point out these prior research and how I will use them in my own study. Being familiar with the prior research gives a comprehensive and profound understanding of the research topic. Further on this has an impact on the value of the study and it findings. One crucial
part of the research topic choice is thinking how this topic can be studied and how the findings can be most valuable.
My empirical research is a qualitative research and I have chosen the theme interviews as my data collection method and discourse analysis as my data analysis method. One important ethical aspect to take into consideration of these research methods is if they are going to give valuable findings. Because in this study I am interested in how the identities are constructed discursively, discourse analysis is very obvious choice for a data analysis method. The data collection choice was made by the consideration on how the data for this kind of analysis will be most efficiently gathered. I ended up choosing the theme interviewing because by that I can get a data in which the people that I am studying can extensively discuss about themselves, their opinions, experiences and feelings. The choice of these methods are more extensively discussed in the chapter of methodology.
When it comes to interviewing and the data collection in general there are a few ethical aspects that need to be considered. One aspect is the people that will be a part of the study. The rights and the treatment of those people is always crucial to take into consideration (Leino-Kilpi & Välimäki 2014). I have considered this by being as informative as possible when asking them to participate this study and giving them time to think their answer and an offering a change to ask more questions if needed. In addition to that, I have presented that their anonymity will be ensured.
In qualitative research the ethical requirements expect that the researcher has an ethical responsibility.
This means that the data collection and the different phases of the research process are truthfully conducted and presented. (Krause & Kiikkala 1996.) I have taken this into consideration by explaining the choices that I have made during each research phase. Besides that, I have presented how I have actually done these different phases of the research.
Because in qualitative research the people that are studied are required to have a personal experience of the topic that is studied, this personal aspect need to be considered by the researcher before the actual data collection (Kylmä & Juvakka 2012). I evaluated this by reflecting how sensitive the topics of these interviews could be for the interviewees. I ended up thinking that the topics are not that sensitive that they could have a significant, negative or harmful impact on the interview or the people participating in
it. Even though the topics were not the most sensitive ones they were definitely personal and I had taken this into consideration by ensuring the anonymity of the interviewees.
When it comes to interviewing also the role of a researcher is active (Kylmä 2008) and because the interaction during the interview can be a very delicate, very slight tension during the conversation can end up to new meanings, interpretations and the way of conversation (Suoninen 1997). I took this into consideration before the actual interviews and also during the interviews by thinking about my own answers and questions in the interview. My aim was to stay as neutral as possible so that the answers of the interviews were not affected by my own personal opinions. That is almost an impossible task because of the nature of a human interaction but it was still the aim of the interaction during the conversation.
This aspect was also considered when conducting the data analysis.
The last ethical aspect that I will point out is the treatment of the physical data. Kylmä & Juvakka (2012) have presented that the treatment of the data should be done confidentially and the collected data should be transcribed in a way that the what and how things were said could stay as clear as possible. I treated the data as confidential as possible by recording the interviews with an external recording device and saving them to an external memory stick. By that I ensured that the interviews could not leak to anyone else. The transcriptions were done very carefully in every phase and this is explained more in detail in the section of methodology.
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Multi-professional team
The ‘team’ is a concept that refers to a collective effort where at least two people join together to accomplish shared goals that they would not be able to achieve individually (Huxham 1996). In this study I am interested about a team that is multi-professional. The concept of professionals refers to individuals who are participating an occupation, a profession, where the member of that profession is able to control who is qualified to act with described task sets, to prevent others from acting within that work and to determine some certain criteria by which the performance can be evaluated (Freidson 2000/2004).
The concept of multi-professional team has been studied extensively in the research field of healthcare (e.g. Liff & Wikström 2015; Addicott & Ferlie 2007). Even though this concept in not that much studied in the business field the ideas of multi-professional teams within the healthcare are suitable to use in the business field as well.
Prior research has defined a lot of different benefits to work as a multi-professional team. To organize the team to be multi-professional it gives knowledge across occupational boundaries for the use of organization (Oborn & Dawson 2010). Besides that, multi-professional teams have a broad range of resources and skills (Salas et al. 2008). From those perspectives it is clear that with multi-professional teams organizations can improve their performance through innovations (Oborn & Dawson 2010).
Liff and Wikström (2015) have pointed out that in order to operate efficiently multi-professional team needs a structure that supports several professions and various areas of expertise so that professionals of the team can solve complex problems. In addition to that, multi-professional teams require that team members are willing to communicate with other members of the team, who have expertise from other fields and might even have different ways of doing their work (Adams, Hean, Sturgis & Macleod 2006;
Currie, Finn & Martin 2010).
In the research field of multi-professional teams there is a broad range of different concepts that different researchers use when referring to teams which members have different professional background. The one that I am using in this study is multi-professional team (e.g. Liff & Wikström 2015; Oborn & Dawson 2010). The concept of inter-professional team is also very often used in this research field and it is
referring to same kind of concept as multi-professional team (e.g. Mitchell et al. 2011; Williams &
O ́Reilly 1998). Professional diversity is one concept that is broadly used in this research field as well (e.g. Mitchell et al. 2011).
Besides those, also heterogeneity (e.g. Hambrick, Cho & Chen 1996) and team diversity (e.g. Horwitz &
Horwitz 2007) are referring to the team member ́s differences. Team diversity can be seen from many perspective, for example, bio-demographic diversity, task-related diversity (Milliken & Martins 1996) and job-related diversity (Simons et al. 1999). I will look more in detail of the team diversities so that it is possible to understand what other kind of diversities there might be within the case team of my study.
The team that I am studying is multi-professional team but I argue that it is important to understand how the members of that team differ from the other in other aspects as well. Those other differences might have some effects on the research results and therefore it is crucial to identify them beforehand.
Jackson, May & Whitney (1995) have presented two different aspects of diversity. The first one is task- oriented diversity and the second one is relation-oriented diversity. The task-oriented diversity refers to skill-based and informational differences among work group members and those differences can be for example education. Relations-oriented diversity refers more to things like gender, race or ethnicity and age (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Human 2004).
Many researchers have proposed different typologies to understand the different dimensions of diversity (Van Knippenberg & Schippers 2007). The main distinction has made between obvious demographic attributes, such as gender, race/ethnicity and age, and more job-related attributes, such as differences in educational or functional background (Jackson 1992; Jehn, Northcraft & Neale 1999; Milliken & Martins 1996; Pelled, Eisenhardt & Xin 1999; Schneider & Northcraft 1999; Tsui, Egan & O’Reilly 1992;
Harrison et al. 1998). Besides those, many researchers have also suggested that the important aspect of diversities within a group are the ones that are not easily visible and not always job-related, such as differences in personality, attitudes and values (Bowers, Pharmer & Salas 2000, Harrison et al. 1998, Jehn et al. 1999).
I want to point out more in detail the ideas of surface-level and deep-level diversities by Harrison et al.
(1998). By the surface-level they refer to demographic attributes and biological characteristics. Those are often reflected in physical characteristics, such as age, sex and race or ethnicity. Just like Jackson et al. (1995) and Milliken and Martins (1996), also Harrison et al. (1998) present that these features are
almost immediately observable and measurable in simple and valid ways. Basically, this level refers to bio-demographic differences that people can see in others very quickly.
The deep-level diversity, on the other hand, refers to differences among members’ attitudes, beliefs and values. Such like with the surface-level diversity, with this level, the Jackson et al. (1995) and Milliken and Martins (1996) have proposed similar statements. Information from this level is communicated with verbal and also with nonverbal behaviour. They only way it can be seen is through extended, individualized interaction and information gathering. (Harrison et al. 1998).
2.2 Identities
2.2.1 Identity theories
In this thesis I will use three different theories that are related to the topic and based on those theories I will explain my main approaches to identity concept. Those theories are social identity theory (Tajfel 1978), identity theory (Burke & Stets 2009) and self-categorization theory (Turner et al. 1987). The social identity theory is formulated by psychologist and the identity theory is created by sociologist (Deaux &
Burke 2010). Self-categorization theory is similar to the social identity theory (Turner et al 1987). Hogg and Terry (2000) have presented that social identity theory and self-categorization theory are influenced in the field of social psychology.
In this study I am going to in some way use the ideas of all of these theories but lean most into the social identity theory. Therefore, this section is mostly focused on social identity theory but besides that I am also going to point out some aspects of the identity theory and self-categorization theory which I see important and helpful in understanding the topic of this study as well.
There are same differences in a research of identities by sociologists and social psychologists (Brown 2015). It seems like some researchers see those differences more crucial than others. The main researchers in the field of identities that I will refer in my thesis are psychologist Hogg, who has also influenced in the field of social psychology, and sociologists Stets and Burke. Because social identity theory has focused generally more on the groups or categories as a foundations of the identities (Deaux
& Burke 2010), that theory is more important in my thesis since I am studying identities in the group
context.
On the other hand, because identity theory is focusing more on the roles as a foundations of identities (Deaux & Burke 2010) I cannot ignore that theory either since roles are important aspects of professionals that I am studying. I will use both of this theories but take in the consideration all the differences between the theories. The differences that occur between identity theory and social identity theory are related to, for example, motivational bases of identity and multiplicity of identities (Deaux & Burke 2010). In addition to that, sometimes these theories are using just different concepts but are actually referring to similar things (e.g. Stets & Burke 2000).
Hogg, Terry and White (1995) have presented four main differences between social identity theory and identity theory. Firstly, social identity theory focuses more socio cognitive processes of individuals and identity theory focuses more on a direct link between the individual and society without much internal processing. Secondly, social identity theory focuses on group and intergroup processes and identity theory focuses on roles. Thirdly, social identity theory generally ignores roles within group and identity theory views roles as a central component of identities. Fourthly, social identity theory focuses more on to the influence of the social context on identities and identity theory views identities more as unchanging regarding of the contexts. (Deaux & Burke 2010, 315.)
Now I will present the most important aspects of social identity theory. One very essential concept in social identity theory is the social identity. This concept refers to individual’s own understanding of his or her belonging to a social category or group (Hogg & Abrams 1998). Here the concept of social group means a group of individuals who have a mutual social identification and therefore they see themselves as members of the same social category (Stets & Burke 2000). I will present the concept of social identity more in detail in the next section which is focusing on different identity concepts.
One very crucial aspects of social identity theory are the concepts of in-groups and out-groups. The process of social comparison is important in the social identity theory because through that process individuals categorize other people that are similar to themselves and then categorize them to the in- group. Similarly, other people that are different from the self are categorized to the out-groups. (Stets &
Burke 2000.)
Self-categorization refers to a process where the similarities between self and other in-group members are perceived, and the differences between self and the out-group members are recognized. In this kind of social comparison, the person’s ‘self-esteem is enhanced by evaluating the in-group and the out-group on dimensions that lead the in-group to be judged positively and the out-group to be judged negatively.’
(Stets & Burke 2000, 225.)
Social categorization is a process where the self and others are compared to the prototypes of a certain group. Those prototypes refer to a certain sets of attitudes and behaviour which are characterized by that group, which are different from other groups and determine how a group members should think, feel and behave. The self-categorization is a social categorization of self. Turner et al (1987) have presented the concept of self-categorization as a process in which one can objectively view oneself and then categorize, classify or name oneself in ways that are associated to other social categories or classifications. (Turner et al. 1987). When comparing to identity theory, this self-categorization concept and the same process is called identification. All in all, an identity is formed through a process of self-categorization or identification. (Stets & Burke 2000.)
Even though there are a lot of differences pointed out between the social identity theory and identity theory, Stets and Burke (2000) have argued that these theories have more similarities than differences.
They have presented that all the identities act in a very similar way but the differences in them are related to the basis of the identity and those are affecting to the consequences. The way I am going to use these different theories is based on the suggestions by Stets and Burke (2000) that are presented above.
The self-categorization theory is very similar to social identity theory but I will still present some of the main ideas within the theory. The basic idea of this theory is that similarities between the self and others form in-groups and the dissimilarities are the ones that create our-groups (Stott, Hutchison & Drury 2001). Self-categorization theory helps individuals to understand who are ‘us’ and also who are ‘them’.
This dichotomy is based on the individuals own perception of whether he or she is a member of a group or not (Scott, Billings, Harris &Vincent 2018).
2.2.2 Different identities
In this study I am going to present a range of different kind of identities. Different researchers have used the identity concepts from different perspectives and presented a lot of different identity concepts. The most important identity concepts that I am going to refer to in this study are social identity (Tajfel 1972), professional identity (e.g. Pratt et al. 2006; Ibarra 1999), group identity (e.g. Tajfel & Turner 1979), team identity (e.g. Horwitz & Horwitz 2007; Liff & Wikström 2015), organizational identity (e.g. Hogg &
Terry 2000), role identity (e.g. Stets & Burke 2000), person identity (e.g. Stets 1995; Stets and Burke 1996) and self-identity (e.g. Giddens 1991; Watson 2008). In this section I will present all of these identity concepts more in detail.
The first and maybe the most important identity concept is social identity. This conception of social identity is originally introduced by Tajfel (1972). It refers to the individual’s own knowledge that he or she belongs to a social group or category and this individual gives specific value and therefore has emotional aspect of his or her belonging to this specific group (Tajfel 1972). Stets & Burke (2000) have presented that ‘having a particular social identity means being at one with a certain group, being like others in the group, and seeing things from the group’s perspective’ (p. 226).
Turner (1975) has presented that one important aspect of social identity is an intergroup social comparison in which an individual tries to approve or create the favour of in-group and to distinct from out-groups. This process of intergroup social comparison is related to human’s fundamental need for self-esteem (Turner 1975). Even though these ideas by Tajfel ́s and Turner ́s of social identity are originally presented in the last century, they are still very broadly used in the literature of identities (e.g.
Hogg & Terry 2000, Stets & Burke 2000) and therefore still usable in my thesis as well. These ideas are used and modified within the different researcher. For example, Watson (2008) have presented five types of social-identity and those are social-category, formal-role, local-organizational, local-personal and cultural-stereotype social identities.
The next identity concept that I am interested in this study is professional identity. Professional identity is an identity which refers to individuals’ own idea of ‘who they are’ as professionals. This professional identity is not permanent and it usually changes when the work that they are doing is no longer matching with the former idea of ‘who they are’. (Pratt et al 2006.) Sometimes role models can be important in
professional identity construction because through role models individuals can “try on” to test if those professional identities would fit for them as well (Ibarra 1999). At the beginning of professional identity construction, the important aspect of this identity is previously formed identities which individuals can use to make sense of their own work in a certain moment (Pratt et al. 2006).
When the professional identity gets stronger, members see themselves stronger as a part of their own profession and also their professional positions and viewpoints are more strongly defended than against the preferences of other professions (Fitzgerald & Teal 2004). Individuals who have a strong professional identity are more likely to represent their professions priorities stronger and besides that they feel threatened by pressure to match with alternative viewpoints (Lingard, Reznick, DeVito & Espin 2002).
Freidson (2006) has suggested that the professional identity is one form of social identity. It means that an individual sees oneself a member of a certain profession and compares that profession to the members of other professional groups (Freidson 2006).
The next identity that will be visible in this study is organizational identity. Organizational identity is actually a social identity in which the members of an organization are seen as members of an in-group.
Therefore, individuals construct a part of their identity and sense of self from the organization in which they have a membership. (Hogg & Terry 2000.) Hogg and Terry (2000) have presented that
‘organizations are internally structured groups that are located in complex networks of intergroup relations characterized by power, status, and prestige differentials’ (p.121).
When it comes to group identity, those individuals who have a strong identification for a group categorize themselves as member of a group (Ashmore, Deaux & Mclaughlin-Volpe 2004). Basically, the group identity means that the individuals sees oneself as a part of group. They have same kind of values, goals, attitudes and behaviour than other members of a group (Swaab, Postmes & Spears 2004). The concept of team identity is used in a similar situations and refers to the concept where a person sees oneself as a member of a team (e.g. Liff & Wikström 2015).
According to Stets and Burke (2000) role identity refers to identity where the person acts to fulfil the role expectations, managing and discussing with role partners and lastly modifying the environment to control the resources which are the certain roles responsibility. Role identity can be seen in comparison to social identity because the social identity is a main identity within the social identity theory and the role identity is the main identity within the identity theory. The distinction between these identities are that the social
identity is based on groups and the role identity is based on a role. (Stets & Burke 2000.)
In addition to all the previously presented identity concepts, I will point out the concept of person and personal identity. Basically the person identity is tied to sustain the idea of self. A person identity is not directly referring to personality features but if being “happy”, “friendly” or “honest” regulate their meanings they can be seen as a person identities or aspects of a person identity. (Stets & Burke 1996).
The personal identity is very similar to person identity. Hart, Richardson and Wilkenfeld (2011) have presented that the civil life is an important aspect in the personal identity because the sense of self in civil life is a domain of personal identity. Besides that, personal identity is related to personal values, goals and beliefs (e.g. Luyckx, Goossens & Soenens. 2006)
The concept of self-identity is the last identity concept that I will present with the prior research. This identity is very closely related to the ideas of identity work. Therefore, I am going to present the self- identity in the next section which is focusing on identity work. Also the internal and external aspects of identities are explained in that section. Both self-identity and internal and external aspect of identities are originally presented by Watson (2008).
2.2.3 Identity work
To understand how identities should be theorized and researched the key concept is identity work (Brown 2015, 25) which I will present in this chapter. In the research field of identities the topic of identity work is extensively studied (e.g. Dickie 2003; Ibarra 1999; Snow & Anderson 1987; Sveningsson & Alvesson 2003; Van Maanen 1997). Snow and Anderson (1987) have formulated probably the most used definition of identity work concept (Brown 2015). Accroding to their definition the identity work refers to ‘the range of activities individuals engage in to create, present, and sustain personal identities that are congruent with and supportive of the self-concept’ (Snow & Anderson 1987, 1348). In addition to their definition, another extensively cited formulation is presented by Sveningsson and Alvesson (2003, 1165) and their definition describes that, ‘identity work refers to people being engaged in forming, repairing, maintaining, strengthening or revising the constructions that are productive of a sense of coherence and distinctiveness’.
In this study, to explain the concept of identity work I am going to use ideas by Watson (2008). He has presented that in the organizations, individuals need to take numerous corporate personas which might differ from the other personas they adopt in different parts of the lives. Those personas are required to adapt and change when the global, societal and organizational circumstances change. This happens within all the employees at the organization but it is most visible within the managerial workers because managers cannot be just ‘themselves’ at work, rather than that they have to be the face or the voice of the corporation. That is when the shaping, ‘managing’ or ‘working at’ their concept of self comes to the action. Because of these suggestions of Watson (2008) I am going to use the managerial example, just like him, when explaining the basic idea of identity work. (Watson 2008.)
Watson (2008) have brought into light this link between the ‘self’ aspects of identity and the discourses to which they relate is ‘external’ or discursive notion of publicly available ‘personas’ or social-identities.
According to his suggestions these social-identities should be treated as elements of discourses. Further on these discursive ‘personas’ should be seen as impacts on individual self-identities, not by treating discourses as the impacts. Watson’s (2008) two-step process presents the relationship between self- identities and discourses. According to this process, at first a discourse is recognized and after that individuals are examined ascertain to extent who this individual takes himself or herself to be. (Watson 2008.) In the figure 1, I have presented this two-step process.
Source: Watson 2008, 128.
Figure 1: A ‘two step’ process between discourses and self-identities
To extend the idea of two-step process, Watson (2008) has created a three-step process in which it is possible to understand the relationship between the discursive aspects of social life and individuals own emphasis on the identity creation. In this three-step process the social identities are main elements within the discourses and in those discourses individuals make their reference in their identity work. Figure 2 represents this process by using manager example. As the figure presents, within various socially available discourse there can be at least one social identity, even more. By using the manager example, it can be understood as a process in which a person has various managerial discourse and then this person
has various ideas of manager. Basically, the elements of discourse are personified in the form of social identities. From the person’s perspective, he or she views those personified elements of discourse as something significant, easy to access and lastly, something pleasant or unpleasant. (Watson 2008.) In addition to that, individuals themselves take part in constructing social identities. In the figure 2, this involvement is represented by small arrow between self-identity and social identities. Watson (2008) has described the idea of that small arrow by explaining that people ‘have scope to interpret or even modify the role given to them in the “script” of any given social-identity’ (p.129). These identity-making resources are used differently by different persons and occupational groups. Using the manager example again, it can be seen in a way that a person who works as a manager, sees this ‘working as manager’ in relatively central when understanding himself or herself and who he or she take to be. On the other hand, the case can be different as well. To majority of people this occupational identification might be just one or minor part of their life and therefore has a minor impact on the idea of self. (Watson 2008.)
Source: Watson 2008, 128.
Figure 2: A ‘three step’ process between managerial and other discourses and self-identities
The external and internal aspects can be seen in self-identities and social-identities. Basically, the self- identity is the internal aspect of the person’s identity and the social-identity is the external aspect of the identity. To take into consideration both of these aspects Watson (2008, 129) has conceptualized that
“identity work involves the mutually constitutive processes whereby people strive to shape a relatively coherent and distinctive notion of personal self- identity and struggle to come to terms with and, within
limits, to influence the various social-identities which pertain to them in the various milieux in which they live their lives.” (Watson 2008.)
2.2.4 Identity threats and conflicts
Besides all the different identities, I am also interested in if there are any conflicts within these different identities or any identity threats. In this section I am going to present how the identity threats and identity conflicts are studied in a prior research. This is not going to be a big part of my empirical study but still it is important to take into consideration and recognize the possibility of certain threats or conflicts when it comes to identities.
Many researchers have already presented the concept of identity threat (e.g. Hogg & Terry 2000), especially threat to professional identity is visible in many prior research (e.g. Liff & Wikström 2015;
Mitchell et al. 2011). The concept of threat to professional identity refers to perception of risk that a profession ́s knowledge and skills, work-related values or professional role is about to decrease (Steele et al. 2002). That can lead to perception of losing professional status or that occupational boundaries might be threatened (Hornsey & Hogg 2000). There is also found negative affect within the team, for example hostility towards other groups ́ members (Aquino & Douglas 2003) and harmful or bad reactions (Cottrel & Neuberg 2005; Devos, Silver, Mackie & Smith 2002).
Liff & Wikström (2015) have studied professional identity threat in the context of multi-professional team and they present that identity threat must be reduced in order to multi-professional team to survive because it can be deleterious to team cooperation. In diverse teams and groups professional identity threat can lead to increasing differentiation between own group and other groups, strengthening the categorization and stereotyping (Voci 2006). Besides that, it is evidenced that identity threat can result on the fact that individuals do not perform as well as they are able to (Schmader, Johns & Forbes 2008;
Walton & Cohen 2007). Solution that is suggested to decrease professional identity threat is for example inter-professional openness (Mitchell et al. 2011).
Also the concept of identity conflict is recognized within the field of identity research. One example where the identity conflicts can be found are between professional and organizational-based identities,
and in addition to that these conflicts can be seen between work related and non-work related identities (Ashforth, Harrison & Corley 2008, Greenhaus & Beutell 1985). In this study the identity conflicts are important to take in the consideration since it is evidenced that individuals are able to use conflicting identities at the same time in the same social interaction (Shotter & Cergen 1989; Potter & Wetherell 1987).
2.3 Social construction
The idea of social construction is extensively adopted amongst different researchers when it comes to discourse analysis. Because I am going to use discourse analysis and because I am focusing on discursive perspective of identities, I will lean on the social construction as an approach as well. When it comes to social construction, the entire culture around us can be analysed as some kind of conversation flow. An understanding of this leads to the fact that the text that is in the focus of analysis is actually a part of the conversation flow. Therefore, the texts can be seen in a central role. (Jokinen, Juhila & Suoninen 2016.) According to the ideas of social construction, social interaction constructs the reality and thus language, conceptual frames, categories and other representations are the key factors. From this approach the language can be seen as a form of social act. This means that language creates definitions and also defines the acts. All in all, through language the reality is expressed. (Burr 2015; Gergen 1999.)
When social construction is used as an approach in a study, there are multiple analysing methods that can be used. One of them is discourse analysis and that is the main focus in my study. It is important to understand the concept of discourses and discourse analysis in order to understand the main ideas of social construction. Basically, in discourse analysis the focus is in cultural meanings and linguistic process which are providing those cultural meanings (Jokinen 1999). All in all, discourse analysis and social construction can be seen linked to each other by seeing discourse analysis a method approach and the social construction as a theoretical frame for the method. (Jokinen et al. 2016).
In order to understand the ideas of discourse analysis the concept of discourse is crucial to understand.
In all texts where the things have meanings, there are discourses and they can be found (Parker 1992).
Burr (2015) has very clearly presented the idea of discourse by saying that discourse is a conceptual
background on what our expressions can be understood. By following this understanding, in those discourses the identities are formed (Jokinen et al. 2016). These statements prove my choice of approach as social construction and analysing method as discourse analysis.
The approach of social construction suggests that the reality that is in the focus is not ‘pure’. The right way to understand the reality is to understand that reality is always meaningful and significant from some perspective. (Gergen 1994,72; Burr 2015, 1-8.) Naming phenomenon and different things actually means that the person is giving meanings for those things and phenomenon. Historical processes play a significant part in these naming processes because in interaction between people throughout the history, those ways of naming are born. The role of language in a discourse analysis can be seen by understanding the fact that language is not a direct reflection of the reality but in addition to that language cannot be seen as a detached part of the non-linguistic reality. The language should be seen in way that it is unseparated form reality, and the language and the reality are in constantly in interaction with each other.
(Jokinen et al. 2016.)
Jokinen et al. (2016) propose that in a study that uses discourse analysis, the hypothesis of social construction should be taken seriously. An interpretation frame in social constructionism is seen in the research subject choice, in the research question design, in the analytical tools development and in understanding of relationship between the researcher and the research subject. In this kind of study, those linguistic processes are chosen in a research subject and the results of those, where and which through our social reality and interaction is constructed. (Jokinen et al. 2016.)
2.4 Theoretical framework in this study
The main concepts in this study are multi-professional team and identities. Prior research has defined a lot of different benefits to work as a multi-professional team. To organize the team to be multi- professional it gives knowledge across occupational boundaries for the use of organization (Oborn &
Dawson 2010). In addition to analyse only professional differences, I am looking the multi-professional team from the team diversity perspective.
Team diversity perspective in my study means that I am going to analyse the different kind of diversities that can be seen in within the team or a group. I have formed a model where I present how I am going to look at different diversities. This model is presented in the figure 1. An extensive range of researchers have used a lot of different kind of diversity concepts and I am going to use those to form my own understanding on how to see diversities within a team or a group. Many researchers have presented two levels, dimensions or aspects of diversity. In my figure I have combined ideas by different researcher and formed three different diversity levels. I have named those levels as bio-demographic diversity, job- related diversity and attitudinal diversity.
Figure 1. Different diversity levels
The highest level of diversity in the model is the level which can be easily visible. Those are referring to demographic attributes and physical or biological characteristics, such as gender, age and race or ethnicity. This kind of diversity level is broadly recognized within different researchers (e.g. Jackson 1992; Milliken & Martins 1996; Harrison et al. 1998; Van Knippenberg et al. 2004). In different research this level is named differently. For example, Harrsion et al. (1998) used the concepts of surface-level diversity and Milliken & Martins (1996) refer to bio-demographic diversity. In my own model I am going to use the concept by Milliken & Martins (1996) which is bio-demographic diversity.
Bio- demographic
diveristy
Age, gender, race /ethnicity
Job-related diversity
Skills, knowledge, information, educational/functional background
Attitudinal diveristy
Personality, attitudes, values, beliefs
The next level in the model is job-related diversity. This kind of diversity level is also very broadly recognized in the research field and it refers to differences in skills, knowledge, information, educational and functional background (e.g. Jackson 1992; Jackson et al. 1995 Milliken & Martins 1996; Harrison et al. 1998). This diversity comes visible in prior research with different names which are, for example, task-oriented diversity (Jakscon et al. 1995) and job-related diversity (Simons et al. 1999). In this level I included the professional diversity (e.g. Mitchell et al. 2011).
The deepest level in this model is the level which refers to differences in, for example, personality, attitudes, values and beliefs. Such like in other two levels this is also seen in the prior research and with different names (Bowers et al. 2000, Harrison et al. 1998, Jehn et al. 1999; Milliken & Martins 1996). In this level I am leaning to ideas by Harrison et al. (1998) but instead of calling this level deep-level diversity I am referring to attitudinal diversity.
To understand the main ideas of identity concept I have used three different identity theories which are social identity theory, identity theory and self-categorization theory but mostly I am leaning to a social identity theory. With those theories I have formed a model that helps to understand the identity perspective that I am using in this study. This model is presented in the figure 2. In this model the identity concept consists of four main aspects. Those aspects include the concept of social identity, self- categorization, group or role based identities and in-group and out-groups. By understanding these aspect, it is possible to understand what identity is in this research context.
Figure 2. Identity concept by using different identity theories
The first aspect, which is social identity, refers to individual’s knowledge of his or her belonging to a social category or group (Hogg & Abrams 1998). I am going to use this point of view when looking at certain identities. Social identity helps to understand how identities work. This is referring to the concepts of belonging to a group and seeing oneself as a member of a social group. Because my study is focusing on multi-professional teams and their members this identity concept is important aspect.
The next aspect in my model is self-categorization. Turner et al (1987) have presented that the concept of self-categorization refers to the process in which a person can objectively see oneself and therefore categorize, classify or name oneself in ways that are related to other social categories or classifications.
(Turner et al. 1987). The similar concept and process in identity theory is named as identification. By understanding those concepts, it can be seen that through this self-categorization and identification an identity is formed. (Stets & Burke 2000.)
In-groups and out-groups are very closely related to the concept of social identity and self-categorization.
These groups are important to understand because individuals categorize other people that are similar to themselves and then categorize them to the in-group. Similarly, other people that are different from the
Identity concept
Social identity
Self- categorization
Role and group based In-group and
out-group
self are categorized to the out-groups. (Stets & Burke 2000.) By categorizing oneself to an in-group the social identity is created and that process is called self-categorization.
Last aspect of my model is related to different identity bases that are seen differently in social identity theory and in identity theory. In social identity theory the base of an identity is in group and in identity theory the base of an identity is in role (Deaux & Burke 2010). Even though I am mostly relaying on a social identity theory and understand the base of on identity from group perspective, I will also take into consideration that when people have certain identity they are acting through a certain role.
In this chapter I have pointed out a different kind of identity types that are presented by different researcher. The main way that I am understanding different types of identities in this study is presented in the figure 3. In this figure I have created a self-identity as core ‘self’ of an individual. Then I have pointed out that this core ‘self’ is created by using different kind of identities. These different kind of identities are divided into three different identity groups. Those groups are social identities, person identities and role identities.
Figure 3. Self-identity is constructed by three different identity groups
The concept of self-identity in which I am referring to is presented by Watson (2008). The process of identity work is in a crucial part of understanding the self-identity. Watson (2008, 129) has
Self identity
Social identities
Personal identities Role
identities
conceptualized that ‘identity work involves the mutually constitutive processes whereby people strive to shape a relatively coherent and distinctive notion of personal self- identity and struggle to come to terms with and, within limits, to influence the various social-identities which pertain to them in the various milieux in which they live their lives’. This conceptualization takes into consideration the external and internal aspect of identity. Basically, the self-identity is the internal aspect of the person’s identity and the social-identity is the external aspect of the identity. (Watson 2008.)
The group of social identities in the figure 3 refer to all the identities in which a person sees one self as a member of a certain group and similar to other members of that group. I have categorized organizational identity, group identity and team identity into the group of social identities. Within these identities a person is a member of a certain group in a rather obvious way. Professional identity is also very often categorized to be one social identity because in that person sees oneself as a member of a certain occupational group but I have a different kind of perspective for professional identity
The next identity group the figure is a role identity. I will use the definition of role identity by Stets and Burke (2000). According to Stets and Burke (2000) role identity refers to identity where the person acts to fulfil the role expectations, managing and discussing with role partners and lastly modifying the environment to control the resources which are the certain roles responsibility. In my model I have categorized the professional identity as a role identity because in this study I am highlighting the fact that in professional identity person acts through a certain role. In addition to that, all the other identities in which person acts to fulfil a certain role are also categorized to that identity group.
The last identity group is person or personal identity. The definition in which I am referring in this leans more to the definition of personal identity. Personal identity is related to personal values, goals and beliefs (e.g. Luyckx et al. 2006). In addition to that, Hart et al. (2011) have presented that the civil life is an important aspect in the personal identity because the sense of self in civil life is a domain of personal identity. Basically, this identity group is consisted of all the identities in which person creates a sense of self in a personal level.
Besides all the different identities, I am also interested in if there are any conflicts within these different identities or any identity threats. Identity threats are very often studied within a professional identity. The concept of threat to professional identity refers to perception of risk that a profession ́s knowledge and skills, work-related values or professional role is about to decrease (Steele et al. 2002). It is evidenced
that in diverse teams and groups professional identity threat can lead to increasing differentiation between own group and other groups, strengthening the categorization and stereotyping (Voci 2006). All in all, I will use the concept of identity threat to refer to a situation in which a person feels a threat to a some of his or her identities.
In this study the identity conflicts are important to take in the consideration since it is evidenced that individuals are able to use conflicting identities at the same time in the same social interaction (Shotter
& Cergen 1989; Potter & Wetherell 1987). One example where the identity conflicts can be found are between professional and organizational-based identities or between work related and non-work related identities (Ashforth et al. 2008, Greenhaus & Beutell 1985).
My whole theoretical framework leans on to the social construction. I have chosen the social construction as my theoretical approach because of the discursive perspective of this study and because the analysing method in this study is discourse analysis. Therefore, the social construction is a suitable approach to this study. Social construction is based on the understanding of reality as something that is constructed in the social interaction where language, conceptual frames, categories and other representations have a crucial role. (Burr 2015; Gergen 1999.)
By using these ideas as an approach the language is one of the most central thins and it is seen as a form of social action. Language creates definitions and in addition to that it defines the actions. All in all, social construction suggests that when we are using language we are expressing our reality. The way I am using discourse analysis and social construction in this study can be seen by understanding discourse analysis as an approach of method and the social constructionism as a theoretical framework for this method (Jokinen et al. 2016). The link between discourse and identity is presented in the next chapter.
2.5 Discourse and identity
Benwall and Stokoe (2006) have presented that identities can be discursively viewed in two ways. The first way is to see identity as a discursive performance or construction of identity in interaction and in the second way the identity is seen as a historical set of structures with regulatory power upon identity (Benwall & Stokoe 2006, 29). Foucault (1972) has presented the concept of ‘discursive production of
