Final Printing - Faculty Identity and Writing at University - Dissertation - LiliGallego

FACULTY IDENTITY AND WRITING AT
UNIVERSITY
Liliana del Pilar Gallego Castaño
Tutor: Dr. César Coll

Supervisors: Dr. Montserrat Castelló Badia
Dr. Antoni Badia Garganté
Department of Developmental Psychology

Doctorate Program in Psychology of Education
Barcelona
2016
DOCTORAL DISSERTATION
TITLE: FACULTY IDENTITY AND WRITING AT UNIVERSITY
SUBMITTED BY: LILIANA DEL PILAR GALLEGO CASTAÑO
In fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Psychology of Education
In the Department of Developmental Psychology,
University of Barcelona

Supervised by: Dr. Montserrat Castelló Badia
FACULTY IDENTITY AND WRITING AT
UNIVERSITY
Doctoral dissertation
Liliana del Pilar Gallego Castaño
2016
University of Barcelona
Ramon Llull University

Supervisors
Dr. Montserrat Castelló Badia
Image from the title page was designed by the Industrial Designer Edwin Gallego
Castaño. It represents Faculty identity and how it is individual, cultural and socially
constructed and developed throughout different elements that are contextual and situated
(conceptions, strategies, feelings, academic community and writing). All of those
elements are linked and depend on one another but each one performs a different role.
They are interdependent but separated at the same time.

v
Abstract
This research dissertation entitled Faculty identity and writing at
university consists of an empirical research undertaken as an attempt to relate faculty
identity and their writing at University. To achieve this goal we conducted three studies. In
the first one, we explored the relationship between faculty writing conceptions and their
feelings towards writing Sixty seven volunteer faculty members from Foreign Language
departments in different highly ranked universities in Colombia and Spain answered the
Writing and Feelings Survey, containing four Likert Scale type sections. The first, affective
dimension, consisted of a list of bipolar adjectives (feelings) associated with writing; the
second, genres, asked about frequency of use of written genres; in the third one,
competences, faculty evaluated their perceived proficiency in writing competences; in the
fourth section, good writing, faculty valued good writing characteristics. Exploratory factor
analyses were performed and subsequently, data were related through a co-occurrence
analysis. Results of this first study showed a three-factor structure for the four sections of
the questionnaire, associating: a) writing to feelings of demanding standards of writing,
satisfaction and importance; b) genres to research writing, technical writing and narrative
writing; c) perceived writing competences to the management of formal and technical
mechanisms, discursive mechanisms (structural aspects) and in a lower percentage,
composition process competences (related to positioning and readers’ implication).
Besides, participants conceived writing as demanding, but also as important and
satisfactory in their profession. In conclusion, being conscious of the importance of writing

a specific genre and perceiving themselves as competent writers are the variables that lead
faculty to increase their production of research writing genres.
The second study was developed with the same participants. In this case, we used a
different survey entitled Faculty Identity and Academic Writing (FIAW) to understand how
faculty identity development is related to a differential use of writing genres in the teaching
and research spheres of activity and whether this development follows different paths, on
the bases of faculty perceptions regarding what they consider their main goal at university
and their preferred sphere of activity.. In this case, a mixed-model combining quantitative
and qualitative data analysis was used. Results from the second study showed first that the
most often mentioned genres were written exams in the teaching sphere of activity. Second,
activities related to the research sphere, such as writing related activities and participation
in events were the least reported while evaluative activities were mentioned in all spheres.
Third, faculty’s perceptions regarding their main goal at university (research) were not in
alignment with their preferences (teaching). Writing genres used and activities reported
closely mirror preferred spheres of activity and mismatch faculty’s perceptions of their
main goal at universities. In conclusion, sphere of activity preferences relate to different
paths of faculty’s identity development.
In the third study, we explored possible emergent position repertoires about
teaching and research based on university teachers’ conceptions and feelings about those
two spheres of activity. Participants were 30 Faculty from Colombian universities that
answered a semi-structured interview. Information was analyzed through content analysis
by looking for faculty’s positions as teachers and researchers. Results showed the existence
of two main positions regarding teaching conceptions: teacher-centered and student-

vii
centered conceptions of teaching. Regarding research conceptions, we noticed that some
university teachers considered research related to the growth of disciplinary knowledge
while some others seemed not to understand what research is and implies. The latter group
related doing research to the improvement of the teaching activity and thus, considered
research as embedded in teaching. Finally, regarding the position repertoires linking
teaching and research voices, we identified four main prototypical repertoires combining
conceptions of teaching –as teacher-centered versus students-centered- and those of
research -embedded in teaching versus research related to disciplinary growth.
In general, results reaffirmed that identity and writing at university are social
situated constructs. Faculty still prefer teaching more than research and this fact, influences
the genres they produced that in most of the cases are also linked to the teaching sphere.
Additionally, misconceptions regarding writing and doing research might be affecting
faculty and their development as academics and, therefore, their writing productivity.
Finally, we confirmed that teaching conceptions influence research and research activity.
Feelings intensity acted as distinguishing elements to build prototypical position
repertoires.
Abbreviations
EPIC= Teacher Assessment and Critical Incidents Questionnaire
AWS= Academic Writing Survey
FIAW= Faculty Identity and Academic Writing (questionnaire)
RT= Research is embedded in teaching
RC= Research related to content and disciplinary
N= Number of participants
M = Mean, the sum of a set of measurements divided by the number of measurements in
the set
SD= Standard Deviation
α = Cronbach’s index of internal consistency
p = Pearson or probability associated with the occurrence under the null hypothesis of a
value as extreme as or more extreme than the observed value
KMO= Kaiser Meyer Olkin
r= Pearson product-moment correlation
U= Mann-Whitney U test
≥ = Greater than or equal to
< Less than
= Equal to
ix
Acknowledgments
Along the way, I have been supported by many people. First of all and most
importantly, I am deeply grateful for the support of my tutors Montse and Toni. Thank you
very much for your constant assistance, your feedback, for sharing with me your expansive
knowledge and expertise. Thank you also for your patience when I was down, blocked or
even lost. You both have encouraged me to do my best work. Thank you for being more
than simply tutors and adding that humanistic viewpoint needed to have an integral and
real teacher. You were right Montse when you told me at the very beginning that being a
doctor was not only writing a dissertation. I know my identity has changed a lot along this
road thanks to you and your unique and unforgettable way to lead, help, encourage and
take care of me.
I want to thank Dr. César Coll, my academic tutor because from the very beginning
he was helpful and cooperative. He has always helped me and be there when I needed him.
Thank you also Carolina Foundation for the economic support they gave me.
I also want to mention and acknowledge all the members of the SINTE-LEST
research group. In my entire PhD process, I have learnt a lot from you all. We worked as a
group on different projects. I learnt important things in every single section. I learnt while
listening to your ideas and suggestions, by working together, by reading what you have
written, by sharing reference sources, by attending and giving lectures together and also in
social events to raise awareness of what being a doctor represents. Special thanks then, to
Drs. Eva Liesa, Mariona Corcelles, Maribel Cano and Paula Mayoral.
Besides, I owe special thanks to the entire foreign language faculty who voluntarily
participated in this study. Likewise, I am especially grateful to Doctors Raúl Mora, Isabel
Borja, Carolina Bates and Wallace Edward McMullan who wisely guided me, supported
and helped me during my first year when I was alone. Without you and the way you
challenged me I would not have been able to continue and finish this process.
I would also like to acknowledge my fellow classmates in this doctoral program:
Mariela, Gaby, Faby, Anna, Nuria and Martha. I have learnt a lot from all of you and you
have been a good support during those unforgettable years of good and hard experiences.
Thank you for your company and for your friendship.
Lastly but not least, I strongly want to thank God, my beloved family, “The Sants-
Monjuic Family”, María Angélica, Annie, The 11th Community, Doña Tere, Francisco,
Blanca Estella, Clarita, José, Jhon Fredy, Claudia, Esther, Verónica, Gaby, Cris, Caro,
Blanca Mónica, Natasha, Julián, Rafa, Juan Pablo, Manel, “Matriarcado Universidad de
Caldas” and Shane (may she rest in peace). You have always stayed on me. I’m proud of
being part of this big family. I will not forget your support, your company -especially when
I was sick or down-. You were and are a reason to fight, get well and obtain this Ph.D.
xi
Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................ v
Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................viii
Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................. ix
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... xi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... xiv
PART I. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...................................................................... 16
CHAPTER 1 FACULTY IDENTITY AND WRITING PRACTICES ......................... 17
1.3.1 University teachers’ conceptions and feelings about teaching .................... 30
1.3.2 University teachers’ conceptions and feelings about research .................... 33
1.3.3 A dialogical approach to study university teachers’ identity ...................... 34
PART II EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ................................................................................. 38
CHAPTER 2 OBJECTIVES AND METHOD .............................................................. 39
2.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................. 40
2.2.1 Study 1. Faculty feelings as writers: Relationship with writing genres,
perceived competences and values associated to writing ........................................... 44
2.2.1.1 Participants............................................................................................... 44
2.2.1.2 Instrument ................................................................................................ 46
2.2.1.3 Data analysis ............................................................................................ 48
2.2.2 Study 2. Faculty identity through spheres of teaching and research activity
and associated genres .................................................................................................. 48
2.2.2.1 Instrument ................................................................................................ 48

2.2.2.2 Data collection ......................................................................................... 49
2.2.2.3 Data analysis ............................................................................................ 50
2.2.3 Study 3. University teacher identity: Four position repertoires about
teaching and research .................................................................................................. 51
2.2.3.1 Participants............................................................................................... 52
2.2.3.2 Data collection ......................................................................................... 52
2.2.3.3 Data analysis ............................................................................................ 53
CHAPTER 3 RESULTS ................................................................................................ 56
3.1 Results study 1. Faculty feelings as writers: Relationship with writing genres,
perceived competences and values associated to writing............................................... 57
3.1.1 University teachers’ feelings about writing ................................................. 57
3.1.2 Genres written by Foreign Language Faculty ............................................. 60
3.1.3 Writing and perceived writing competences ............................................... 62
3.1.4 Values attributed to good writing ................................................................ 65
3.1.5 Relationship between feelings towards writing, genres, perceived writing
competences, and values attributed to good writing ................................................... 67
3.2 Results study 2. Faculty spheres of activity and associated genres ..................... 69
3.2.1 Prototypical activities reported by faculty in different spheres of activity . 70
3.2.2 Genres faculty report writing....................................................................... 73
3.2.3 Paths in faculty identity development. Relationship between writing genres
and specific spheres of activity ................................................................................... 75
3.2.3.1 Faculty members’ perceptions of main university goals and preferred
sphere 75
3.2.3.2 Relation between genres and spheres of activity ..................................... 76

xiii
3.3 Results study 3. University teacher identity: Four position repertoires about
teaching and research ..................................................................................................... 79
3.3.1 What are the teachers’ voices that characterize teachers’ position repertoires
regarding teaching and research? ................................................................................ 80
3.3.1.1 Teachers’ voices on conceptions about teaching ..................................... 80
3.3.1.2 Teachers’ voices on feelings about teaching ........................................... 81
3.3.1.3 Teachers’ voices on conceptions about research ..................................... 82
3.3.1.4 Teachers’ voices on feelings about research ............................................ 84
3.3.2 What are the teachers’ set of the position repertoires regarding the teaching
and research spheres?.................................................................................................. 85
CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSIONS ........................................................................................ 93
CHAPTER 5 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS ................................................................ 106
References ....................................................................................................................... 112

List of Tables
Table 2. 1 Characteristics of the participants .................................................................... 45

Table 2.2 Scoring example section 1 ................................................................................. 46
Table 3.1 University teachers’ feelings about writing....................................................... 58

Table 3.2 Genres written by foreign language Faculty ..................................................... 61
Table 3.3 Writing and perceived writing competences ..................................................... 63
Table 3.4 Values attributed to good writing ...................................................................... 65
Table 3.5 Faculty feelings about writing, perceived writing competences and values
attributed to writing ........................................................................................................... 68
Table 3.6 Emerging categories for activities reported by faculty as prototypical of the
different spheres ................................................................................................................ 70
Table 3.7. Descriptive statistics on the frequency of genres use reported by Faculty....... 74
Table 3.8. Faculty’s perception of main university goals and preferred sphere ................ 75
Table 3.9. Differences between the use of genres based on faculty’s perceptions of their
main goal at university. ..................................................................................................... 77
Table 3. 10 Use of genres according to faculty’s preferred goal at University ................. 79
Table 3. 11Emerging categories for teaching conceptions in participants, definition and
example.............................................................................................................................. 80
Table 3. 12 Feelings about teaching, descriptive results and frequencies ......................... 81
Table 3. 13 Descriptive categories for research conceptions, examples and frequency ... 83
Table 3. 14 Faculty’s voices of feelings towards research at university. Description,
example and frequency ...................................................................................................... 84
Table 3. 15 Four teachers’ position repertoires towards the teaching and research spheres
........................................................................................................................................... 85
xv
16 Faculty identity and writing at university
PART I. THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
Faculty identity and writing at university 17
CHAPTER 1 FACULTY
IDENTITY AND WRITING
PRACTICES
Project Background and justification
Bearing in mind that the Colombian higher education has not had a previous
knowledge-based society tradition, in the last few decades The Colombian Ministry of
Education has been making a great effort to make universities more competitive
worldwide. The educational policies, General Law of Education (Law 30th, 1992) and
Law 115, of 1994, aim at giving the university the fundamental scholarly nature it should
have. These policies focus on the creation of a quality assurance system based on the
promotion of doctorate studies, research work and publishing as well as on the
accomplishment of such goals inside higher education institutions. However, the lack of
preparation of teachers to follow these recent policies, and the poor motivation to assume
new roles as researchers has caused some tensions in most faculty members in Colombia
and especially in those who belong to small and medium size universities. This is why
very few of them devote time to engage in research or publish what they have done. Thus,
this research emerged from the need to overcome this situation by exploring faculty
identity towards further scholarly development within and outside the university.
The information given might be useful to universities, so that a road map can be
designed to guide different practices regarding faculty’s professional development and
growth as well as to establish more coherent career development policies, and in this way
align them to the University mission and priorities.
In Colombia specifically, this research is of prior importance since, as said before,
national educational policies are open to globalization and world policies, - currently
focused in the promotion of excellence in higher education and thus, of research at
university and the development of research-based universities-. As a consequence,
Colombian professors are now required to increase their research and publishing activities
and they are assessed based on the fulfillment of those benchmarks.
There, doctoral programs are still scarce, many university professors do not have
a doctoral degree and few of them participate regularly in research groups or projects.
Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that their professional identity is more linked to
their position as teachers than as researchers, but there is no available evidence to confirm
this assumption. This is the primary focus of this research, to shed light on the kind of
writing practices and the spheres of activity in which teachers and researchers participate.
Ultimately, this study aims at contributing to help Colombian academics, students and
administrators to take the necessary steps to drive harmonic faculty identity development;
including both teaching and research positions and mastering appropriate writing
practices.
This research is mainly focused on studying foreign language faculty identity
through the analysis of their writing practices, the spheres of activities in which they are
involved, and identifying different positions they assume regarding the three components
of identity (conceptions, strategies and feelings) in those spheres. Three studies were
developed from a socio-cultural perspective wherein identity, spheres of activity and
writing are social and situated activities closely related to individual characteristics, the
context they belong to and also community demands in which they are embedded. From
the methodological perspective, a mixed-method framework combining quantitative and
qualitative techniques of analysis was adopted.

Topics involved in this research –writing genres, spheres of activity and the
academic identity- have been approached by previous research mostly in isolation.
Therefore, there is a lack of an integrative framework considering the study of those
dimensions together and their relationship to each other. This is the major contribution of
this thesis: going deeper into that relationship based on a social and situated perspective
and, additionally, providing specific analytical tools and an integrative mixed method
approach.
In what follows, the conceptual framework about faculty identity and writing from
social-situated perspective will be introduced.
1.1 Faculty identity, genres and spheres of activity
Faculty academic identity has been a topic of interest in the last few decades
because of the significant changes higher education has undergone, that resulted for
teachers in new roles and academic practices (Billot, 2010). Research has conceptualized
faculty identity as a self-referential representation of oneself, containing cognitive and
emotional manifestations (Day et al, 2005; Monereo et al, 2009). Additionally, from the
socio-cultural perspective defended in this thesis, identity has also been conceptualized
as a socially-situated construct. That means, that the construction of academics’ identity
is made up then by address (what others say to us), by attribution (what others say about
us) and by affiliation (to what extent our discourse resemble others) (Ivanič, 1998).
Particularly at university, identity is the result of what and how faculty understand,
perform and feel in their profession besides the discourse practices currently considered
in that professional performance (Beauchamp & Thomas, 2009; Monereo, 2010). Finally,
from a socio-cultural framework identity is dialogical since it is a process that requires an
interaction with other voices that results in the adoption of multiple positions of the self
(I-positions) in different contexts (Hermans, 2001; Akkerman & Meijer, 2011).
Another issue that has been largely discussed in the last fifteen years is the
relationship between research and teaching activities carried out by faculty is an issue that
has been largely discussed in the last fifteen years. Despite efforts displayed in several
studies to demonstrate they share some characteristics when considered communities of
practice (Brew, 2010; Griffiths, 2007; Healey,2005; Lucas, 2007), it seems undeniable
that teaching and research appear to be two distinct activities (Leisyte, Enders, & de Boer,
2009) with different policy, contextual demands, institutional expectations and cultures
(Deem & Lucas, 2007).
Research has also revealed that the social and cultural characteristics of
communities in which faculty regularly participate have a great impact on the
development of their professional identity (Bazerman, 1995; Camps & Castelló, 2013;
Hyland, 2002; Russell & Cortez, 2012). Identity development has been a topic of growing
interest in the last few decades when it has been progressively understood as a dynamic
and social process by which a newcomer becomes part of a more or less established
community (Akkerman & Meijer, 2011; Bakhtin, 1981; Castelló et al., 2015 Gergen,
1991; Monereo et al, 2009).
From this perspective, some studies have proposed reliance on the notion of
spheres of activity to explain the role that activities in which faculty tend to be engaged
have in their identity development (Castelló at al., 2015; Camps & Castelló, 2013). As
spheres of activity work as systems, they are shaped by rules, artifacts and specific
divisions of labour (Engeström & Sannino, 2010) as well as by the actions that individuals
and communities develop to achieve outputs.
At university, faculty participation in different spheres of activity is usually
mediated by writing, and the use of specific written texts, related to research or teaching,
is one of the most relevant ways by which faculty members professionally develop.
Research has shown that written practices, either in teaching or research spheres of
activity, require the authors’ position through conceptual and textual choices to make
their voice heard and different from others, which, in turn, contributes to the development
of their professional identity (Castelló & Iñesta, 2012; Ivanic, 2005; Ivanic, 1998;
Matsuda, 2016). Writing research has also emphasized the need to relate voice and
identity development to the written contexts -in the terms used in this study, to the spheres
of activity- in which writing is required, and the role that writing instruction and training
has in this development, especially regarding research writing (Castelló & Iñesta, 2012;
Lee, 2008).
The aforementioned studies have argued that a particular kind of action is
discursively manifested through written genres, understood as social and cultural
products connected to recurring situational demands (Castelló & Donahue, 2012;
Halliday, 1985; Miller, 1994). This conceptualization emphasizes that genres are always
integrated in cultural or professional contexts and are used for defined purposes specific
to these contexts. In this line of thought, faculty’s written genres might reveal the kind of
spheres of activity in which faculty are immersed at university, their priorities,

preferences, motives and objectives to be achieved (Lea et al, 2009; Lea & Stierer, 2011;
Lea & Street, 2006; Lee, 2013; Russell, 1997).
From a theoretical perspective, it is assumed that a particular sphere of activity is
characterized by some specific written genres associated with particular purposes. In
higher education for instance, the research sphere of activity includes genres whose
purpose is to disseminate scientific and disciplinary knowledge, such as research articles
or scientific writing, but also innovative and theoretical texts or reports (addressed to a
professional audience); whereas the teaching sphere of activity includes genres
specifically addressed to improve teaching and learning such as handbooks, unit
developments and other similar texts; a third sphere of activity can be considered, namely
the administrative and socio-professional sphere also called in some previous studies the
social academic sphere (Camps & Castelló, 2013), which includes those genres that serve
the purpose of maintaining social interactions in the academic context such as e-mails,
diaries, newsletters or administrative forms, among others (Nesi & Gardner, 2012).
Therefore, faculty perform several actions which entail the use of certain discursive
manifestations and written genres that are prototypical of specific spheres of activity
(Bazerman, 1995).
Although there is a broad and growing body of theoretical discussions about those
issues, only a few studies have attempted to empirically analyze the relationship between
the prototypical activities that characterize each of the spheres of activity in which faculty
participate and the written genres that the same faculty relate to those activities and shape
those spheres. This research paper is a unique contribution to the study of this interrelation
through a mixed method, thus integrating qualitative and quantitative data.

Some of the aforementioned studies have focused on characterizing the specific
type of genres faculty write and their experience throughout the writing process
(Bazerman, 1988; Connor, 2000; Hyland, 2002; Samraj, 2002; Swales, 1990). A high
number of those studies have focused their interest on genres such as theses or
dissertations, articles and grant proposals, and have devoted less interest to investigating
the nature and purpose of other genres usually related to other spheres of faculty activity
such as the teaching and the administrative and professional sphere. Besides, most of
those studies have approached genres with either a qualitative or a few others with
quantitative methods, but not with a mixed proposal to provide strong and varied evidence
to support their theoretical framework, which is one of the objectives of this investigation.
To our knowledge only the work of Hyon and Chen (2004) has been concerned
with all type of genres focusing specifically on the time faculty spend in writing the so-
called occluded or non-scientific genres. Based on the questionnaire answers of 106
NNES faculty working at different universities in the United States, they concluded that
most of the participants’ writing time was devoted to genres associated with teaching,
although these genres were also considered by participants to be the least challenging
ones, requiring minimal planning. In contrast, faculty acknowledged that they only
devoted a moderate amount of time to the writing of research genres because they were
perceived as the most difficult genres. Surprisingly, genres associated with administrative
and socio-professional activities were scored as the most time-consuming ones and placed
as medium difficulty, which led these authors to recommend further research on the socio-
contextual aspects of faculty writing.

1.2 Writing Practices, genres and emotions at University
Writing is one of the key competences for faculty that has been considered a
cognitive and also a social and situated activity. Since it constitutes one of the
manifestations of faculty identity (Castelló and Iñesta, 2012), to describe professional
identity of faculty or academics it is necessary to analyze their writing practices as
important elements in the development of their academic identity.
Based on the notion of genre as a goal-oriented, cultural and purposeful activity
(Halliday 1985), which is linked to social actions and recurring situational demands
(Miller 2009), several proposals have relied on purpose identification as a way to keep
genres linked to the objectives and characteristics of the activities in which subjects
participate and give them meaning (Bakhtin 1981; Bazerman 1981; Bazerman 1994;
Bazerman and Prior 2004; Camps and Castelló 2013; Chitez and Kruse 2012; Freedman
et al. 1994; Lea and Street 1998; Nesi and Gardner 2012; Robinson-Pant and Street 2012;
Russell and Yañez 2003). The recent work of Nesi and Gardner (2012), wherein genres
are grouped into families that are differentiated on the basis of their purposes, is a
paradigmatic example. Besides analyzing texts, these authors interviewed teachers in
order to understand the specific purposes as well as the circumstances of production of
each of the genres. This information allowed them to develop a comprehensive proposal
respectful with the notion of genres as social acts.
Moreover, we assume that writing some specific genres has to do with coping with
strong and, sometimes, negative emotions. Knowing these emotions and their relationship
to different genres can contribute to improved academic writing appropriation,

development of positive feelings about writing and promote an adequate identity as
academic writers.
Studies about reflective writing through the use of genres such as diaries, written
commentaries, autobiographies, narratives and professional reflections have proved to
help faculty understand their professional lives (Hargreaves 2001; Shapiro 2010;
Zembylas 2005). Some others have highlighted the role that feelings like commitment,
care, courage, compromise and fragmentation of personal time play in their profession
(Day and Leitch 2001). However, in most of those studies, writing is conceived as a tool
to express, explore or regulate feelings; it is hard to find studies focusing on feelings
associated to faculty writing.
In what follows, we review research focusing on feelings associated to research
writing and to the use of different genres, as well as on writing competencies and values.
The theoretical assumptions presented below emphasize the strengths of some recent
studies but also discuss some of the gaps that these constructs aim to address.
Studies focusing on feelings associated to research writing and to the use of
different genres are scarce and have just been developed with doctoral, post-doctoral
students, and early career researchers, whose context and writing practices share
similarities with those of novice faculty. In this area, Lonka et al. (2014) have focused on
Ph. D. students’ conceptions of writing and dysfunctional or negative feelings. Based on
an extensive survey, their results pointed out that experiencing problems in writing, such
as blocks and procrastination, perfectionism, and seeing writing as the result of an innate
ability, were related to negative feelings such as stress, anxiety, lack of interest and
exhaustion.
From a more qualitative perspective, Cameron et al. (2009) related the role of
feelings in Ph. D. and Post-docs as novice writers at the university to the development of
know-how and the strengthening of the self as writers. Findings showed novice
academics’ scarce experience in writing produced feelings of dread, doubt, anxiety and
fear, and that, in general, writing was perceived as a difficult and challenging process.
Those authors also emphasized the usefulness of discussing one’s feelings about one’s
writing to increase novice writers’ awareness regarding what good writing really meant
in order to reduce the negative feelings that appeared associated to the lack of knowledge.
They also claimed that academics are familiar with criticism but not with creativity, which
also could contribute to increasing insecurity, anxiety and fear. Authors suggested
generating more discussions about other more positive writing feelings such as
absorption, excitement, breakthrough, accomplishment and success.
Similarly, Carlino (2012) studied how feelings arose and evolved during writing,
by means of analyzing reflective notes produced by doctoral students participating in a
writing course. Results pointed out that learning to write involves experience of deep
feelings, both positive and negative, and also that having awareness of those feelings as
part of writing helped doctoral students increase writing competence and motivation to
write, dismissing negative feelings.
The few studies that have focused their interests in faculty writing and feelings
have also associated writing practices and identity development to writing values and
perceived competences. In this area, some studies from an ethnographical perspective,
have pointed out that dealing with new genres, such as e-mails, one of the most common
genres of faculty’s everyday writing, is an issue of meaning construction of new practices
that appear to be associated to specific values, which enable faculty to express academic
identity and reflect on their role (Lea & Stierer 2000, 2009; Lee 2013). From a similar
perspective, a recent study focusing on the value of writing undertaken in higher
education to writing for professional practice in social work concluded that there is
currently no clear progressive link between academic writing and the writing in
professional contexts (Rai & Lillis 2013). From these studies, and based on the analysis
of social, policy and university changes, new genres are identified as emerging associated
to specific values and new practices in academia, mostly in the social (narrative genres)
and bureaucratic areas (technical forms and academic activity reports) (Lee 2013;
Robinson-Pant & Street 2012).
Writing values have been also associated to competences and cultural practices
and the term writing culture has been introduced to refer to those educational genres,
instructional practices, expectations and required writing competences that influence
writing acculturation (Chitez & Kruse 2012; Corcelles et al. 2015; Prior & Bilbro 2012).
However, to our knowledge, there is a lack of studies connecting what we know about
writing feelings and associated values to writing practices and perceived writer’s
competences (Prior & Thorne 2014).

1.3 Identity and position repertoires about teaching and research
spheres
As mentioned, from a socio-cultural framework identity is dialogical since it is a
process that requires an interaction with other voices that results in the adoption of
multiple positions of the self (I-positions) in different contexts (Hermans, 2001;
Akkerman & Meijer, 2011; Beijaard, Meijer, & Verloop, 2004). At University, this has
to do with the development of different position repertoires that are mostly linked to
research and teaching activities.
From our perspective, and as we have already explained, teaching and research
can be understood as spheres of activity (Castelló, Kobayashi, McGinn, Pechar, Vekkaila,
& Wisker, 2015) that characterize professional university teachers’ activity and
development. This means, that although interrelated, each sphere has its own aims,
outputs, prototypical rules, particular artifacts and participants that make it unique and
differentiate it from the other (Camps & Castelló, 2013; Engeström & Sannino, 2010).
Teaching’s goal for instance, is to achieve students’ learning while research has to do
with producing and publishing new knowledge in a particular field. Research has mostly
focused on conceptions and feelings about teaching, while less interest has been devoted
to the exploration of conceptions of research. Moreover, studies have tended to focus on
one or another sphere and research on interrelation between spheres is practically
nonexistent.
In what follows we will review these studies with the ultimate goal of developing
an integrative framework to study faculty identity, which at university level is supposed

to be based in the harmonic development of both spheres of activity (teaching and
research).
1.3.1 University teachers’ conceptions and feelings about teaching
As mentioned, a considerable amount of research exists on university teachers’
conceptions regarding teaching activities (Kane, Sandretto & Heath, 2002; Kember,
1997; Prosser, Trigwell, & Taylor, 1994). Studies on the topic have demonstrated that
university teachers’ conceptions of teaching largely depend on their own experiences as
students and teachers (Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001; Trigwell & Taylor, 1994), and have
also proved that there is a relation between university teachers’ understanding of teaching
and students’ learning (Prosser & Trigwel, 1996).
In general, most research coincides -though terminology varies- on considering
two main conceptions of teaching: teacher-centered which is mostly focused on
knowledge-content transmission approach and student-centered focused on interaction
with students, and the facilitation of the individual construction of learning and
conceptual changes (Kember, 1997; Prosser, Trigwell, & Taylor, 1994; Samuelowicz &
Bain, 2001). Those studies have also found that teachers’ conceptions of teaching can
influence students learning and beliefs. As a consequence, they recommend teachers’
development programs should be focused on the promotion of teachers’ awareness of
their own conceptions and of the extent to which they affect students’ learning. They also
suggest that these programs should help teachers shift from focusing on teacher-centered
conceptions to student centered ones through raising the previously mentioned awareness
and analyzing the advantages of student-centered conceptions (Åkerlind, 2007; Gibbs &
Coffey, 2004; Kember & Kwon, 2000).
Research on feelings teacher experience during teaching, has not been as frequent
although it has been growing in the last two decades. Among those studies, and the
necessity of searching for a strategy to group, classify and organize feelings, we can find
authors who have tried to design either quantitative or qualitative-based proposals to
achieve that goal. The quantitative-based proposals have attempted to organize and
analyze some teachers feelings/ emotions based on data collected from inventories (TEIs)
manifested and classified them into positive and also negative feelings mainly in primary
and secondary education but hardly at all in university contexts (Badia, Meneses &
Monereo, 2014; Chen, 2016). In one of the most recent investigation, Chen applied a
questionnaire to 2,084 school teachers in two places in China. He proposed a structure of
five main factor-feelings in teachers (Chen, 2016): two positive feelings related to
classroom and collegial interaction (joy and love) and three negative feelings related to
educational policies, changes and imbalance in teachers’ lives (sadness, anger and fear).
Some other qualitatively focused studies have centered their attention on feelings
experienced by teachers in specific disciplines and typically areas of their professional
lives like reforms or interaction at work among others (Cowie, 2011). By interviewing
some EFL teachers working at Tokyo universities, Cowie found that they experienced
positive feelings related to students whereas negative feelings were experienced when
they referred to colleagues and institutions. Some other qualitative studies have grouped
participants or, used a prototype approach to classify and organize feelings. A different
approach was used by others (Postareff, & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2011; Rowe, Fitness &
Wood, 2015). Postareff and Lindblom-Ylänne (2011), for instance, interviewed 97
university teachers previously grouped into specific profiles. Their results suggested that
teachers with learning-focused profiles had more positive feelings towards teaching than
teachers with content-focused profiles who mainly expressed negative feelings towards
teaching. Similarly, Rowe, Fitness & Wood (2015) used a prototype approach to inform
on the functionality of positive feelings associated with learning and teaching situations
in students and teachers at different Australian universities. Feelings such as joy and
happiness were found to promote resilience while feelings such as interest, excitement
and love were found to extend social cognition. Likewise, a relationship between
confidence and content-knowledge that affects teachers’ performance in their workplace
was also found (Sadler, 2013).
The relationship between university teachers’ conceptions and feelings about
teaching has just been outlined. Findings suggest that there are significant relations
between how teachers approach teaching and how they emotionally experience the
context of teaching. Positive emotions are positively associated with student-focused
teaching approaches and negative emotions with transmission approaches (Trigwell,
2012), and emotions related to motivation of teaching and evaluation of oneself as a
teacher are positively linked to the conceptual change-student focused approach (Badia,
Meneses, & Monereo, 2014).

1.3.2 University teachers’ conceptions and feelings about research
As mentioned, studies on research conceptions and feelings of university teachers
have been less frequent although there has been growing interest on the topic in the last
decade. Studies have mostly focused on experienced researchers’ conceptions, although
in the last few years the scenario has been changing and some recent studies have focused
on PhD students’ and early career researchers’ conceptions as well (Brew, 2001; Stubb,
Pyhältö, & Lonka, 2014). Moreover, they have used a wide range of different theoretical
and methodological approaches, which makes it quite difficult to integrate their results
(Äkerlind, 2008).
Despite these limitations, the results of these studies can be grouped into four main
categories, two of them based on research orientation: (1) process-oriented; (2) product-
oriented, and the other two on the focus of researchers’ interests: self-oriented; (2)
community-oriented (Brew, 2010; Stubb, Pyhältö, & Lonka, 2014).
As for feelings about research, literature is even scarcer since many of the studies
on conceptions of research have not related them to the researchers’ emotional
experiences (Äkerlind, 2008). Those who have analyzed this relationship have typically
focused on the common classification of positive and negative feelings. Among them,
Äkerlind (2008) interviewed 28 academics at research based Australian universities and
noticed feelings related to research varied based on their experience being university
researchers. When research is experienced as a way to fulfill academic requirements
feelings fluctuate between anxiety and satisfaction; and when it is related to establishing
oneself in the field, feelings fluctuate from frustration to joy. On the other hand, when
research is experienced as developing oneself personally feelings are positive and include
enthusiasm and interest; and finally, when it enables change it involves passionate
engagement.
In McAlpine and Amudsen’s study (2009) early career researchers –who are
usually pre-tenured professors at universities- and their supervisors experienced both
negative and positive feelings related to conducting research. However, through group
work they could be agents who positively shape their collective identity as academics.
Finally, the study of Aguayo, Castelló and Monereo (2014) looked for feelings
related to conceptions and strategies regarding research in nursing academics.
Participants identified mainly negative feelings (insecurity, uncertainty and fear) when
referred to their research role that was related to a conception of research not linked to
their disciplinary background, and using research procedures unfamiliar to them to carry
out empirical studies.
1.3.3 A dialogical approach to study university teachers’ identity
This dissertation approaches university professional teacher identity from a
dialogical viewpoint. From this perspective, teacher identity is understood as a repertoire
of teachers’ professional positions, personally assumed and socially situated. The
potential faculty professional repertoires could be strongly influenced by several factors,
such as a particular university culture and institutional situated demands and
requirements, the nature of teachers’ professional activity, and their own knowledge and
beliefs. Consequently, from this perspective, the identification and description of

different kinds of position repertoires are crucial in our understanding of the development
of faculty identity (Hermans, 2011).
A repertoire contains an interrelated set of positions all linked together (Hermans
& Hermans-Konopka, 2010; Richardson et al., 1998). Each position can emerge from an
inner voice (internal level), a voice of other in the self (external level), or a voice of
individuals, groups or institutions in the outside world (outside level) (Raggatt, 2012).
This means that each repertoire of positions, as well as each position itself, could be
shaped by aspects that emerge from the individual himself and by factors which come
from social situations, contextual conditions and institutional demands.
Available research about teacher identity from the dialogical perspective
(Akkerman & Meijer, 2011) reveals that teachers’ positions could be defined by taking
into account the spheres of activity where teachers perform (Camps & Castelló, 2013;
Castelló et al. 2015; Monereo, 2014), the personal knowledge and practical theories held
by teachers (Stenberg, Karlsson, Pitkaniemi, & Maaranen, 2014), the teachers’ voices
about teaching (Badia & Becerril, 2016; Leijen & Kullasepp, 2013), and the teachers’
perceptions about feelings associated with teaching (Badia, Meneses & Monereo, 2014).
In this study, we approach university teacher identity through the analysis of conceptions
and feelings about their professional activity. We focus on two spheres of faculty activity:
teaching and research, which are commonly developed by all teachers (Castelló et al.,
2015). In each sphere of activity, we try to identify teachers’ conceptions and feelings
through their voices. We assume that teachers’ voices capture the discursive meaning of
each teacher’s conceptions and feelings, are a structural part of teachers’ thinking and
reasoning (Akkerman & Meijer 2011), and reflect the way in which teachers’ face each
sphere of professional activity. From this perspective, each teacher voice corresponds to
one teacher position since it accounts for a specific discursively expressed viewpoint
about how to carry out teaching and research activities.

PART II EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

CHAPTER 2 OBJECTIVES AND
METHOD
2.1 Objectives
As discussed in the theoretical framework, research on faculty identity and writing
at university is relatively recent and has basically concentrated its efforts on the study of
the teaching sphere (conceptions and feelings) letting aside studies about research sphere
(conceptions and feelings) and writing at university (conceptions, feelings and use). We
have also stated that most of those studies have focused on the study of these constructs
in isolation and have considered different methodological approaches instead of a mixed
method. That fact suggests that there is a lack of an integrative framework to explain
relationships between those constructs (associations, comparisons and possible position
repertoires).
The general purpose of this thesis was to contribute to the development of such
integrative framework by means of analyzing and relating faculty identity and writing
practices at university. More specifically we aimed to accomplish the following
objectives:
1. To find out feelings that faculty experience when writing in the academic
context and to explore their relation to writing genres, perceived competences and
values associated with their own writing.
2. To analyze to what extent genres used by faculty were aligned with the spheres
of activity in which they participate, and how genres related to shaping faculty´s
academic identity.
3. To approach faculty identity by investigating their conceptions, and feelings
about teaching and research spheres and the relationship between them in order to
inform about their repertoire of positions as teachers and researchers.
To reach these objectives three different although inter-related studies have been
developed. In the first one, we aimed to identity feelings that faculty experience when
writing in the academic context and to explore their relation to writing genres, perceived
competences and values associated with their own writing (Gallego, Castelló & Badia,
2015)1.
The questions guiding that particular study were:
1) To what extent are feelings towards writing associated with the use of different
genres, perceived writing competences, and values attributed to good writing?
a. What feelings do Faculty experience towards writing?
b. What kind of genres do Faculty affirm to write?
c. In which aspects do faculty perceive themselves as competent writers?
d. What are the values they relate to good writing in their discipline?
2) Is there any relationship between feelings toward writing, writing genres,
perceived competences, and values attributed to good writing?
In the second study, we were specifically concerned with the extent to which some
specific genres were aligned to the spheres of activities in which foreign language faculty
1
This study has been already published in the journal of Higher education: Gallego, L., Castelló, M. & Badia, T. (2015).
Faculty feelings as writers: Relationship with writing genres, perceived competences and values associated to writing. Higher
Education. First published on-line. DOI 10.1007/s10734-015-9933-3.
participated and how they related to their identity (Gallego, Castelló & Badia, accepted)2.
Our final aim was to understand whether faculty identity development might follow
different paths on the bases of faculty perceptions regarding what they consider the main
goal of university and their preferred sphere of activity. We assumed that different paths
of identity development could be identified and associated with prevailing spheres of
activity and written genres used in their daily work activity. To accomplish this general
aim, the following specific objectives were set:
1) To describe the prototypical activities that characterize spheres of activity in
which faculty participate, and the most frequent genres they report to write.
2) To find out different paths in faculty identity development by means of
analyzing the relationship between written genres and specific spheres of
activity.
Finally, in the third study we explored possible emergent position repertoires
about teaching and research based on university teachers’ conceptions and feelings about
those two spheres of activity (Gallego, Castelló & Badia, submitted)3. Accordingly, the
research questions we attempt to answer are:
1. What are the teachers’ voices that characterize their position repertoires
regarding teaching and research?
2. What are the teachers’ sets of position repertoires in the teaching and research
spheres?
2
This study has been accepted to be published in the journal Higher Education Research and Development: Gallego, L.
Castelló, M. & Badia, A. (2016).Faculty academic identity through spheres of activity and associated genres.
3
University teacher identity: Four position repertoires about teaching and research submitted to the Journal Teaching and
teacher education.
2.2. Method
This research adopted a mixed method design. This implies the collection and
analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data in three related studies in which a variety
of methods is used concurrently or sequentially, and results have been integrated to
produce more comprehensive explanations (Creswell, 2013).
Moreover, this design is consistent with the social, cultural and situated approach
adopted in the studies included in this research because it guarantees comprehensive and
rigorous explanations while minimizing the well-known challenges and weaknesses of
using single methods when analyzing complex issues (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).
Accordingly, we have collected and analyzed data coming from three main
instruments: two questionnaires (The Writing Feelings Survey (WFS) and the Faculty
Identity and Academic Writing Survey (FIAW) both Likert scale type; and a semi-
structured interview.
Data from questionnaires were analyzed through exploratory factor analysis,
Pearson correlations and non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test. Qualitative data was
analyzed through content categorization. In all the studies both type of results were related
or compared to reach richer and complementary interpretations.
In this section we will describe participants and procedures of data collection and
analyses in different subsections devoted to each of the studies developed. We expect this
organization will facilitate readers’ understanding of the particularities of each study but
at the same time will guarantee a clear overview of the whole dissertation and its scope.
2.2.1 Study 1. Faculty feelings as writers: Relationship with writing genres,
perceived competences and values associated to writing
2.2.1.1 Participants
Participants in the first study included 67 faculty of foreign languages who worked
in different universities in Colombia and Spain. Research-intensive universities in both
countries were contacted. Faculty working in foreign language departments in Colombia
and Spain hold a degree as bachelor and master or a Ph. D. degree in foreign language
education. Consequently, they teach either language or language didactics and pedagogy
for pre-service and in-service language teachers. None of them receive training in
research or writing support for publishing their own research although they are considered
experts in their discipline and are expected to conduct research and publish it. Country
rankings of academic publications situate Colombia in the position 53 in the world and
Spain in the 10 place. However, all universities included in our study share similar
ranking publication positions in both countries (between the first and the twenty-fifth).
Thus, participants from these universities were intentionally selected on the basis of the
following criteria: working as a university teacher, teaching not only language subjects
but also subjects related to teaching and didactics of foreign languages, having Spanish
as a mother tongue, having leaded or participated in research projects and published their
work in the last 5 years. Table 2.1 summarizes the main characteristics of the participants:
Table 2. 1 Characteristics of the participants
Categories Frequency Percentage

Gender
Male 24 35.8
Female 43 64.2
Age
20–29 7 10.4
30–39 21 31.3
40–49 21 31.3
50 or more 18 26.9
Academic degree
Bachelor 13 19.4
Master 39 58.2
Doctorate 15 22.4
The Writing and Feelings Survey was administered online. A letter explaining the
study was sent via e-mail to 311 foreign language faculties (both) in Spain and Colombia.
Researchers selected different universities, one in Spain and seven in Colombia, as a
convenience sampling considering there were some colleagues in those universities who
had previously received a document summarizing the main goals of this research and
then, were interested in the topic and expressed their willingness to cooperate. Later, that
collaborator and the other faculty were invited via e-mail. Their e-mails were obtained
from the Department of Foreign Languages in each institution through their official
websites. All of them were informed and invited to participate either individually or
through the collaborator colleague in their universities. Participants were given a deadline
of one month to answer the questionnaire. After that, two more e-mails were sent as
reminders. From those e-mails, sixty-seven foreign language faculties (22.34% out of the
311 professors convoked) responded to the invitation. All the respondents agreed
voluntarily on their participation and the anonymity of their data was guaranteed.
2.2.1.2 Instrument
The instrument used for collecting data was the Writing and Feelings Survey,
which resulted from the adaptation of two existing instruments: Teacher Assessment and
Critical Incidents, EPIC (Badia et al. 2014) and Academic Writing Survey (Castelló et al.
2012; Chitez and Kruse 2012). Content validity was assessed by four judges, experts in
teaching foreign language who knew the aims of the study as well as previous instruments
characteristics. The new instrument—Writing and feelings Survey—included four
sections that are described below.
Section 1: Affective dimension, which consisted of a list of 23 initial pairs of
opposite adjectives describing feelings towards writing (semantic differential list of
adjectives). The list was adapted from EPIC list of feelings related to teaching (Badia et
al. 2014). Semantic differential scores were collected using a scale ranging from 1 to 7.
Participants scored each pair of adjectives as observed in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 Scoring example section 1
Extremely Quite Slightly Neither Slightly Quite Extremely
Negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Positive
Section 2: Genres, which included nineteen genres (19) adapted from previous
questionnaires (Academic Writing Survey) (Castelló and Mateos, In Press; Chitez and
Kruse, 2012), and Nesi and Gardner’s (2012) classification of family genres used at the
university. Subjects were asked how often they used those genres. The response scale was
a Likert type, with 5 alternatives: 1, never; 2, occasionally; 3, sometimes; 4, often; 5, very
often.
Section 3: Writing competences, which consisted of a list of 14 competences
related to writing, and again, adapted from the Academic Writing Survey. Faculty were
about their confidence with those competences. The response scale was a Likert type,
with 5 alternatives: 1, Not confident at all; 2, Hardly confident; 3, Not sure; 4, Confident;
5, Totally confident.
Section 4: Good Writing, which referred to values associated to writing (12 items)
and was also adapted from Academic Writing Survey. Subjects were asked to assess how
important some specific aspects in their own writing were. The response scale was a
Likert type, with 5 alternatives: 1, Not important; 2, fairly important; 3, relatively
important; 4, Important; 5, Very important.
Faculty were asked to answer the items included in these four scales thinking
about their experience in writing in both native and second language. They were
encouraged to point out those cases in which their answers could differ when writing in
their native or second language. No differentiation was made by any of the participants.
2.2.1.3 Data analysis
As a first step of the data analysis, four exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were
carried out to reduce variability of those items included in each section. In each of these
four EFAs, a non-orthogonal solution with oblique rotation (Oblimin with Kaiser
Normalization) was calculated, due to the fact that there were significantly correlated
factors of each section (i.e., r > 0.22). In a second step, Pearson correlations were used to
establish the relationships between the factors’ scores of feelings about writing and the
factors’ scores in writing genres, perceived competences, and values associated to good
writing.
2.2.2 Study 2. Faculty identity through spheres of teaching and research activity
and associated genres
Participants in this second study were the same 67 faculty described in the first
study. However the instrument we used in this study was a different one.
2.2.2.1 Instrument
Data was collected through the survey Faculty Identity and academic writing
(FIAW) resulting from an adaptation of two questionnaires already validated in prior
studies, and exploring two dimensions: writing genres and spheres of activity.
The survey has four sections. The first one included some items that dealt with
personal information, academic background and professional experience. The second
section consisted of two items adapted from the Teachers’ evaluation of Critical Incidents
questionnaire, developed by Badia, Meneses and Monereo (2014). The first item
consisted of three multiple-choice question-types to identify what faculty considered to
be their main goal at university and also their preferred activity sphere: teaching, research
or administrative and socio-professional, the latter includes activities of knowledge
transfer. The third section included three open-ended questions regarding the most
frequent activities faculty performed to qualitatively characterize each of the spheres. The
last section contained one Likert scale item about writing genres adapted from The
Academic Writing Survey (Castelló & Mateos, 2015; Chitez, Kruse & Castelló, 2015;
Corcelles, Oliva, Castelló & Milian, 2015) wherein faculty were asked to report the
frequency of use of a list of genres provided; the Likert scale rated answers from 1 (least
frequent) to 5 (most frequent).
2.2.2.2 Data collection
The data collection procedure was carried out via e-mail. E-mails were initially
obtained through the participants’ universities’ web pages. Then, participants received
the link to answer the survey. The whole process of completing the survey would usually
take approximately fifteen minutes. Faculty were given two weeks to answer it and send
it back. After the allotted time, two reminder-e-mails were sent to faculty who had not
answered the questionnaire yet. One month later, analyses were conducted.
We used a mixed model data analysis that combined quantitative and qualitative
data analysis. The quantitative data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for
Windows, Version 21.0.
Data addressing the first objective were analysed in two ways. First, for the
qualitative analysis related to the activities reported by faculty as prototypical of the
different spheres in which they participate, all participants’ answers to the open-ended
questions regarding activities they performed in each sphere were transcribed. After that,
a content categorization analysis following the principles of grounded theory (Bryant &
Charmaz, 2007) was carried out to achieve a consensus regarding categories. The iterative
process of coding consisted of: a) reading all the answers several times; b) joining both
identical and similar answers; c) creating provisional codes; d) discussing and
reorganizing previous codes; e) grouping codes into categories. In order to guarantee
reliability, data were analyzed separately by the three authors and then discussed in
several meetings to reach an agreement. Later on, the frequency of quotes that referred to
a specific activity was counted. It is important to notice that sometimes there were
participants who mentioned more than one activity or in other cases, those who did not
mention any activity within a sphere. Second, we calculated descriptive statistics on the
frquency of genres use reported by faculty following the families of genre classification
from Nesi & Gardner (2012)

Two-step quantitative data analysis was used to analyse data regarding the second
objective. In the first step, a descriptive analysis regarding the frequency of faculty
perceptions of main university goals and preferred sphere was performed. The second
step consisted of comparing those spheres of activity mentioned by faculty with the most
frequently mentioned genres and employing a non-parametric statistical technique since
responses were measurable on an ordinal scale and comparable in size. In order to
determine if there were significant differences between the genres used by faculty, the
main goal at university and their preferred sphere of activity, the nonparametric Mann-
Whitney U test was performed between each pair of items included in both dimensions.
2.2.3 Study 3. University teacher identity: Four position repertoires about
teaching and research
This study was conducted in the Foreign Language departments at research-based
Colombian universities. The Colombian General Law of Education establishes that to
obtain a faculty position at Colombian universities you do not necessarily need to have a
doctoral degree. This is mainly due to two main reasons: there are not enough doctorate
programs in Colombia to cover all the disciplinary formation necessities and linked to
that, research training is provided in research-based masters programs. Additionally, there
are not specialized training programs for faculty development focused on learning how
to do research at university. Therefore, most faculty belonging to universities have
applied for and gained a position therein demonstrating a high level of knowledge in their
field and some years of teaching experience at university.

2.2.3.1 Participants
Participants were 30 faculty members who belonged to foreign language
departments at different important Colombian universities ranked among the 30 best
universities in the country (www.webometrics.info). They all were informed about the
project and accepted voluntarily to be interviewed after signing an informed consent form.
Regarding their demographic and academic backgrounds, they were mostly
women (66.66%). Most of them were in their 30’s and 40’s (70%), and can be considered
as experienced (60%) since they had been working as university teachers for at least 15
years.
2.2.3.2 Data collection
To collect data, a semi-structured interview was developed consisting of five open
questions, which were designed to evocate all teachers’ conceptions and feelings
regarding research and teaching. Questions were about what teaching at university meant
to them; how teachers feel teaching at university; what it meant to do research at
university; how they feel doing research and what kind of activities/strategies they
performed in research. Interviews were conducted face-to–face, were audio recorded and
lasted an average of 1 hour or 1 hour and half each. All the interviews were transcribed
verbatim.
Content categorization according to the principles of grounded theory was carried
out in three stages.
In the first stage, researchers coded all the information regarding first teachers’
conceptions about teaching and second, teachers’ conceptions about research using an
iterative process which consisted of reading the transcriptions many times and looking
for possible categories that were discussed and refined until initial consensus was reached.
Written transcribed fragments unrelated to the topic were removed. Every thematic unit
should be related to a single issue or topic, but was codified using two codes, subject-
based and thematic unit-based. For example, the thematic unit codified as [P26, 33] came
from teacher 26 and referred to the thematic unit number 33. Once categories were
established, four coders analyzed data independently and reliability was measured
considering the percentage of agreement between the coders. Results of agreement (90%
in teaching and 76.66% in research) confirmed emergent categories in both conceptions.
In the second phase, information regarding feelings was analyzed. We first did a
microanalysis and a text segmentation of faculty’s responses regarding feelings about
teaching and feelings about research at university. After that, each researcher separately
extracted the most pertinent excerpts mentioning feelings per participant, categorized
feelings therein by type (positive/negative) and also considering a specific appraisal based
on feeling intensity (A being a feeling with the lowest intensity and D a feeling with the
strongest intensity, be it positive or negative). Each participant was classified considering

his/her dominant feeling (either positive or negative) and the higher level of intensity of
that feeling. This first classification was made by considering the total number of
quotations related to each type of feeling. Then, independently coded data was discussed
until a consensus was reached regarding the categories. Finally, the four independent
coders analyzed the rest of the data. There was of 85% agreement.
In the third phase, we looked for relationships among the conceptions and feelings.
To accomplish this purpose, we identified all the possible combinations of the previously
established categories and organize this information in a table to establish possible
position repertoires.
CHAPTER 3 RESULTS
3.1 Results study 1. Faculty feelings as writers: Relationship with
writing genres, perceived competences and values associated to
writing
3.1.1 University teachers’ feelings about writing
As shown in Table 3.1, analyses resulted in 11 pairs of adjectives designated to
report the faculty’ feelings with respect to writing: ungrateful/grateful, bad/good,
sad/happy, difficult/easy, heavy/light, complex/simple, demanding/soft, superficial/deep,
secondary/prior, weak/strong, and ill time/convenient.
Principal component analysis revealed a three-factor structure, representing the
types of faculty’s feelings about writing (KMO = 0.694 and a significant Bartlett test, p
= 0.000), reaching an acceptable explained total variance of 63.40. Each factor showed
an acceptable reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.81 (FF1), 0.82 (FF2), and 0.58
(FF3), respectively. Table 3.1 shows the rotated component matrix with the set of selected
pairs of adjectives.
Table 3.1 University teachers’ feelings about writing
Mean SD FF1 FF2 FF3

FF1. Feelings related to
degree of satisfaction when 5.66 1.47
writing
Ungrateful-Grateful 5.40 1.91 0.877 -0.140 0.025
Bad-Good 5.97 1.59 0.845 -0.237 0.203
Sad-Happy 5.61 1.67 0.813 -0.171 0.331
demanding standards of 2.78 1.33
writing
Difficult-Easy 2.82 1.95 -0.319 0.856 -0.149
Heavy-Light 3.22 1.59 -0.158 0.854 -0.134
Complex-Simple 2.08 1.44 -0.112 0.786 0.023
Demanding-Soft 2.99 1.55 -0.112 0.737 0.287
5.92 0.92
importance of writing
Superficial-Deep 5.61 1.63 0.369 -0.131 0.706
Secondary-Prior 6.70 0.65 -0.075 0.134 0.703
Weak-Strong 5.63 1.50 0.123 0.000 0.683
Ill time-Convenient 5.75 1.50 0.419 -0.154 0.571
FF. Total scale 4.79 0.87
Means, standard deviations and factor loadings for exploratory factor analysis of Faculty feelings
associated to writing (n=67)
Representative factor loadings are in boldface.
SD=Standard Deviation.
The items grouped in the first factor that accounts for the 29.69 % of the variance,
referred to the following adjectives: ungrateful/grateful, bad/good, and sad/happy. Based
on their meaning, the acknowledgement of a benefit derived from writing activity (un-
grateful/grateful); assessment of writing quality as non-beneficial or advantageous (bad/-
good); and writing gratification (sad/happy), we labeled this factor Feelings related to
degree of satisfaction when writing.
The second factor that accounts for the 20.42 % of the variance was shaped by a
group of 5 pair of adjectives: difficult/easy, heavy/light, complex/simple, and
demanding/soft. Based on their meaning, those items can be related to writing effort
(difficult/easy; demanding/soft); the weight of difficulty that participants attributed to
writing (heavy/light); and writing complexity (complex/simple). Consequently, we
decided to call this factor Feelings related to demanding standards of writing.
Lastly, factor loadings grouped the third factor accounts for the 13.28 % of the
variance, in four pairs of adjectives: superficial/deep, secondary/prior, weak/strong, and
ill time/convenient. Meanings of these adjectives can be related to writing relevance
(superficial/deep; secondary/prior); writing weight (weak/strong); and appropriateness
(ill time/convenient). Taking into account these meanings we named this factor Feelings
related to importance of writing.
From Table 3.1 it is clear that Feelings related to importance of writing (M = 5.92;
SD = 0.92) and Feelings related to degree of satisfaction when writing (M = 5.66; SD =
1.47) receive the highest scores from faculty as compared to Feelings related to
demanding standards of writing (M = 2.78; SD = 1.33). At the item’s level, secondary/
prior (M = 6.70; SD = 0.65), bad/good (M = 5.97; SD = 1.59), and Ill time/convenient
(M = 5.75; SD = 1.50) receive the highest scores, while complex/simple (M = 2.08; SD =

1.44), difficult/easy (M = 2.82; SD = 1.95), and demanding/soft (M = 2.99; SD = 1.55)
receive the lowest scores.
3.1.2 Genres written by Foreign Language Faculty
As shown in Table 3.2, analyses resulted in 11 genres written by foreign Language
Faculty: Research project, literature review, research papers, case study, and research
problem, reflections about personal experience, narrative memoirs, Log Books/learning
diaries, written exam, taking notes, and technical reports.
Principal component analysis showed an acceptable three factor structure (KMO
= 0.766 and a significant Bartlett test, p = 0.000), that accounts for 65.04 % of the total
variance. Each factor showed an acceptable reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.88
(FW1), 0.65 (FW2), and 0.59 (FW3). Table 3.2 displays the rotated component matrix
with the set of selected items.
The first factor, labeled Research writing, accounts for the 36.37 % of the
variance. The items grouped in this factor referred to the following writing genres:
Research project, literature review, research papers, case study and research problem.
Faculty use their knowledge about the aforementioned genres to produce scientific
articles, which are a manifested need and demand in their field. This type of writing
encodes a systematic and standardized writing.
The second factor was labeled Narrative writing, and accounts for the 16.72 % of
the variance. The items grouped in this factor referred to the following writing genres:
Reflections/personal experience, narrative/memoirs, and Log Books/learning diaries.
Based on their meaning, those writing genres can be related to research as well but inside
the university—it probably implies classroom research—and strategies assumed by them
or demanded by others (authorities, institution or administration) to share what they have
done to the academic community.
Table 3.2 Genres written by foreign language Faculty
Mean SD FW1 FW2 FW3

FW1. Research writing 2.98 1.07
Research project 3.02 1.34 0.906 0.222 0.206
Literature review 3.15 1.23 0.843 0.182 0.221
Research papers 3.33 1.36 0.826 0.079 0.028
Case study 2.54 1.20 0.766 0.189 -0.129
Research problem 2.85 1.35 0.759 0.286 0.333
FW2. Narrative writing 2.39 0.87
Reflections personal experience 2.93 1.20 -0.023 0.791 0.193
Narratives memoirs 2.13 1.13 0.320 0.744 0.137
LogBooks learning diaries 2.10 1.08 0.218 0.738 0.104
FW3. Technical writing 3.25 1.00
Written exam 3.96 1.32 0.041 -0.048 0.761
Taking notes 3.37 1.37 0.087 0.304 0.745
Technical reports 2.43 1.34 0.457 0.386 0.668
Means, standard deviations and factor loadings for exploratory factor analysis of genres
written by foreign language Faculty (n = 67)
Representative factor loadings are in boldface
SD= standard deviation

The third factor, called Technical writing, accounts for the 11.94 % of the
variance. The items grouped in this factor referred to the following writing genres:
Written exams, taking notes, and technical reports, and can be related to institutional—
and in some cases— professional demands, such as evaluative reports on the performance
of students in a particular subject or in the teaching practicum or a report on the
implementation of specific curricular practices.
From Table 3.2 it is clear that Technical writing (M = 3.25; SD = 1.00) receives
the highest scores from faculty as compared to Research writing (M = 2.98; SD = 1.07)
and Narrative writing (M = 2.39; SD = 0.87). At the item’s level, written exams (M =
3.96; SD = 1.32), taking notes (M = 3.37; SD = 1.37), and research papers (M = 3.33;
SD = 1.36) receive the highest scores, while Log Books/learning diaries (M = 2.10; SD
= 1.08), narrative/memoirs (M = 2.13; SD = 1.13), and technical reports (M = 2.43; SD
= 1.34) receive the lowest scores.
3.1.3 Writing and perceived writing competences
As observable in Table 3.3, analyses resulted in eight perceived writing
competences by foreign Language Faculty: expressing accurately, finding the right style,
arguing a topic critically, writing a bibliography, citing correctly, inserting and
integrating tables and graphs, assessing the impact of a text on reader, and handling
writing problems and writing crises.
Principal component analysis showed an acceptable three factor structure (KMO
= 0.716 and a significant Bartlett test, p = 0.000), that accounts for 73.95 % of the total
(FC1), 0.67 (FC2), and 0.81 (FC3). Table 3.3 shows the rotated component matrix with
the set of selected items.
Table 3.3 Writing and perceived writing competences
Mean SD FC1 FC2 FC3

FC1. Management of discursive
mechanisms 3.89 0.79
Express accurately 4.02 0.88 0.900 0.097 0.342
Finding the right style 3.76 1.00 0.839 0.194 0.415
Arguing a topic critically 3.90 0.86 0.834 0.233 0.335
FC2. Management of formal and
technical mechanisms 4.00 0.78
Writing a bibliography 4.03 1.07 0.125 0.851 0.167
Cite correctly 4.16 0.81 0.476 0.811 0.108
Inserting and integrating tables and
graph 3.79 1.11 0.041 0.681 0.289
FC3. Management of composition
process 3.60 0.94
Assessing the impact of a text on reader 3.33 1.04 0.383 0.187 0.908
Handling writing problems and writing
crises 3.87 1.01 0.425 0.279 0.891
Means, standard deviations and factor loadings for exploratory factor analysis of writing and
perceived writing competences (n=67)
The first factor, called management of discursive mechanisms, accounts for the
42.30 % of the variance. The items grouped in this factor referred to the following writing
competences: expressing accurately, finding the right style, and arguing a topic critically.
Based on their meaning, those writing competences can be related to the management of
discursive mechanisms focused on convincing others by means of a clear and
comprehensive text.
The second factor, called Management of formal and technical mechanisms,
accounts for the 18.79 % of the variance. The items grouped in this factor referred to the
following writing competences: Writing a bibliography, citing correctly, and inserting
and integrating tables and graphs. Based on their meaning, those writing competences
can be related to what texts should accomplish to reach an academic audience.
The third factor, called Management of composition process, accounts for the
12.86 % of the variance. The items grouped in this factor referred to the following writing
competences: Assessing the impact of a text on reader, and handling writing problems
and writing crises. Based on their meaning, those writing competences can be closely
related to the management of the composition process, which includes the impact of
processes and outputs on readers and also on writers.
From Table 3.3 it is clear that Management of formal and technical mechanisms
(M = 4.00; SD = 0.78) and Management of discursive mechanisms (M = 3.89; SD = 0.79)
receive the highest scores from faculty as compared to Management of composition
process (M = 3.60; SD = 0.94). At the item’s level, citing correctly (M = 4.16; SD =
0.81) and writing a bibliography (M = 4.03; SD = 1.07) receive the highest scores, while
assessing the impact of a text on reader (M = 3.33; SD = 1.04) and finding the right style
(M = 3.76; SD = 1.00) receive the lowest scores.

3.1.4 Values attributed to good writing
As observable in Table 3.4, analyses resulted in 9 values attributed to good writing
by foreign Language Faculty: Clear thematic structure, basing the text on sources, using
convincing arguments, creative ideas, simple comprehensive language, figurative
language, supporting arguments with evidence, terminological accuracy, and critical
thinking.
Table 3.4 Values attributed to good writing
Mean SD FG1 FG2 FG3

FG1. Argumentative procedures 4.69 0.44
Clear thematic structure 4.79 0.41 0.886 0.081 0.445
Basing the text on sources 4.63 0.62 0.862 0.000 0.223
Using convincing arguments 4.64 0.51 0.804 0.185 0.244
FG2. Rhetoric mechanisms 3.83 0.65
Creative ideas 4.21 0.86 0.083 0.828 -0.004
Simple comprehensive language 4.24 0.80 0.290 0.699 0.200
Figurative language 3.05 0.99 -0.079 0.656 -0.032
FG3. Data-driven content
information 4.78 0.35
Supporting arguments with
evidence 4.75 0.59 0.255 -0.027 0.802
Terminological accuracy 4.78 0.42 0.177 0.117 0.747
Critical thinking 4.81 0.40 0.289 0.014 0.613
Means, standard deviations and factor loadings for exploratory factor analysis of values
attributed to good writing (n=67)
Principal component analysis revealed an acceptable three-factor structure (KMO
= 0.680 and a significant Bartlett test, p = 0.000), which accounts for 61.26 % of the total
(FG1), 0.56 (FG2), and 0.55 (FG3). Table 3.4 shows the rotated component matrix with
the set of selected items.
The first factor, called Argumentative procedures, accounts for the 30.60 % of the
variance. The items grouped in this factor referred to the following writing competences:
Clear thematic structure, basing the text on sources, and using convincing arguments.
Based on their meaning, those writing values referred to -in the participants’ perception-
the procedures that should characterize good writing in their discipline.
The second factor, called Rhetoric mechanisms, accounts for the 17.51 % of the
variance. The items grouped in this factor referred to the following writing competences:
creative ideas, simple comprehensive language, and figurative language. Based on their
meaning, those writing conceptions/values can be related to what faculty perceive as
important when writing in their discipline.
The third factor, called Data-driven content information, accounts the 13.15 % of
the variance. The items grouped in this factor referred to the following writing values:
Supporting arguments with evidence, terminological accuracy, and critical thinking.
Based on their meaning, those writing values referred to aspects required to produce good
academic texts from the participants’ viewpoint.

From Table 3.4 it is clear that Data-driven content information (M = 4.78; SD =
0.35) and Argumentative procedures (M = 4.69; SD = 0.44) receive the highest scores
from faculty as compared to Rhetoric mechanisms (M = 3.83; SD = 0.65). At the item’s
level, critical thinking (M = 4.81; SD = 0.40), clear thematic structure (M = 4.79; SD =
0.41), and terminological accuracy (M = 4.78; SD = 0.42) receive the highest scores,
while figurative language (M = 3.05; SD = 0.99), creative ideas (M = 4.21; SD = 0.86),
and simple comprehensive language (M = 4.24; SD = 0.80) receive the lowest scores.
3.1.5 Relationship between feelings towards writing, genres, perceived writing
competences, and values attributed to good writing
Factors emerging from previous analyses were correlated in order to find
relationships between variables. Results are summarized in Table 3.5

Table 3.5 Faculty feelings about writing, perceived writing competences and values
attributed to writing
FF FF1 FF2 FF3 FW1 FW2 FW3 FC1 FC2 FC3 FG1 FG2
FF -
FF1 0.80 b -
FF2 0.67 b 0.22 -

FF3 0.59 b 0.35 b 0.09 -
FW1 0.18 0.17 -0.07 0.32 b -
FW2 -0.04 0.03 -0.07 -0.06 0.23 -
FW3 -0.13 0.06 -0.33 b 0.02 0.28 a 0.28 a -
FC1 0.34 b 0.20 0.24 a 0.29 a 0.31 b 0.23 0.08 -
FC2 0.20 0.11 -0.03 0.45 b 0.36 b 0.02 -0.01 0.26 a -
FC3 0.27 a 0.15 0.17 0.28 a 0.41 b 0.04 0.25 a 0.49 b 0.28 a -
FG1 0.16 0.10 -0.03 0.32 b 0.17 -0.14 0.07 0.31 a 0.27 a 0.31 a -
FG2 -0.03 0.08 -0.11 -0.04 0.15 0.28 a 0.51 b 0.13 -0.03 0.24 0.12 -
FG3 0.19 0.14 0.04 0.26 a 0.12 -0.03 0.05 0.42 b 0.29 a 0.18 0.34 b 0.05
Significant values are boldface.
FF=Total scale; FF1= Degree of satisfaction when writing; FF2= Demanding standards in writing; FF3=
Importance of writing; FW1=Research writing; FW2=Narrative writing; FW3=Technical writing; FC1=
Management of discursive mechanisms; FC2= Management of formal and technical mechanisms; FC3=
Management of composition process; FG1= Argumentative procedures; FG2= Rhetoric mechanisms;
FG3= Data-driven content information.
a
p <0.05; b p<0.01
In the total score of faculty feelings about writing there is a trend towards a
significant and positive correlation with the all writing competencies, called
Management of discursive mechanisms (r = 0.34), Management of formal and
technical mechanisms (r = 0.20) and Management of composition process
(r = 0.27). These results suggest that perception of writing competencies might be
related to faculty feelings attributed to writing. In other words, faculty consciousness of
their writing competences might suggest experiencing positive feelings towards writing.
Feelings related to the demanding standards of writing are significant and
positively correlated with Management of discursive mechanisms (r = 0.24), and are
significant and negatively correlated with Technical writing (r = -0.33). Again, this means
that the management of discursive mechanisms is associated with faculty’s feelings of
writing as a highly demanding activity. Additionally, faculty frequently use technical
writing which is not perceived as demanding.
Feelings related to the importance of writing are significant and positively
correlated with Research writing (r = 0.32), Management of discursive mechanisms (r =
0.29), Management of formal and technical mechanisms (r = 0.45), Management of
composition process (r = 0.28), Argumentative procedures (r = 0.32), and Data-driven
content information (r = 0.26). This means that the importance attributed to writing is
linked and varies with the faculty’s perception of their own competencies in writing, their
conceptions of good writing and, at the same time, it is associated to writing genres such
as articles or research based-genres.
3.2 Results study 2. Faculty spheres of activity and associated
genres
Results are presented based on the specific objectives of the study. Thus, we first
describe the prototypical activities that characterize spheres of activity in which faculty
participated and the most frequent genres faculty reported to write. Second, we present
different paths in faculty identity development by means of analyzing the relationship
between written genres and specific spheres of activity.

3.2.1 Prototypical activities reported by faculty in different spheres of activity
Regarding the type of the activities faculty affirmed performing in each sphere,
results from the qualitative content categorization of the open-ended questions led us to
identify different groups of activities as prototypical for each of the spheres (Table 3.6)
Table 3.6 Emerging categories for activities reported by faculty as prototypical of the different spheres
Activities performed in Frequency* %

Description
teaching sphere N=89
Evaluation & assessment of Actions related to the students’ 18 20.22
students’ learning evaluation (assessment, testing,
giving feedback, tutoring, etc.).
Planning Teaching Actions directly related to 14 15.73
organizing before teaching such
as materials design or reading
articles among others.
Lecturing Teaching classes 53 59.55
Blank answers No activity reported 4 4.49

Activities performed in Frequency* %
Description
research sphere N=89
Writing related activities Actions related to producing 10 11.23
research reports, articles and
publishing,
Evaluation of research Actions related to journal 11 12.36

reviewing, evaluating and giving
feedback on research work
Research project related Actions related to project design, 34 38.20
activities data gathering and analysis.
Community research related Attending events to socialize 7 7.86
activities research results
Activities performed in Frequency*

administrative and socio- Description N=67
professional sphere
Coordination of programs Actions related to coordination 12 17.91
of teaching and professional
programs
Knowledge transfer Actions related to innovation and 8 11.94
in-service professional
development
*Quote frequency
As observed, for the teaching sphere the most frequent activity reported was
lecturing (59.55%) which instead of informing about the actions included in the teaching
activity, only referred to the names of courses or disciplines as:
Teaching languages –English-; teaching Literature in English; Teaching
specialized areas –phonetics- (P25)
I teach in the English area, English I and English II (P45)
English Didactics, English I, Translation Workshop (P62)
The second prototypical activity reported by faculty in the teaching sphere
was evaluation and assessment of students´ learning (20.22%). The following
examples are illustrative of their comments:
I usually have to correct tests and exams… (P41)
I generally evaluate and give feedback to my students (P11)

The third group of activities reported was planning teaching (15.73%) and
mentioned activities were similar to the following excerpts:
… As a teacher I plan my classes, I usually look for the topics I want
to include in classes, and also look for new strategies and ways to
teach. (P10)
I focused my work in preparation of classes and tests. (P62)
Participants distinguished four activities as prototypical of the research sphere:
research project related activities (38.20%), evaluation of research work (12.36%),
writing related activities (11.23%) and community research related activities (7.86%).
However, the 30.33% of our participants did not report any activities related to research
(blank answers). Surprisingly, in this specific sphere, activities were not presented in
isolation rather, faculty referred to them all or to at least two at the same time:
I do research in neology and support research in the doctorate program.
Additionally, I write scientific articles in different topics and usually
participate in events (P4)
I have to coordinate my research group, and work with students in their
training to research. I also supervise final research work in graduate and
master and doctorate theses and evaluate similar papers. I also write,
publish and evaluate scientific articles. I also give different lectures in
congresses or seminars. (P32).
I do research in different topics and have to lead a research group. I also
participate in national and international events as a lecturer, giving

communications; I have to coordinate an important Latin-American
network on… (P64)
Prototypical activities reported in the administrative and socio-professional
sphere were lower than the ones cited in the other spheres, and 70.15% of the
participants did not report any activities. When mentioned, faculty conceived that
the activities that distinguished this sphere were either coordination of programs
(17.91%) and knowledge transfer (11.94%):
I coordinate some courses to students, administrators and academics in
my university (P33)
Coordination of a program; curriculum design of the courses; hiring and
evaluating professors (P55)
“I work as a coordinator of the extension programs of Modern
Languages” (P7)
3.2.2 Genres faculty report writing
Descriptive statistics on the frequency of genres use reported by faculty are
summarized in table 3.7.

Table 3.7. Descriptive statistics on the frequency of genres use reported by Faculty
M SD
Taking notes 3.37 1.37
Seminar papers 3.15 1.32
Monographs 2.27 1.26
Research papers 3.33 1.36
Reflections /personal experiences 2.93 1.20
Technical reports 2.43 1.34
Summaries/abstracts 3.58 1.05
Internship reports 2.90 1.33
Proposals 3.34 1.15
Essays 2.79 1.32
Narratives/memoirs 2.13 1.13
Log books/learning diaries 2.10 1.08
Written exams 3.96 1.32
Research problems 2.85 1.35
Literature reviews 3.15 1.23
Elaboration of designs 2.40 1.13
Development of reviews 2.15 1.09
Research projects 3.01 1.34
Case studies 2.54 1.20
As observed in the table the genres that received the highest scores were written
exams (M=3.96) and summaries/abstracts (M=3.58). Additionally, faculty reported to
have also sometimes used genres such as taking notes (M=3.37), proposals (M=3.34),
research papers (M=3.33). Finally, the genres occasionally used, that is to say, the ones
with the lowest scores were narratives/memoirs (M=2.13) and log books/learning diaries
(M=2.10).
3.2.3 Paths in faculty identity development. Relationship between writing genres
and specific spheres of activity
3.2.3.1 Faculty members’ perceptions of main university goals and preferred sphere
Results related to participants’ choices regarding their main goal at university and
preferred sphere (see Table 3.8) indicated that 24 out of 67 participants understood that
the main goal at their university was to create relevant knowledge through research
(35.8%). However, only 16 of them (23.9%) preferred to prioritize research as their
personal number one sphere of activity. Participants understood that their second main
goal at university was to offer useful knowledge to solve problems in society 23 (34.3%)
but again contradictorily, the administrative and socio-professional sphere was reported
as the third and least preferred sphere by 11 (16.4%). Finally, faculty understood as the
last goal at university to transmit qualified knowledge through teaching 20 (29.9%) which
was the first sphere of their preference 40 (59.7%).
Table 3.8. Faculty’s perception of main university goals and preferred sphere
Faculty’s perceptions of main university goals N %
1 Create relevant knowledge through research 24 35 .8
2 Transmit qualified knowledge through teaching 20 29 .9
3 Offer useful knowledge to solve problems in society 23 34 .3
Total 67 100 .0
Preferred sphere
1 Doing research 16 23 .9
2 Teaching classes 40 59 .7
3 Developing administrative and professional practices 11 16 .4
Total 67 100 .0
3.2.3.2 Relation between genres and spheres of activity
The results summarized in Table 3.9 show that faculty who thought their main
goal at university was to create relevant knowledge through research revealed
significantly higher mean frequencies than faculty who thought their main goal at
university was to transmit qualified knowledge through teaching in using writing specific
genres such as seminar papers (U= 135.5; p<0.05), research papers (U= 132.5; p<0.01),
summaries/abstracts (U= 152.5; p<0.05), internship reports (U= 158.0; p<0.05),
literature reviews (U= 97.5; p<0.01), and elaboration of designs (U=147.5; p<0.05). On
a minor scale, but in much the same way, development of reviews (U= 163; p<0.05) and
case studies (U= 163; p<0.05), were also revealed to be significant.
When comparing the same faculty whose main goal at university was to create
relevant knowledge through research, with faculty who thought their main goal at
university was to offer useful knowledge to solve problems in society, none of the genres
was significant.
Additionally, faculty who thought their main goal at university was to offer useful
knowledge to solve problems in society revealed significantly higher mean frequencies
than faculty who thought their main goal at university was to transmit qualified
knowledge through teaching in literature reviews (U= 127.0; p<0.01), case studies (U=
145.5; p<0.05), and research projects (U= 152.5; p<0.05). On a minor scale, in research
papers (U= 156.6; p=0.07), and in technical reports (U=158.0; p=0.07).

Table 3.9. Differences between the use of genres based on faculty’s perceptions of their
main goal at university.
A. Research B. Teaching C.
sphere sphere Administrative
(N=24) (N=20) and socio-
professional
sphere (N=23)
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Significance
level*
Taking notes 3.46 (1.41) 3.20 (1.47) 3.43 (1.27)
Seminar papers 3.54 (1.25) 2.60 (1.19) 3.22 (1.38) A>B
Monographs 2.25 (1.11) 2.30 (1.53) 2.26 (1.21)
Research papers 3.75 (1.29) 2.70 (1.26) 3.43 (1.38) A>B; C>B
Reflections on personal exp. 3.04 (1.33) 2.80 (1.20) 2.91 (1.08)
Technical reports 2.67 (1.49) 1.95 (1.23) 2.61 (1.20) C>B
Summaries/abstracts 3.92 (0.93) 3.35 (0.81) 3.43 (1.27) A>B
Internship reports 3.17 (1.27) 2.40 (1.27) 3.04 (1.36) A>B
Proposals 3.50 (1.02) 3.40 (1.27) 3.13 (1.18)
Essays 2.63 (1.10) 3.00 (1.52) 2.78 (1.38)
Narratives/memoirs 2.42 (1.21) 1.85 (0.88) 2.09 (1.20)
Log books/learning diaries 2.33 (1.17) 2.05 (1.00) 1.91 (1.04)
Written exams 3.63 (1.56) 4.40 (1.05) 3.91 (1.20)
Research problems 3.17 (1.40) 2.45 (1.15) 2.87 (1.42)
Literature reviews 3.75 (1.22) 2.35 (0.93) 3.22 (1.13) A>B; C>B
Elaboration of designs 2.71 (1.08) 2.00 (0.86) 2.43 (1.31) A>B
Development of reviews 2.54 (1.32) 1.80 (0.89) 2.04 (0.88) A>B
Research projects 3.42 (1.32) 2.35 (1.04) 3.17 (1.44) A>B; C>B
Case studies 2.67 (1.13) 2.05 (1.15) 2.83 (1.23) A>B; C>B
*Significance level of 0.1 is used as a cut-off
As stated before, we also asked for the faculty’s preferred sphere at university.
Results regarding the use of genres based on faculty’s preferred sphere of activity are
summarized in Table 3.10.
Faculty who preferred doing research, revealed significantly higher mean
frequencies than faculty who preferred teaching classes in writing genres such as seminar
papers (U=219.5; p=0.059), research papers (U=218.0; p=0.058), literature reviews
(U=218.0; p=0.058), research projects (U=180.5; p<0.05), and case studies (U=212.0;
p<0.05). On the contrary, faculty who preferred teaching classes revealed significantly
higher mean frequencies than faculty who preferred doing research in the use of
reflections on personal experiences (U=205.0; p<0.05).
In addition, faculty who preferred supporting professional practices, significantly
reported writing more genres such as taking notes (U=51.0; p=0.07) and internship reports
(U=42.5; p<0.05) than faculty who preferred doing research. On the contrary, faculty who
preferred doing research, revealed significantly higher mean frequencies than faculty who
preferred supporting professional practices in writing genres such as research projects
(U=48.0; p<0.05).
Additionally, faculty who preferred teaching classes reported significantly more
use of written exams (U=126.0; p<0.05) than faculty who preferred supporting
professional practices, and the contrary happened in the case of internship reports
(U=76.0; p<0.01).
Table 3. 10 Use of genres according to faculty’s preferred goal at University
A. Research B. Teaching C.
sphere (N=16) sphere Administrative
(N=40) and socio-
professional
sphere (N=11)
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Significance
level*
Taking notes 2.75 (1.34) 3.50 (1.34) 3.82 (1.33) C>A
Seminar papers 3.63 (1.26) 2.90 (1.36) 3.36 (1.12) A>B
Monographs 2.69 (1.49) 2.15 (1.15) 2.09 (1.30)
Research papers 3.94 (1.06) 3.08 (1.49) 3.36 (1.03) A>B
Reflections on personal exp. 2.50 (1.21) 3.18 (1.13) 2.64 (1.29) B>A
Technical reports 2.56 (1.32) 2.35 (1.31) 2.55 (1.57)
Summaries/abstracts 3.75 (1.07) 3.53 (1.06) 3.55 (1.07)
Internship reports 3.06 (1.12) 2.50 (1.30) 4.09 (0.94) C>A; C>B
Proposals 3.75 (1.07) 3.23 (1.14) 3.18 (1.25)
Essays 3.06 (1.06) 2.85 (1.41) 2.18 (1.25)
Narratives/memoirs 2.38 (0.96) 2.03 (1.14) 2.18 (1.33)
Log books/learning diaries 1.94 (1.00) 2.08 (1.05) 2.45 (1.29)
Written exams 3.69 (1.35) 4.28 (1.15) 3.18 (1.54) B>C
Research problems 3.38 (1.36) 2.68 (1.35) 2.73 (1.27)
Literature reviews 3.69 (1.14) 2.95 (1.30) 3.09 (0.94) A>B
Elaboration of designs 2.56 (1.15) 2.33 (1.21) 2.45 (0.82)
Development of reviews 2.31 (1.08) 2.05 (1.09) 2.27 (1.19)
Research projects 3.81 (1.17) 2.75 (1.37) 2.82 (1.08) A>B; A>C
Case studies 3.06 (1.06) 2.35 (1.25) 2.45 (1.04) A>B
*Significance level of 0.1 is used as a cut-off
3.3 Results study 3. University teacher identity: Four position
repertoires about teaching and research
As we did in the second study, results will be presented according the research
questions formulated in this study.

3.3.1 What are the teachers’ voices that characterize teachers’ position
repertoires regarding teaching and research?
3.3.1.1 Teachers’ voices on conceptions about teaching
Teachers’ voices revealed two main teachers’ conceptions about teaching: (1)
Teaching is teacher-centered; and (2) Teaching is student-centered. Table 3.11 displays
definitions and some examples of these categories.
Table 3. 11Emerging categories for teaching conceptions in participants, definition and

example
Conceptions Definition Example

Teaching is Teaching is conceived as a To me, defining teaching is
teacher-centered long project linked to life, part of a life project. That is,
(N=19) motivation and realization teaching is a calling. [P2, 3]
of the teacher. Teaching is a Teaching at university means
formative process guided teaching students about their
by the teacher to train discipline. [P1, 9]
human beings to contribute Teaching at university is an
to society. Also it is exercise to train professionals
conceived as an action of for society; professionals with
knowledge transmission the specific profile our society
that requires selection, needs. [P7, 5]
transmission, evaluation,
etc.
Teaching is Teaching is a process either To me, teaching means
student-centered lead by students or a growing, building together
(N=11) process of building with my students. I saw them
together. It depends on as coworkers. They build with
students or on both teacher me. We learn from each other.
and students. In this process [P25, 1]
interaction, sharing with

and involving students in
class are highlighted.
3.3.1.2 Teachers’ voices on feelings about teaching
As for feelings towards teaching, final categorization resulted in 4 categories of
positive feelings, ranging from low-intensity (A) to very strong-intensity feelings (B, C
and D) and 2 categories accounting for negative feelings rated one in the lowest intensity
(A) and the other in the highest intensity (B). As observed, most of the feelings
experienced by our participants towards teaching were strong positive feelings (See Table
3.12).
Table 3. 12 Feelings about teaching, descriptive results and frequencies
Feeling type Feelings reported for Example

teaching
Positive Low or A Gratifying, satisfaction, It gives me great
(N=30) moderate* comfortable satisfaction [P19,
(F+M) (N=2) 11]
Strong** B I like it, I feel good, I I love teaching
(F+S) enjoy, … [P24, 6]
(N=28) C It is what I like the most, This is what I like
very good, high the most [P23, 15]
professional involvement
D It is what I am about, I It simply makes me
love it, It makes me happy… To me it
happy, it’s my passion; plays a major role
high professional but also in my life [P2, 10]
personal involvement, it is
a calling
Negative Low or A Hardness In spite of the fact

(N=0) moderate*** that academic
(F-M) (N=0) loading is hard
[P9, 7]
Strong**** B Anxiety, stress Obviously, there
(F-S) have also been
(N=0) anguishing
moments,
sometimes one is
stressed… [P6, 9]
* Positive feelings expressed by teachers. No details were added
** Positive feelings expressed by teachers. They differ from the low or moderate feelings because
they were associated with high professional and personal involvement
*** Negative feelings expressed in relation to the context where teachers have to perform
**** Negative feelings expressed as directly affecting the person.
N stands for number of participants
Note: Teachers expressed negative feelings. However, since those feelings were not the dominant ones,
frequency was not taken into consideration
3.3.1.3 Teachers’ voices on conceptions about research
Teachers’ voices were grouped into two categories regarding conceptions about
research: (1) Research embedded in teaching; and (2) Research related to disciplinary
knowledge. Table 3.13 provides an in depth explanation of the two conceptions and their
characteristics.
Table 3. 13 Descriptive categories for research conceptions, examples and frequency
Conceptions Definitions Example

about research
Research is Research is a continuous Research to me is a constant
embedded in and natural process process in which I have to
teaching (N=13) embedded in teaching learn and reflect to better
activities. There is an [P28, 15]understand what
overlap between doing happens in the classroom
research and “improving and look for better ways to
teaching”. From that do things, Thus, day by day
perspective, the focus of we can offer better teaching
research is teachers’ own and learning conditions.
teaching. [P28, 16]
It allows me to contribute
academically, with a product
but precisely based on
experience; [P2, 16]
As a teacher of …, I have
many concerns; some of them
are didactic and or about
how to change
methodologies…. [P1, 14]
Research is related At some point, faculty It is to carry out a systematic
to knowledge and separate and distinguish process of pilot questions,
disciplinary fields teaching and research. entering unknown aspects
(N=17) They clearly express in about certain fields,
which disciplinary field circumstances, facts; It is an
their research is located. It ongoing process of those
is a systematic process aspects.” [P22, 18]
with different steps, “It is a contribution to
addressed to produce knowledge society whose
knowledge and impact final aim is to publish a
context and society. scientific article” [P30, 12]
3.3.1.4 Teachers’ voices on feelings about research
As for faculty’s feelings regarding research, there were three types of teachers’
voices about positive feelings (A, B and C), and results indicated that participants reported
feelings of low or moderate intensity rather than of high intensity. They also posited three
kinds of negative feelings and tended to situate themselves closer to those with strong
intensity (B and C) (see Table 3.14 for details and examples).
Table 3. 14 Faculty’s voices of feelings towards research at university. Description,

example and frequency
Feeling type Example

Description
Positive A (N=3) I like it, good “But I like it, I feel I like
(N=12) it” [P28, 24]
B (N=7) I have satisfaction, “it is gratifying”, “That is
comforting, interesting; a really interesting
very good; need to keep process” [P27, 20]
working/to better salary
conditions
C (N=2) I am motivated, passionate “what happens is that
about it when you decide to
explore more the field you
feel more and more
passionate about
research” [P30, 31]
Negative A (N=2) I don’t like it (very much) “Being honest, I don’t like
(N=18) research” [P5, 26]
B (N=10) Negative, stress, … “Sometimes you feel a
little bit sad”; “It is
difficult” [P25, 24]
C (N=6) Frustrating, hard, … “Sometimes it is a bit
frustrating” [P22, 21]
3.3.2 What are the teachers’ set of the position repertoires regarding the
teaching and research spheres?
The final unification of all the information resulted in the identification of four
types of participants’ position repertoires regarding the teaching and research spheres (see
Table 3.15).
Table 3. 15 Four teachers’ position repertoires towards the teaching and research spheres
Voices Voices Voices on Voices Doing Participants’

on about research about research? identificatio
teaching feelings feelings in Activity/ n number
in research Strategy
teaching
1. Teaching as Teacher- F+S RT F+M No/ little Six teachers:
teacher-centered centered (embedde research 9,11, 15, 16,
and research d) 20,26
embedded in
teaching
2. Teaching as Teacher- F+S RC F-M medium- Eleven
teacher -centered centered (disciplin high teachers: 2,
but research ary) 7, 13, 17, 18,
related to 19, 23, 24,
disciplinary fields 27, 29, 30
3. Teaching as Student- F+S RT F-M No/little Seven
student-centered Centered (embedde research teachers:
and research d) 1,3,5.6,8,10,
embedded in 12
teaching
4. Teaching is Student- F+S RC F+S medium- Six teachers:
student-centered Centered (disciplin high 4, 14, 21, 22,
and research ary) 25, 28
related to content
and disciplinary
fields
Note: F+M= Low or moderate positive feelings; F-M=Low or moderate negative feelings; F+S=
Strong positive feelings; F-S= Strong negative feelings; RT= Research embedded in teaching;
RC= Research related to content or it is disciplinary.
The participants’ identification number corresponds to a number that researchers assigned to
identify a single participant. Researchers preferred to use numbers instead of nicknames.
Repertoire number 1: Teachers’ with a teaching position. Teaching as teacher-
centered and research embedded in teaching
In this teachers’ position repertoire, faculty described teaching as teacher-centered
and conceived research as embedded in teaching. That means that research was conceived
as a very natural process occurring every day in class since teachers considered they were
constantly analyzing every single occurrence within the classroom. They all had strong
positive feelings towards teaching (see Table 3.12). Additionally, all of those faculty
showed low or moderate negative feelings towards research (see Table 3.14). Singularly,
they reported several teaching activities and little or no research activity. This position
repertoire is shared by many of our participants and has two position variations with a
few differences.
In the first position variation, faculty members emphasized on their role as
knowledge transmitters in the teaching sphere, which was directly linked to professional
involvement. This is reflected in this excerpt: Well, first of all, teaching is to transmit
knowledge that we acquired in the career that we studied. It is like trying to look for the
reasons for certain behaviors as well as to search for something innovative, and give
response to problems that arise in class every day. This is an obligation that we, as
teachers, have. [P9, 1]. As for his feelings towards teaching he manifested: I feel very
good when I teach; I like to see my students’ achievements; despite the fact that academic
work is hard [P9, 5]. Regarding research conceptions, he added: […] It is like trying to
look for the reasons for certain behaviors as well as search for something innovative, and
give response to problems that arise in class every day [P9, 8]. And for his feelings
involved in the research sphere, he stated: I find it interesting but I don’t do it [P9, 12].
In the second position variation, faculty understood they should help students to
become good professionals instead of just transmit information in the teaching sphere;
moreover, they expressed highly positive feelings with respect to teaching which includes
besides the high professional involvement -as in the first sub-position-, a high personal
involvement also (see Table 3.12 above).
This is the case of one of those faculty regarding teaching: For me university
teaching means supporting students in and out of class [P5, 1]. Later, when she was
interviewed about how she felt about teaching she added: I feel happy, I love my
profession and I love being a teacher; I really like it, I never get stressed: I live in love
with my profession [P5, 11].
In contrast, when they were asked about research one of them stated: In my
opinion, research is arid, dry, and motionless. Honestly, I do not like research; I prefer
the classroom [P5, 19]. Another faculty claimed: For me, research means something very
simple; we’ve always understood research as something difficult or boring. I have always
had the concept of research as something like going further. Taking everything we have
in our environment, I mean research at the university level should be done every day. As
teachers, we investigate preparing the lessons, searching for the material, looking for an
answer but in a simple way. We investigate by looking for the best way for our students
to take advantage of the material, what a didactic class is and so on [P6, 21]. As for her
feelings towards research she just said: I feel motivated but I feel I have some gaps and I
need to improve [P6, 23].
Repertoire number 2: Teachers’ with a teacher-research position. Teaching as
teacher-centered but research related to disciplinary fields
The second teachers’ position repertoire was gathered by faculty who conceived
teaching as teacher centered but research related to disciplinary fields. In this teacher-
centered position, faculty varied a little by considering their profession as a big
responsibility assumed mainly by them, as teachers. They liked teaching from the very
beginning of their lives and considered it to be “a calling”. In this position, faculty shared
strong positive feelings towards teaching (showing high professional and also personal
involvement), but moderate negative feelings towards research. One of the faculty
members who showed that position affirmed when referring to teaching: I would define
teaching as something close to a life project. In other words, teaching is a calling, it
implies learning, teaching…, to make up theoretical and practical knowledge, a
knowledge applied to daily life with an entire tinge of values. I see teaching as a big
responsibility, but more than that, it is the desire to be able to develop the whole teaching
activity as a life project [P2, 5]. He also affirmed to have strong positive feelings:
Definitively, teaching is what makes me happy [P2, 15]. As for his concept of research
he stated: Research to me is something serious and systematic and it also refers to writing
of course. Research is an activity about how I get close to knowledge, to be able to apply
and to give it back to the classroom. It is to enter the depths of a theme, object of study,
obtain results and based on those, generate proposals to apply them later [P2, 21]. He
expressed moderate negative feelings linked to research: It seems good to me since it
allows me to take action in what I do and on the other hand it is very frustrating because
of administrative situations that discourage you [P2, 26].
Repertoire number 3: Teachers’ with a teaching-learning position. Teaching as
student- centered and research embedded in teaching.
The third teachers’ position repertoire was held by a group of faculty who
conceived teaching as student-centered and research as embedded in teaching. Teaching
was seen as a bidirectional or a joint learning process. They had strong positive feelings
towards teaching (see Table 3.12) and moderate negative feelings towards research
showing that they liked research because it helps to improve and transform teaching but
they were conscious of its difficulty (see Table 3.14).. All of them but one reported
medium to high research activity. One of the faculty members who shared this position
conceived teaching as: […] the power to grow, to build with my students whom I see as
people who build with me. We learn from each other [P25, 10]. Her feelings about
teaching were quite strong: I love it, I like it, I enjoy it, I think is one of my greatest
passions [P25, 17]. Referring to research she stated: For me research means to,
strengthen, understand and transform my work as a teacher. It is a process which is
somewhat difficult to understand at the beginning but once you get used to it you find the
way in which you can build and rebuild pedagogical practices. Then I think research has
made me grow as a teacher, it is where I have been able to understand aspects that at the
beginning I was not able to [P25, 25].

Repertoire number 4: Teachers’ with a learning-research position. Teaching is student-
centered and research related to content and disciplinary fields
Faculty who displayed this position repertoire conceived teaching as a process of
sharing, growing, interacting and learning together. They also had strong positive feelings
towards teaching (see Table 3.12 above). However, unlike the previous position
repertoire, they differentiated research from teaching and reported to have either average
or medium to high research activity, and expressed strong positive feelings towards
research (see Table 3.14 above). The following example is representative of this position.
Regarding teaching, she claimed: It is sharing, learning from each other, because I
believe that learning is not from the teacher to the student, it is vice versa, it goes both
ways [P4, 5]. It was noticeable that she liked teaching when she expressed strong positive
feelings: I feel really good; I love to pass on my knowledge and share; For me it is a
passion, and I love being in a classroom sharing knowledge with others [P4, 9]. As for
research, she stated: It is a systematic process, the search for unknown aspects of certain
issues, circumstances and facts. It is a continuous process of reflection in front of those
issues to gather information, to analyze it and reach conclusions [P4, 12]. She reported
strong positive feelings when she said: I really like doing research; I like to do it for my
mind; I would like to be only a researcher; it takes a long time [P4, 15].
CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Study 1 Faculty feelings as writers: Relationship with writing
genres, perceived competences and values associated to writing
The general aim of this study as stated above was to explore the feelings that Faculty
experience when writing in the academic context by examining them, their writing genres
preferences, perceived writing competences as well as values associated to writing.
A first consideration that emerged from results has to do with the type of feelings
that faculty associated to writing. The three factors of feelings offer evidence that writing
is perceived as a satisfactory and important activity, although demanding. As for feelings
of demanding standards of writing, results indicate that foreign language faculty are
conscious of and conceive writing as a demanding skill and also as a difficult and complex
activity, echoing previous research on the topic that confirmed the challenging nature of
writing (Cameron et al. 2009; Castelló 2007; Russell & Cortés, 2012; Teberosky 2007).
Results also indicate that most of the participants felt satisfaction with writing and
recognized it as important, both feelings that tend to be less reported in previous research.
Moreover, although writing was considered beneficial in the sense that faculty perceived
it as gratifying and good, they also declared it to be time-consuming and accordingly,
stressful, as mentioned (Cameron et al. 2009; Lonka et al. 2014; Shapiro 2010). As
pointed out, the fact that in our study feelings have been grouped in three factors help us
to better understand the complex interplay of feelings and writing. This is one of the
contributions of this study that enables to avoid simple interpretations and facilitating
more adjusted explanations regarding how writing particular genres can be associated to
specific feelings.
Regarding writing genres, the second consideration is linked to the necessity to
explore them in context. The factors that emerged in our results provide information of
faculty use of three types of writing genres linked to research purposes (e.g. research
projects and research papers), sharing disciplinary and technical knowledge (e.g. written
exams and technical reports), and writing for oneself and others or narrative writing (e.g.
reflections on personal experience and narrative memoirs). Those meaningful groups of
writing genres confirm once again that writing genres at the university should always be
studied according to their purpose and linked to a specific context or activity (Bazerman
1994; Camps & Castelló 2013; Chitez & Kruse 2012; Freedman et al. 1994; Halliday
1985; Lea & Street 1998; Miller 2009; Nesi & Gardner 2012; Robinson-Pant & Street
2012; Russell & Yañez 2003). The frequency of use of more technical writing related to
teaching activity (written exams and taking notes) than research and narrative writing
genres in the Faculty of our sample reinforces the idea of a teacher who conceives
teaching as the focus of her/his profession and probably as one of the most relevant
dimensions of faculty identity. This is probably a very particular characteristic of our
sample in which participants seem to be in transition from a prevailing position as
teachers to a new position as researchers, and consequently have to move their writing
practices towards research based-genres.
A third consideration is provided by results related to perceived writing
competences. Participants perceived themselves as more competent in the management
of formal and technical mechanisms and in using discursive mechanisms such as citing
correctly, writing a bibliography or expressing accurately than in the management of
composition processes. This seems to be a clear manifestation of participants’ focus in
mastering structural aspects needed to reach an academic and comprehensive text for the
audience. However, the lack of management of composition processes might impede
faculty to get an impact on readers. Consequently, these results provide insights into the
need of developing writing training programs addressed to faculty, specially centered in
composition competences so that they can be able of positioning, making visible the
author’s voice in the text, and the readers’ implication.
Regarding values attributed to good writing, results lead us to think that faculty
are aware of the importance of data-driven content information and argumentative
procedures in front of using rhetoric mechanisms. However, faculty might probably fail
to minimize the importance of supporting arguments with evidence, which is a clear need
in academic contexts and a requirement of the academic community.
If we relate results from feelings towards writing with frequent writing genres,
perceived competences, and values attributed to good writing, a significant picture
appears. It seems that faculty can experience positive feelings towards writing only when
they feel competent in doing so. Therefore, awareness of proficiency in competences in
writing can lead faculty to feel satisfaction when writing and consider it important and
useful in their profession, although they also experienced it as a highly demanding
activity.
Moreover, results help us notice that faculty might write specific research genres,
such as articles, more frequently, if they feel writing is important, perceive themselves as
competent writers and value data-driven content information and the appropriate use of
argumentative procedures as part of what good writing should include. This is a relevant
finding that should be tested in future studies. It might be referred to as a phenomenon
that has to do with what we could call the Conditional use of Genres, whereby awareness
of the importance of writing a specific genre and perceiving themselves as competent
writers, are the underlying variables that lead faculty to devote time and energy to increase
their production of research writing genres. This would be in line with some previous
studies that have also pointed out the relationship between productivity and well-being
(Lonka et al. 2014), which can be related to feelings of utility (importance) and
satisfaction in writing.
Within the educational implications of this first study, it seems advisable to design
training proposals aimed at helping faculty to be aware of, and deal with, the feelings
associated to research writing, in order for them to be able to cope with these genres
requirements. Furthermore, the awareness of the importance of writing can be enhanced
by reflecting with faculty (for instance, in writing groups and seminars), and highlighting
the existing but sometimes not perceived connections between professional and academic
community. We also acknowledge the limitations of this study. Firstly, the sample was
intentional and results may vary depending on particular characteristics of the
participants. However, the distribution of the sample was representative in age,
experience and academic background of Foreign Language faculty in both countries.
Secondly, this study relied upon faculty perceptions of their writing experiences and we
have not accessed their real practices. Future studies could address the relationship
between perceived feelings and competences and writing practices by assessing them
directly in context with a qualitative perspective. Finally, we are aware that although our
sample size (67) is acceptable and adequate because factor loadings are strong (Fabrigar
et al. 1999), future studies with larger samples are needed to confirm these results.
In spite of those limitations, we considered that this was a first attempt to map the
relationship between feelings towards writing, and faculty’s perceptions are important in
order to drawn on this relationship. Moreover, this study went beyond previous research
that concentrated only in establishing any relation between feelings and general academic
writing or between feelings and only some particular genres, competences, or good
writing. Firstly, as suggested in previous studies that claim to include a great variety of
feelings, we went beyond the usually discussed feelings of stress and anxiety (Cameron
et al. 2009) by using a semantic list of bipolar adjectives, giving participants the
possibility of weighting positive and also negative feelings. Secondly, the possibility of
studying and grouping a variety of genres from the perspective of their own users
identified the variety of written practices present in professional contexts more accurately.
Thirdly, if we advocate that writing is a difficult and complex skill, it seems reasonable
to continue asking teaching staff about their feelings, perceptions of writing competences
and writing values, which is considered in only in a small number of studies (Chitez &
Kruse, 2012).
Conclusively, from the perspective of the affective dimension, the identity of
foreign language faculties as writers depends more on satisfaction and importance of
writing specific genres and less on academic community demands. For the participants in
this study, writing reportedly played a crucial role in their professional lives; however,
they also hold that writing, particularly research writing, is complex, demanding, time-
consuming and consequently stressful.

Deeply rooted in the primary purpose of the study, the aim to contribute to develop
in- service training courses and proposals for the faculty’s improvement of their writing
practices was present. From the discussed results, we consider that these proposals,
especially in what concerns to research writing, should adopt a comprehensive approach
focusing not only on competences, but also on attributed values, and feelings associated
to writing.
4.2 Study 2. Faculty’s spheres of activity and associated genres
This study was undertaken to acquire deeper insight into how faculty identity
development could take different paths closely related to the research and teaching
spheres of activity in which they participate. Overall, results offered empirical evidence
of at least two differentiating paths in faculty identity development, focused respectively
on the research and teaching spheres of activity and related to specific written texts and
associated activities.
We also have provided evidence through participants’ answers of how faculty
identity is elicited and shaped by the prototypical activities reported in each sphere, the
most used genres but also by some other issues like context (Bazerman, 1995; Camps &
Castelló, 2013; Deem & Lucas, 2007; Hyland, 2002; Russell & Cortez, 2012) and
preferences or choices (Ivanic, 1998; Matsuda, 2016) echoing previous research in the
field.
Results confirmed that genres and prototypical activities reported by faculty
mediate their participation in the research and teaching spheres (Bazerman, 1995).
Participants made a clear distinction between teaching and research (Leisyte, Enders, &
de Boer, 2009) and were more oriented to teaching than to research sphere. Thus, the
genres reported as most often used were the written exams, clearly related to the teaching
sphere. Besides, faculty reported more prototypical activities in teaching than in research
and evaluation was the most common activity in the two spheres. There were also fewer
prototypical activities reported in the administrative and socio-professional sphere.
When looking at the relationship between written genres, activities and the
specific spheres reported by faculty, our results showed that the majority of participants
(60%) indicated that research was the major goal of their universities. In contrast, a
similar percentage (60%) preferred teaching to doing research. That means that in general,
what faculty perceived as their main goal at university was not in alignment with their
preferences, and this mismatch might generate tensions and contradictions in the
development of their professional identity that should be taken into account in
institutional career development initiatives. For example, academics who preferred
teaching also reported using written exams and reflections on personal experiences. In
other words, there is a direct link between the use of genres and personal preferences.
That fact pointed out that motives are crucial mediators in the faculty choice of genres
(Engenstrom & Sannino, 2010; Lea et al, 2009; Lea & Stierer 2011; Lea & Street 2006;
Lee, 2013; Russell, 1997). One chosen sphere of academic activity is demonstrated here
to shape writing motives. Additionally, some of the individual comments about their
preference for teaching illustrated what might be occurring below the surface. Some
respondents related their preference for teaching to their lack of education in research in
their institutions and in their context.

We highlight as one of the strengths of this study the mixed method design applied
that allowed us to collect qualitative and quantitative data to provide concurrent evidence
supporting the theoretical challenging framework presented in the introduction.
However, we are also aware that the study has several limitations. We relied on
the participants’ reports and consequently we cannot claim the genres are really used as
reported in real contexts (Castelló et al. 2015; McAlpine et al. 2009). Our final aim is to
develop training and educational proposals to support faculty writing and enhance their
professional development in the future, but we acknowledge that this study is just a first
step and more research is needed in order to be able to design such proposals (Castelló &
Iñesta, 2012). Further research is also needed to clarify faculty preferences, and to
confirm whether faculty write what they prefer more than what they perceive is required
or expected of them; from our results it seems clear that preferences for a specific sphere
of activity are related to the predominance of activities undertaken in that sphere and
therefore, to writing some types of genres above others. Besides, further studies should
consider if the differences between contexts, institutions or disciplines also echo our
results.
Finally, the role of institutions also deserves some investigation since they might
indirectly promote faculty investment of time to produce certain type of written
documents (Hyon & Chen, 2004). Reflecting on institutional policies where faculty
participate and on the promotion of writing in all the spheres of activity at university
might contribute to further gain equilibrium in faculty written production and identity
development.
4.3 Study 3. University teachers identity: Four position
repertoires about teaching and research
The main aim of this study was to approach university teacher identity by
identifying faculty position repertories and voices based on conceptions and feelings
related to two spheres of professional activity: teaching and research. Ultimately, we were
interested in looking for interrelationship between the prototypical positions in each of
these spheres (Brew, 2003).
As for the teaching conceptions our results echo what other studies have
previously found about the existence of two main positions: teacher-centered and
student-centered conceptions of teaching (Kane, Sandretto & Heath, 2002; Kember,
1997; Prosser, Trigwell & Taylor, 1994; Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001). Regarding research
conceptions, we noticed that some university teachers considered research to be related
to the growth of disciplinary knowledge while some others seemed not to understand what
research is and implies. The latter group related doing research to the bettering of the
teaching activity and thus, considered research to be embedded in teaching.
This research-embedded in teaching conception is a surprising result, differing
from previous research on this topic (Brew, 2001; Kember, 1997; Lingard, Schryer,
Spafford & Campbell, 2007; Meyer, Shanahan & Laugksch, 2005; 2007; Pitcher; 2011;
Pitcher & Åkerlind, 2009; Stubb, Pyhältö & Lonka, 2014). We propose that those
teachers’ voices regarding research may be contemplated as pseudo conceptions of
research, since they do not refer properly to the development of empirical or theoretical
research studies.
The main contribution of this study is the identification and description of four
main prototypical repertoires, which link teaching and research voices. Some available
studies have already underlined the relation between teachers’ teaching conceptions and
feelings (Trigwell, 2012), and between teachers’ conceptions about teaching and
conceptions about research (Brew, 2003; Jusoh & Abidin, 2012; Prosser et al., 2008;
Simons & Elen, 2007; Visser-Wijnveen et al, 2009). Further, our study properly
interrelates all issues using the dialogical approach to study university teachers’ identity.
Then, it indirectly echoes Postareff & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2011 and Sadler, 2013 since
they found a relationship between feelings and learning or content knowledge positions
as we have found as part of our repertoires.
Another closely linked contribution is the way we approached the analysis of the
interrelationship between all university teachers’ positions, in two directions. Firstly, by
means of developing a qualitative proposal to measure feeling intensity; most of the
previous studies only classified feelings into positive and negative when analyzing them
in the construction of identity (Åkerlind, 2008; McAlpine & Amudsen, 2009) and
professional involvement (Åkerlind, 2005; 2008). Our proposal offers a more
discriminant and reliable proposal to measure the impact of feelings both in teaching and
research activities. Secondly, whereas certain studies have shown how teachers’ positions
can be identified (Stenberg, Karlsson, Pitkaniemi, & Maaranen, 2014), little is known
about how these teachers’ positions can be embedded in some kind of structural
organization, such as position repertories (Rowe, Fitness & Wood, 2015).

These findings allow us to consider several implications for teacher education.
Since teacher identity is a wider theoretical construct than others like teachers’
conceptions, teachers’ approaches or teachers’ beliefs, these four teachers’ position
repertoires have more explanatory potential regarding teachers’ professional
development. For example, taking into account teachers’ position repertoires,
professional identity development should be seen as the result of an ongoing change of
four types of voices, which not only change independently but also weave together to
create a well-organized and interrelated combination of teachers’ positions.
This study has two main limitations. Firstly, we are aware that the data collected
are only extracted from teacher talk, and are not sensitive enough to reflect current
faculty’s professional teaching and research activities. Secondly, since findings are
strongly related to a limited amount of faculty from a specific disciplinary field, they are
not representative of the diversity of university cultures of research. Further research
could expand and diversify the number of participants, looking at research-based
universities and in order to identify alternative faculty’s position repertoires about
teaching and research.

CHAPTER 5 OVERALL
CONCLUSIONS
This research was aimed at approaching faculty identity by exploring whether
there was a relationship between this construct and writing at university. Those constructs
have been addressed from different perspectives –qualitative and quantitative- but
research was lacking from an integrated framework based on a mixed-method approach
to ensure some of the previous literature findings and better explain what we understand
about faculty and academics identity and how it is related with feelings and writing
practices. To accomplish these aims, three general objectives were stated in the three
different research studies developed and detailed in the last chapters. The empirical results
-being chapter specific- were provided within the respective chapters. Therefore, in this
section we offer a synthesis thereof based on the established objectives of this study.
First, we wanted to determine the genres used by faculty in the different spheres
of activity and their conceptions and feelings about writing. Additionally, we wanted to
see if all of those elements could be associated to specific and particular feelings towards
those written practices. From the first study, we concluded firstly that to our faculty
participants writing at university was important and demanding, although, they needed to
feel satisfaction when writing. Secondly, faculty writing practices were mainly focused
on technical and narrative writing. Thirdly, participants perceived their writing
competences as more closely related to the management of formal and technical
mechanisms and to discursive mechanisms (structural aspects) than to composition
processes competences (positioning and readers’ implication aspects). Finally, they
associated good writing to data-driven content information, argumentative procedures
and rhetoric mechanisms. In this first study, we discussed an association between genres,
conceptions of writing and feelings about it. Overall, results offer educational
implications that might positively affect faculty and therefore increase their production
of research writing.
Second, we also aimed at understanding to what extent those genres used by
faculty were aligned with the spheres of activity in which they participate (teaching,
research, and social-academic spheres) and how such genres ultimately related to shaping
faculty´s academic identity. We noticed that genres were aligned with faculty spheres of
activity in a complex way. For example, faculty’s perceptions of what should be their
main goal at university (research) was not congruent with what they preferred (teaching).
Moreover, their writing practices, revealed by the most used genres (written exams and
summaries/abstracts), were mainly associated with their preferred sphere (teaching).
Additionally, writing related activities and participation in events, associated with the
research sphere, were the least reported activities.
Finally, based on the previous results we explored prototypical position
repertoires about teaching and research spheres through the help of faculty conceptions,
and feelings about teaching and research spheres at university –which were revealed to
be the most significant spheres in which they participated. Four main positions were
shown by participants: two positions referred to their conceptions of teaching (teacher-
centered and student-centered) and the two others referred to their conceptions of
research: RT (research embedded in teaching) and RC (research related to content or
disciplinary). We also found that intensity in feelings and the extent of activities developed
in research were differentiating elements to establish four prototypical position
repertoires: Teachers’ position repertoires number 1. Teaching as teacher-centered and
research as embedded in teaching: Faculty there did no or very little research. Teachers’
position repertoires number 2. Teaching as teacher centered but research as related to
content and disciplinary fields. Teachers’ position repertoires number 3. Teaching as
student- centered and research as embedded in teaching; faculty assuming those two
positions did a low or medium amount of research and because of that these faculty could
be considered to be in transition towards the next position. Teachers’ position repertoires
number 4. Teaching is student-centered and research is related to content and
disciplinary fields. They all reported a high level of activities in research.
As reported, the study of those two constructs from the social theory is a relatively
recent phenomenon and this is why this research resulted in an innovative approach.
Throughout the different studies it has been confirmed that both identity and writing are
socio-cultural and situated constructs that are interrelated at university. Similarly, we
could also affirm that faculty’s conceptions about spheres of activity and their writing
related activities and necessities have been in some cases misinterpreted, and this situation
might impact issues crucial in university contexts such as scientific productivity and
faculty’s research orientation.
The results provided are significant in the construction of faculty identity and we
can draw some important conclusions from this research: (1) Faculty are aware of the
importance and satisfaction that writing could bring at university. (2) Misunderstandings
regarding how the most important competences in writing are understood (such as the
idea that structural aspects are more relevant than showing author’s position or
considering readers) and also regarding what good writing represents (such as lessening
the importance of argumentation) might constitute a barrier for faculty writing, which, in
turn, could negatively affect writing production at university contexts. (3) Feelings affect
positively written production at university. (4) Faculty’s preference for teaching writing
genres despite their acknowledgment of the relevance of research suggests that writing
choices at university should be carefully explored since they reveal important aspects of
faculty’s identity. (5) Results faculty reported as part of their writing practices (technical
and narrative writing), seem contradictory. However, their misinterpretations in what
should be the most important writing competences (structural aspects rather than
positioning and reader implication) and also in good writing (highlighting more discourse
structure than argumentation) confirmed that they are using more teaching genres and
also their need of training in academic writing. (6) Faculty seems to be unaware of the
need to devote time to writing and participation in events as part of the activities included
in the research sphere. (7) Teacher-centered prototypical position repertoires could
impede approaching and writing research. (8). Finally, it was noticed that some
participants were in transition in terms of developing a scholarly identity. Those particular
cases have a teacher-centered conception of teaching, but high positive feelings towards
teaching and hold PhD degrees. This phenomenon gives important insights for future
faculty’s development programs addressed to transit from exclusively teacher-oriented
positions to research-oriented positions.
As mentioned, this research also makes a methodological contribution since a
mixed-method approach was developed that could be further developed in future studies
to have an integral approximation to the two constructs: identity and writing at university.
This dissertation, of course, has some limitations. The first is that participation
being a voluntary issue, selection–or control- of profiles of participants was impossible,
as also was to get enough participants to generalize some results. Therefore, these results
are context-dependent. However, this could be a good contribution in Spain and
especially in Latin-American countries where there is a lack of support and training of
research and writing at university that might explain some of the pseudo-conceptions of
research we found in those contexts.
We strongly recommend further research to develop longitudinal studies to verify
whether faculty conceptions are evolving coherently with their practices at university. We
are also conscious of the need of educational proposals to overcome what has been
diagnosed to contribute to faculty professional development in their transition from
teacher-based profiles to teacher-researcher based profiles. That means a need to focus
on identifying particular or prototypical trajectories and risk transitions in order to better
understand and facilitate academic identity development.

References
Aguayo, M., Castelló, M., & Monereo, C. (2014). The identity of the nursing academic:
between education and research. [La identidad del académico de enfermería: entre
la docencia y la investigación. A identidade do acadêmico de enfermagem: entre o
ensino e a pesquisa]. Texto & Contexto - Enfermagem, 23(2), 241-249.
doi:10.1590/0104-07072014001640013
Aitchison, C., Catterall, J., Ross, P., & Burgin, S. (2012). ‘Tough love and tears’:
learning doctoral writing in the sciences. Higher Education Research &
Development, 31(4), 435-447, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2011.559195.
Akerlind, G. S. (2005). Academic growth and development - How do university
academics experience it? Higher Education, 50(1), 1-32. doi:10.1007/s10734-
004-6345-1
Akerlind, G. S. (2007). Constraints on academics' potential for developing as a
teacher. Studies in Higher Education, 32(1), 21-37.
doi:10.1080/03075070601099416
Akerlind, G. S. (2008). An academic perspective on research and being a researcher: an
integration of the literature. Studies in Higher Education, 33(1), 17-31.
doi:10.1080/03075070701794775
Akkerman, S. F., & Meijer, P. C. (2011). A dialogical approach to conceptualizing
teacher identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 308-319.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.013
Badia, A., & Becerril, L. (2016). Renaming teaching practice through teacher reflection
using critical incidents on a virtual training course. Journal of Education for
Teaching, 42(2), 224-238. doi:10.1080/02607476.2016.1143146

Badia, A., Meneses, J. & Monereo, C. (2014). Affective dimension of university
professors about their teaching: An exploration through the semantic differential
technique. Universitas Psychologica, 13(1), 161-173.
doi:10.11144/Javeriana.UPSY13-1.adup
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bazerman, C. (1981). What written knowledge does: Three examples of academic
discourse. Philosophy of the social sciences, 11(3), 361-387.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the
experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Bazerman, C. (1995). Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In A.
Freedman and P. Medway (Eds.). Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 79-101).
London, U.K: Taylor and Francis Ltd.
Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2009). Understanding teacher identity: An overview of
issues in the literature and implications for teacher education. Cambridge Journal
of Education, 39(2), 175-189.
Beijaard, D., & N. Verloop. (1996). Assessing Teachers’ Practical Knowledge. Studies
in Educational Evaluation 22 (3): 275–286.
Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’
professional identity. Teaching and teacher education, 20(2), 107-128.
Billot, J. (2010). The imagined and the real: Identifying the tensions for academic
identity. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(6), 709-721. DOI:
10.1080/07294360.2010.487201.
Brew, A. (2001). Conceptions of Research: A phenomenographic study, Studies in
Higher Education, 26:3, 271-285, DOI: 10.1080/03075070120076255

Brew, A. (2012). Teaching and research: new relationships and their implications for
inquiry-based teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education
Research & Development, 31(1), 101-114. doi:10.1080/07294360.2012.642844
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2007). The Sage handbook of grounded theory.
London: Sage.
Cameron, J., Nairn, K., & Higgins, J. (2009). Demystifying academic writing:
Reflections on emotions, know-how and academic identity. Journal of Geography
in Higher Education, 33(2), 269-284.
Camps, A., & Castelló, M. (2013). La escritura académica en la universidad. Revista de
Docencia Universitaria, 11(1), 17-36.
Carlino, P. (2012). New Genres in the Academy: Issues of Practice, Meaning Making
and Identity. In: Castello, Montserrat and Donahue, Christiane (eds). University
Writing: Selves and Texts in Academic Societies. Studies in Writing (24).
Emerald Group Publishing Ltd, pp.
Castelló, M. (2007). El proceso de composición de textos académicos. In Escribir y
comunicarse en contextos científicos y académicos: conocimientos y
estrategias (pp. 47-82). Barcelona: Grao.
Castelló, M., & Donahue, C. (Eds.). (2012). University writing: Selves and texts in
academic societies. BRILL.
Castelló, M., & Mateos, M. (2015). Faculty and student representations of academic
writing at Spanish universities/Las representaciones de profesores y estudiantes
sobre la escritura académica en las universidades españolas. Cultura y Educación,
27(3), 477-503.
Castelló, M., Kobayashi, S., McGinn, M. K., Pechar, H., Vekkaila, J. & Wisker G.
(2015). Researcher Identity in Transition: Signals to Identify and Manage Spheres

of Activity in a Risk-Career. Frontline Learning Research (Special Issue), Vol.3
No. 4, 19 – 34.
Castelló, M., Mateos, M., Castells, N., Iñesta, A., Cuevas, I., & Solé, I. (2012).
Academic Writing Practices in Spanish Universities. Electronic Journal of
Research in Educational Psychology, 10(27), 569-590.
Chen, J. (2016). Understanding teacher emotions: The development of a teacher
emotion inventory. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 68-77
Chitez, M., & Kruse, O. (2012). Writing cultures and genres in European higher
education. In M. Castelló and C. Donahue (Eds.), University Writing: Selves and
Texts in Academic Societies (pp. 151–175). Studies in Writing Series, Vol. 24.
Emerald Group
Chitez, M., Kruse, O., & Castelló, M. (2015). The European Writing Survey
(EUWRIT): Background, structure, implementation, and some results. Working
Papers in Applied Linguistics, Hochschul-online-Publikationen ZHAW.
Chong, S. (2011). Development of teachers' professional identities: From pre-service to
their first year as novice teachers. Kedi Journal of Educational Policy, 8(2), 219-
233.
Corcelles, M., Oliva, À., Castelló, M., & Milian, M. (2015). Writing at university: are
we on the same page? Cultura y Educación, 27(3), 534-568.
Cotterall, S. (2013). More than just a brain: Emotions and the doctoral
experience. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(2), 174-187, DOI:
10.1080/07294360.2012.680017.
Cowie, N. (2011). Emotions that experienced English as a foreign language (EFL)
teachers feel about their students, their colleagues and their work. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 27(1), 235-242.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. CA: Sage publications.
Darby, A. (2008). Teachers' emotions in the reconstruction of professional self-
understanding. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1160-1172.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.02.001
Day, C. (2005). Formar docentes: cómo, cuándo y en qué condiciones aprende el
profesorado (Vol. 101). Madrid: Narcea Ediciones.
Day, C., & Leitch, R. (2001). Teachers’ and teacher educators’ lives: The role of
emotion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(4), 403-415.
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations,
findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1-24.
doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002
Freedman, A., Adam, C., & Smart, G. (1994). Wearing Suits to Class Simulating
Genres and Simulations as Genre. Written communication, 11(2), 193-226.
Friesen, M. D., & Besley, S. C. (2013). Teacher identity development in the first year of
teacher education: A developmental and social psychological perspective.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 23-32. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.06.005
Gergen, K. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. Basic
books.
Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their
teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their
students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 87-100.
Halliday, M. A. (1985). An introduction to functional linguistics. London: Edward
Arnold, 94.
Hargreaves, A. (2001). The emotional geographies of teachers’ relations with
colleagues. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 503-527.
Hargreaves, A. (2005). The emotions of teaching and educational change. In A.
Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Extending
educational change: International Handbook of educational change, 2 (pp. 278-
295). Springer Netherlands
Hermans, H. J. M. & Hermans-Konopka, A. (Eds.). (2010). Dialogical self theory:
Positioning and counter-positioning in a globalizing society. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Hermans, H. J. M. (2001). The dialogical self: Toward a theory of personal and cultural
positioning. Culture & Psychology, 7(3), 243-281.
Hermans, H.J.M. (2003). The construction and reconstruction of a dialogical self.
Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 16 (2), 89-130.
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing.
Journal of pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.
Hyon, S., & Chen, R. (2004). Beyond the research article: University faculty genres and
EAP graduate preparation. English for specific purposes, 23(3), 233-263.
Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity. The discoursal construction of identity in
academic writing, 373.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research
paradigm whose time has come. Educational researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Jusoh, R., & Abidin, Z. (2012). The Teaching-Research Nexus: A Study on the
Students’ Awareness, Experiences and Perceptions of Research. Procedia-Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 38, 141-148.

Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling Half the Story: A Critical Review
of Research on the Teaching Beliefs and Practices of University
Academics. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 177–228. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516032
Katariina Stenberg, Liisa Karlsson, Harri Pitkaniemi & Katriina Maaranen (2014).
Beginning student teachers’ teacher identities based on their practical theories,
European Journal of Teacher Education, 37:2, 204-219, DOI:
10.1080/02619768.2014.882309
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics'
conceptions of teaching. Learning and instruction, 7(3), 255-275.
Kember, D., & Kwan, K. P. (2000). Lecturers' approaches to teaching and their
relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional science, 28(5), 469-
490.
King, V. (2013). Self-portrait with mortar board: a study of academic identity using the
map, the novel and the grid. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(1),
96-108, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2012.751525.
Lea, M. R., & Stierer, B. (2009). Lecturers' everyday writing as professional practice in
the university as workplace: new insights into academic identities. Studies in
Higher Education, 34(4), 417-428.
Lea, M. R., & Stierer, B. (2011). Changing academic identities in changing academic
workplaces: learning from academics’ everyday professional writing
practices. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(6), 605-616.
Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (2006). The "academic literacies" model: Theory and
applications. Theory into practice, 45(4), 368-377.

Lea, M. R., & Stierer, B. (2000). Student writing in higher education: New contexts.
Open University Press/Society for Research into Higher Education.
Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic
literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157-172.
Lee, A., & Boud, D. (2003). Writing groups, change and academic identity: Research
development as local practice. Studies in Higher Education, 28(2), 187-200.
Lee, I. (2013). Becoming a writing teacher: Using “identity” as an analytic lens to
understand EFL writing teachers’ development. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 22(3), 330-345.
Leijen, Ä., & Kullasepp, K. (2013). All roads lead to Rome: Developmental trajectories
of student teachers' professional and personal identity development. Journal of
Constructivist Psychology, 26(2), 104-114.
Lingard, L., Schryer, C. F., Spafford, M. M., & Campbell, S. L. (2007). Negotiating the
politics of identity in an interdisciplinary research team. Qualitative
Research, 7(4), 501-519.
Lonka, K. (2003). Helping doctoral students to finish their theses. In L. Björk, G.
Bräuer, L. Rienecker, and P. S. Jörgensen, (Volume Eds.), Studies in writing,
volume 12, Teaching academic writing in European higher education, (113-134),
The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher
Lonka, K., Chow, A. Keskinen, J., Hakkarainen, K. Sandström, N., & Pyhältö, K.
(2014). How to measure PhD students’ conceptions of academic writing? Journal
of Writing Research, 5(3), 245-269.
McAlpine, L, Jazvac-Martek M & Hopwood, N. (2009) Doctoral student experience:
activities and difficulties influencing identity development. International Journal
for Researcher Development, 1(1), 97-112.

McAlpine, L, Weston, Cynthia, Berthiaume, D. and Fairbank-Roch, G. (2006). How do
instructors explain their thinking when planning and teaching? Higher Education,
51 (1), 125-155.
McAlpine, L., & Amundsen, C. (2009). Identity and agency: pleasures and collegiality
among the challenges of the doctoral journey. Studies in Continuing Education,
31(2), 109-125. doi:10.1080/01580370902927378
Meyer, J. H., Shanahan, M. P., & Laugksch, R. C. (2005). Students' conceptions of
research. I: A qualitative and quantitative analysis. Scandinavian journal of
educational research, 49(3), 225-244.
Miller, C. (1994). Rhetorical community: The cultural basis of genre. In A. F. Medway,
& A. F. Medway (Ed.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 67–78). London: Taylor
and Francis.
Miller, J. (2009). Teacher identity. In A. Burns and J. C. Richards (Eds.), The
Cambridge guide to language teacher education (pp. 172–181). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Monereo, C. (2010). La formación del profesorado: una pauta para el análisis e
intervención a través de incidentes críticos. Revista Iberoamericana de educación,
(52), 149-178.
Monereo, C., & Domínguez, C. (2014). La identidad docente de los profesores
universitarios competentes Educación XX1, 17(2), 83-104.
doi:10.5944/educxx1.17.2.11480
Monereo, C., Badia, A., Bilbao, G., Cerrato, M., & Weise, C. (2009). Being a strategic
teacher: When changing strategies is not enough. Cultura y Educación, 21(3),
237-256.
Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher
education. Cambridge University Press.
Pitcher, R., & Åkerlind, G. S. (2009). Post-Doctoral Researchers' Conceptions of
Research: A Metaphor Analysis. International Journal for Researcher
Development, 1(2), 160-172.
Postareff, L., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2011). Emotions and confidence within teaching
in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 36(7), 799-813.
Prior, P., & Bilbro, R. (2012). Academic enculturation: Developing literate practices
and disciplinary identities. In M. Castelló and C. Donahue (Eds.), University
Writing: Selves and Texts in Academic Societies (pp.19-32). Studies in Writing
Series, Vol. 24. Emerald Group.
Prosser, M., Martin, E., Trigwell, K., Ramsden, P., & Middleton, H. (2008). University
academics' experience of research and its relationship to their experience of
teaching. Instructional Science, 36(1), 3‐16. doi:10.1007/s11251-007-9019-4
Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of
academics' conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and
Instruction, 4(3), 217-231.
Raggatt, P. T. F. (2012). Positioning in the dialogical self: Recent advances in theory
Construction. In H. J. M. Hermans & T. Gieser (Eds.), Handbook of Dialogical
Self Theory (pp. 29–45). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ramanathan, V., & Kaplan, R. B. (2000). Genres, authors, discourse communities:
Theory and application for L1 and L2 writing instructors. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 9(2), 171-191.

Robinson-Pant, A., & Street, B. (2012). Students’ and Tutors’ Understanding of ‘New’
Academic Literacy Practices. University Writing: Selves and Texts in Academic
Societies, 24, 71.
Rowe, A. D., Fitness, J., & Wood, L. N. (2015). University student and lecturer
perceptions of positive emotions in learning. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 28(1), 1-20.
Russell, D. & Cortes, V. (2012). Academic and scientific texts: The same or different
communities? In M. Castelló and C. Donahue (Eds.) University writing. Selves
and texts in academic societies (pp. 3-18). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Russell, D., & Yañez, A. (2003). Big picture people rarely become historians: Genre
systems and the contradictions of general education. In C. Bazerman and D.
Russell (Eds.), Writing selves/writing society: Research from activity perspectives
(pp. 331-362). Retrieved May 21, 2014, from
http://wac.colostate.edu/books/selves_societies/russell/
Russell, D., Lea, M., Parker, J., Street, B. & Donahue, T. (2009). Exploring notions of
genre in ’academic literacies’ and ’writing across the curriculum’: approaches
across countries and contexts. In: Bazerman, C., Bonini, A., & Figueiredo,
D´ebora eds. Genre in a Changing World. Perspectives on Writing. Colorado:
WAC Clearinghouse/Parlor Press, pp. 459–491.
Russell, D. (1997). Rethinking Genre in School and Society: An Activity Theory
Analysis. Written Communication 14(4), 504-554.
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~drrussel/at&genre/at&genre.html
Sadler, I. (2013). The role of self-confidence in learning to teach in higher education.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 50 (2), 157-166.

Samraj, B. (2008). A discourse analysis of master's theses across disciplines with a
focus on introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 55-67.
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics' beliefs about teaching
and learning. Higher Education, 41(3), 299-325.
Shapiro, S. (2010). Revisiting the teachers’ lounge: Reflections on emotional experience
and teacher identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 616–621.
Simons, M., & Elen, J. (2007). The ‘research–teaching nexus’ and ‘education through
research’: An exploration of ambivalences. Studies in Higher Education, 32(5),
617-631.
Stenberg, K., Karlsson, L., Pitkaniemi, H., & Maaranen, K. (2014). Beginning student
teachers’ teacher identities based on their practical theories. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 37(2), 204-219.
Stubb, J., Pyhältö K. & Lonka K. (2014). Conceptions of research: the doctoral student
experience in three domains. Studies in Higher Education, 39(2), 251-264. doi:
10.1080/03075079.2011.651449
Sutton, R. E., & Wheatley, K. F. (2003). Teachers' emotions and teaching: A review of
the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology
Review, 15(4), 327-358.
Tardy, C. (2009). Building genre knowledge (viii ed.). West Lafayette , IN: Parlor Press.
Teberosky, A. (2007). El texto académico. En M. Castello (Ed.), Escribir y comunicarse
en contextos científicos y académicos. Conocimientos y estrategias (pp. 17-46).
Barcelona: Grao.
Trigwell, K. (2012). Relations between teachers’ emotions in teaching and their
approaches to teaching in higher education. Instructional Science, 40(3), 607-621.

Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2004). Development and use of the approaches to teaching
inventory. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 409-424.
Visser-Wijnveen , G., Van Driel , J., Van der Rijst , R., Verloop, N. & Visser, A.
(2009). The relationship between academics' conceptions of knowledge, research
and teaching – a metaphor study. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(6), 673-686.
doi:10.1080/13562510903315340.
Visser-Wijnveen, G. J., Van Driel, J. H., Van der Rijst, R. M., Verloop, N., & Visser, A.
(2010). The ideal research-teaching nexus in the eyes of academics: building
profiles. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(2), 195-210.
Zembylas, M. (2005). Discursive practices, genealogies, and emotional rules: A
poststructuralist view on emotion and identity in teaching. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 21(8), 935-948. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.005.
Zembylas, M. (2005). Three perspectives on linking the cognitive and the emotional in
science learning: Conceptual change, socio-constructivism and post-structuralism.
Studies in Science Education, 41, 91-116.

Final Printing - Faculty Identity and Writing at University - Dissertation - LiliGallego

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Printing - Faculty Identity and Writing at University - Dissertation - LiliGallego

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACULTY IDENTITY AND WRITING AT

Liliana del Pilar Gallego Castaño

Tutor: Dr. César Coll

Department of Developmental Psychology

TITLE: FACULTY IDENTITY AND WRITING AT UNIVERSITY

SUBMITTED BY: LILIANA DEL PILAR GALLEGO CASTAÑO

In fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Tutor: Dr. César Coll

Liliana del Pilar Gallego Castaño

Tutor: Dr. César Coll

(conceptions, strategies, feelings, academic community and writing). All of those

They are interdependent but separated at the same time.

This research dissertation entitled Faculty identity and writing at

university consists of an empirical research undertaken as an attempt to relate faculty

competences, faculty evaluated their perceived proficiency in writing competences; in the

the questionnaire, associating: a) writing to feelings of demanding standards of writing,

writing; c) perceived writing competences to the management of formal and technical

mechanisms, discursive mechanisms (structural aspects) and in a lower percentage,

composition process competences (related to positioning and readers’ implication).

Besides, participants conceived writing as demanding, but also as important and

satisfactory in their profession. In conclusion, being conscious of the importance of writing

faculty to increase their production of research writing genres.

main goal at universities. In conclusion, sphere of activity preferences relate to different

paths of faculty’s identity development.

In the third study, we explored possible emergent position repertoires about

answered a semi-structured interview. Information was analyzed through content analysis

of two main positions regarding teaching conceptions: teacher-centered and student-

centered conceptions of teaching. Regarding research conceptions, we noticed that some

university teachers considered research related to the growth of disciplinary knowledge

research as embedded in teaching. Finally, regarding the position repertoires linking

conceptions of teaching –as teacher-centered versus students-centered- and those of

research -embedded in teaching versus research related to disciplinary growth.

Additionally, misconceptions regarding writing and doing research might be affecting

Feelings intensity acted as distinguishing elements to build prototypical position

EPIC= Teacher Assessment and Critical Incidents Questionnaire

AWS= Academic Writing Survey

FIAW= Faculty Identity and Academic Writing (questionnaire)

RT= Research is embedded in teaching

RC= Research related to content and disciplinary

M = Mean, the sum of a set of measurements divided by the number of measurements in

SD= Standard Deviation

α = Cronbach’s index of internal consistency

value as extreme as or more extreme than the observed value

KMO= Kaiser Meyer Olkin

r= Pearson product-moment correlation

≥ = Greater than or equal to

< Less than

take care of me.

I would also like to acknowledge my fellow classmates in this doctoral program:

Thank you for your company and for your friendship.

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... xi

List of Tables .................................................................................................................... xiv

PART I. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...................................................................... 16

CHAPTER 1 FACULTY IDENTITY AND WRITING PRACTICES ......................... 17

1.3.1 University teachers’ conceptions and feelings about teaching .................... 30

1.3.2 University teachers’ conceptions and feelings about research .................... 33

1.3.3 A dialogical approach to study university teachers’ identity ...................... 34

PART II EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ................................................................................. 38

CHAPTER 2 OBJECTIVES AND METHOD .............................................................. 39

2.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................. 40

2.2.1 Study 1. Faculty feelings as writers: Relationship with writing genres,

perceived competences and values associated to writing ........................................... 44

2.2.1.2 Instrument ................................................................................................ 46