This empirical study of the organisational identity of a newly titled university provides an insight into how identity is constructed, maintained, deconstructed and reconstructed in the higher education sector in England. The purposes of the university sector, and the higher education sector of which it is a part, are being increasingly challenged following significant legislative and environmental changes over the past century. Through these changes what it means to be a university is shifting. Increased complexity and diversity has given rise to a university sector that now encompasses much of what was previously defined as non-university higher education, resulting in what many argue is a crisis of sector identity. Whilst recognising that organisational identity does more than provide a definition of membership, this crisis of sector identity impacts upon the identity development and understandings of those who are now part of it. Research on identity in the higher education sector has been focused on professional and academic identities, the concept of what it is to be a university in a policy-driven, mass participation higher education system or the interaction between the two subject areas. This thesis has a different focus, concentrating on the relatively under-researched area of change and continuity in organisational identity particularly focussing upon a period of change in legal definition and organisational positioning. During the period 1998 to 2013, the University of St Mark & St John (Marjon) moved from being a college of higher education, to a university college and finally, through a change in legislative criteria, to a university. This thesis explores change and continuities in its identity through its journey and various incarnations. It investigates how definitional constructs and sectoral positioning interface with who the organisation is; its identity. The thesis is based on an interpretive mixed methods case study, focussing on the strategic development of the University during this period. Existing theoretical models of organisational identity have informed the analysis of the data which include documentary sources, a small number of key informant interviews and participant observations. The latter exploited insights gleaned from working as a senior manager in the University for part of the period in which the research was undertaken. The research findings reinforce the existing theories highlighting the importance of organisational identity to organisational health, but challenge existing theory in respect of identity development and change. The research highlights the significance of the relationship between ‘what’ an organisation is, which is a definitional and spatial construct, and ‘who’ an organisation is, which is a reflection of its identity. This relationship has previously been considered as inconsequential to organisational identity development. The findings also challenge the assumption that identity change is a change management process brought into effect through a strong leadership narrative and strategic planning tools. The study makes evident the interplay of organisational history, and the strength of internal and external influences on the capacity and willingness of an organisation to undergo identity change. This has resulted in the development of a conceptual framework to support leaders in the exploration of an organisation’s identity, highlighting the interrelationship of specific factors on identity development.

Since the 1970s women have clearly made great advances toward equality in education and in the resultant employment opportunities afforded by an excellent education. Today women are graduating from universities at a rate unparalleled in history (Mitchell 2012:56; Townsend & Twombly 2007:208), and are also entering management positions at a greater rate than we have ever seen (Cejda 2008:172). While the rate of women university graduates taking up entry level management positions is almost on a par with men (Bosak & Sczesny 2011:254), the rate of women professionals who move into senior management positions decreases as the position becomes more senior until, at the highest level management positions, women hold only between 3% and 5% of the top posts. (Mitchell 2012:56). Through the analysis of in depth interviews of women holding higher level management positions (including President, Chancellor, or Vice Chancellor,) at universities in four different English speaking countries, the study sought to investigate the reasons why there are so few women found in top management positions in universities. The results of the study indicate that the factors having the greatest effect on the success of women managers at university are those of identity; being able to overcome academic bullying in the workplace; having key support at critical times, especially from a spouse or from family; and developing the strategies to overcome career obstacles through the use of metacognition. The study also found that informal, multiple, mixed gender mentoring was the most effective type of mentoring for women. As a result of the study findings, new theory is proposed for advancement of women managers that offers the concept of identity as a lynchpin factor. Identity develops concurrently with sets of personal and management skills that are interwoven into the experiences of women as they work in management.

This study set out to explore the ways in which non-STEM academics, working within UK universities that had positioned themselves publicly as ‘entrepreneurial’ institutions, interpret and negotiate the related concepts of the entrepreneurial academic and university. The entrepreneurial university concept has become a ubiquitous theme in higher education and policy literatures in recent decades, having been described variously as an ‘idea for its time’ (Shattock, 2010) and the ‘end-point of the evolution of the idea of the university’ (Barnett, 2010, p.i). This research set out to interrogate some of the key ways in which this institutional form, and the corresponding concept of the entrepreneurial academic, have been discursively constructed by advocates in the UK and beyond. Further to this, the study aimed to collect narratives of experience from non-STEM academics employed by self-described ‘entrepreneurial’ universities, both to enquire into how they interpreted the ‘entrepreneurial paradigm’, and to invite them to report on how they felt that their university’s assumption of an enterprise mission had, or had not, influenced its organisational ‘culture’ and their subjectively experienced academic work-lives. The researcher’s interest in the relationship between enterprise discourse and the organisational ‘culture’ of universities stemmed from the apparent consensus within the scholarly and policy literature about the need for universities to develop an integrated ‘entrepreneurial culture’ (Clark, 1998, p.7)(Gibb, 2006b, p.2)(Rae, Gee and Moon, 2009) by pursuing a policy of ‘organisational culture change’, with culture here denoting ‘the realm of ideas, beliefs, and asserted values’ (Kwiek, 2008, p.115) which inhere within institutions. To this end, a series of semi-structured, interpretive interviews were carried out with participants from a range of non-STEM disciplines, working in a variety of university types in the UK. The researcher then employed a discourse-analytic method to delineate some of the ‘discursive repertoires’ that participants used to account for their professional practices, and report on their experiences in - and understandings of - the entrepreneurial university. What emerged from this analysis was a complex picture of ‘enterprise discourse’ within the contemporary university setting, as well as a general tendency amongst participants to adopt a position of ontological scepticism where the issue of ‘university culture’ was concerned. Further to this, it was determined that the ‘inclusive’ interpretation of entrepreneurialism typically employed by advocates for the paradigm had not generally been taken up by participants, for whom it was, for the most part, a phenomenon associated variously with ‘managerialism’, ‘market values’, ‘the business agenda’, ‘income generation’, ‘money making’, and the figure of the ‘individual, lone, romantic, heroic capitalist’. Additionally, where subjects were conversant in broader, more ‘social’ conceptions of academic entrepreneurialism, they typically reported that it was rarely articulated in the internal communications of their respective universities.