Identity work of pracademics: case study of the Keyanyuan as formalized pracademics in Shanghai

Multiple boundaries exist between practice and academia, creating spaces for pracademia (Hollweck et al., 2021). A “pracademic” is an individual who “spans both the ethereal world of academia as a scholar and the pragmatic world of practice” (Panda, 2014 p. 150; Walker, 2010, p. 1). As this individual has to work across the boundaries, their social identity can be fluid, subtle and complex.

In educational fields, pracademics are characterized by their ability to straddle the worlds of educational research and school practice simultaneously, embodying new possibilities for knowledge mobilization and networks, and responding to systemic challenges (Hollweck et al., 2021). Despite the value of their contributions, pracademics face a number of difficulties in operating within both worlds, which have different and conflicting values, reward systems and languages (Caplan, 1979).

A growing body of literature has noted how pracademics’ dual or multiple roles are incredibly challenging and poorly supported (Chaaban et al., 2022; Hollweck et al., 2021). In this respect, pracademics often feel undervalued (Avruch and Nan, 2013) and struggle because “accessing full-time academic study is not practical nor affordable, and engagement in many scholarly activities is not funded nor promoted” (Posner, 2009). These struggles can challenge their perceptions of professional legitimacy, value and identity, as well as their brokerage working practices for change and innovation.

Shanghai education system is renowned for its consistently high performance in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). Among existing studies on the “Shanghai secret” (Friedman, 2013), few studies have uncovered the power of the practice-oriented scholarship at the system level. Significantly, there exists a group of educational professionals in Shanghai formally named as the Keyanyuan (KYY), which literally means “scientific-research officers (科研员).” These professionals are not the teachers based in schools, not teaching-research-officers (教研员), but a formalized category of educational professionals out of schools while working closely with teachers and school leaders on teaching or school development related research. They are given formal positions in the Shanghai education system, mostly in district level or municipal level education research institutes, but not in the university system.

Indeed, they are officially recruited by the local educational authorities to actively engage in practice-oriented scholarly activities. Their brokerage roles include coordinating practice-oriented research for teacher professional development, leading school improvement initiatives and building networks among teachers, school leaders, researchers and policymakers to facilitate knowledge mobilization (Chen and Zhang, 2023; Tournier et al., 2025). Both practitioners and scholars perceive the KYY as crucial for bridging theoretical scholarship with practical realities (Liu, 2012). As a kind of pracademics, the KYY facilitates the exchange between research and practice, which is deemed vital to professional work in Shanghai’s education system (Chen and Zhang, 2023).

Therefore, we identify the KYY as the formalized pracademics in the Shanghai education system. Despite the legitimacy gained from being granted a formal title, KYYs do struggle to build their pracademic identity by developing their referent and expertise legitimacy. The brokerage practices of these KYYs vary in connecting people or disseminating sources of information between people from different groups. These differences can be attributed to their negotiation of the meanings of their role scripts through acting and interacting with the community, as well as their sense-making of professional identity within the intersection of academia and practice.

In this study, we examine how Chinese pracademics, namely, KYYs, perceive their engagement in pracademia and negotiate meanings within and across multiple communities that shape their brokerage work as pracademics. In doing so, this study seeks to gain insight into the identity work of pracademics during their brokerage practices from the Shanghai case. Accordingly, this study addresses the following research question:

How do Chinese pracademics, namely KYYs, construct their professional identity via engagement in pracademic brokerage work?

The literature across multiple fields characterizes pracademia as the plurality of spaces that connect various, yet related, domains of knowledge, expertise, practices and experiences, serving as a means of acting and contributing within, across and beyond the worlds of practice and academia (Hollweck et al., 2021). Pracademics who are engaged in pracademia move among academia, policy and practice or occupy a unique space. They develop a sense of self and situate themselves within the communities and spaces they inhabit, undergoing dynamic processes of social identity construction.

More recently, several grounding studies have sought to conceptualize pracademic identity construction (Hollweck and Doucet, 2020; Hollweck et al., 2021; Panda, 2014; Susskind, 2013). Being a pracademic is distinct from a teacher-as-researcher stance (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1999) or even the academic researching practice stance, as the pracademic lives actively and simultaneously in both the worlds of practice and academia (Hollweck et al., 2021). The pracademic identity thus involves assuming dual or multiple identities simultaneously, such as scholar-practitioner, practitioner-academic or academic-practitioner. Murphy and Fulda (2011) described this duality as a “revolving door” through which the pracademic circulates two worlds.

In educational fields, scholars have highlighted the ability of pracademics to integrate diverse knowledge, experiences and expertise from both practice and scholarship, bridge the gap between theory and practice in innovative ways and transform the culture of education (Friesen, 2022; Kolber and Heggart, 2022). Several scholars have recognized the potential of pracademics’ brokerage work for enhancing professional capital – encompassing human, social and/or decisional capital – within specific schools and educational systems (Campbell, 2022; Hargreaves and Fullan, 2012; Hollweck and Doucet, 2020).

However, scholars have also raised questions about the puzzling duality or multiplicity of pracademic identity construction in brokerage practices. Rather than assuming that pracademics transition from a stable professional identity in practice to another within the academic context, research indicates that pracademic identity construction is often liminal, fluid and in flux, as pracademics navigate conflicting spaces through their multiple memberships (Boyd and Harris, 2014; Dickinson et al., 2022). Some studies have identified the challenges faced by pracademics in brokering multiple contexts (Gourlay, 2011; Knights and Clarke, 2014; Murphy and Fulda, 2011; Posner, 2009; Wood et al., 2016). Some scholars have suggested that these challenges may result in pracademics experiencing a “liminal state” of being (Wood et al., 2016, p. 230), moments of friction (Mynott and Zimmatore, 2022) and exhibiting “fragile selves” (Knights and Clarke, 2014, p. 335) in-between multiple professional identities, potentially narrowing the scope of their brokerage work in reality. Others have argued that, despite operating in liminal spaces and facing challenges, pracademics are able to negotiate the meanings of their roles and proactively resolve these struggles by integrating their diverse knowledge, experiences and expertise from both practice and scholarship (de Groot et al., 2021; Friesen, 2022; Kluijtmans et al., 2017). In doing so, they develop unique pracademic professional identities with the potential to drive cultural change in education.

Nevertheless, further research is needed to explore how pracademics understand their roles (i.e. sense of self), exercise their agency to address challenges in pracademia and reconstruct their professional identities in brokerage work to facilitate educational innovation and improvement.

To analyze the duality of pracademic identity in their brokerage practices, Roccas and Brewer (2002) proposed that combining multiple social identities can provide valuable insights. Adopting the social identity complexity perspective, Roccas and Brewer (2002) explained that individuals belong to various social groups and must reconcile multiple social identities. Accordingly, they specified four alternative identity structures reflecting different ways in which the relationships among multiple ingroups can be subjectively represented, namely, dominant, intersected, compartmentalized and merged identities.

First, in respect to dominant identities, individuals cope with competing social identities by adopting one primary group identification to which all other potential group identities are subordinated. For instance, although labelled pracademics, individuals may prioritize their professional identity as practitioners or academic researchers instead (Chaaban et al., 2022).

Second, intersected identities refer to individuals who define their identity as a singular identity at the intersection of both group memberships. For example, pracademics with an intersected identity might view themselves as practitioner plus scholars, as neither group adequately describes their identity on its own (i.e. practitioners and academic researchers as out-group members) (Kluijtmans et al., 2017).

Third, compartmentalized identities are context or situation specific. In certain contexts, one group membership becomes the primary basis of social identity, whereas other group identities become primary in different contexts. For instance, within the school context, when interacting with teachers, a pracademic may perceive their identity as a practitioner or a teacher. In contrast, during an academic environment, they may view themselves primarily as a researcher or a scholar (Chaaban et al., 2022; Posner, 2009).

Finally, a merged in-group identity is highly inclusive and diverse, representing the most complex social identity structure. In this mode, social identity transcends single categorical divisions between people. It goes beyond the mere addition of multiple in-group memberships to what Roccas and Brewer (2002) referred to as the equivalence pattern of evaluating others with multiple group memberships. This means that the more social identities an individual possesses, the more inclusive the definition of the in-group becomes. Consequently, sharp distinctions between in- and out-groups gradually disappear, and all groups are evaluated equally. Several scholars have noted the potential for pracademics to create entirely new professional identities (Van Maanen and Schein, 1977) or formulate an alternate pracademic identity that embraces differences across professional worlds (Hollweck et al., 2021; Kluijtmans et al., 2017). This unique identity allows the pracademic to simultaneously reconcile and address inconsistencies.

While the aforementioned forms of identity structure describe the possibilities for pracademics to reconcile multiple social identities, pracademics actively and constantly reconstruct their professional identities in multiple contexts. Therefore, pracademics are continuously engaged in “identity work” (Alvesson et al., 2008; Alvesson and Willmott, 2002; Beech, 2008; Brown, 2017; Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003).

Identity work is defined as participation in “forming, repairing, maintaining, strengthening or revising the constructions that are productive of a sense of coherence and distinctiveness” (Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003, p. 1165). The concept of identity work implies “agentic activity,” which focuses on analyzing processes of continuity and change rather than a notional end state (Brown, 2015). These ongoing processes involve a “conversation between internal ideas, wishes and affections and external images and evaluations” (Ybema et al., 2009, p. 303). These processes are underpinned by the struggles inherent to identity work (Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003).

One type of struggle entails various moments of conflict, during which individuals must choose between competing social identities and roles (Clarke et al., 2009; Mynott and Zimmatore, 2022; Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003). As noted, pracademics who engage in practice often have to reconcile the frictions underlying their dual identities and roles. These frictions contribute to the ongoing challenge of their identity work as pracademics (Ashforth and Kreiner, 1999; Knights and Clarke, 2014). In this respect, pracademics may resolve multiple moments of friction by making choices between competing social identities and roles.

Another type of struggle that pracademics face arises from the contradictions between external organizational demands and their internal occupational realities when engaging in pracademia. Identity work becomes a conscious process when pracademics experience self-doubt and self-openness in reconciling challenges related to professional value, systematic accountability and time constraints with their desire to integrate research and professional learning into their roles. This process of identity work may allow individuals to experience what Greene (2010, p. 1) described as “wide-awakeness,” whereby they become acutely attuned to the ordinary, critically reflect on their practices and move beyond that which is taken for granted. Meanwhile, they gradually make sense of their unique positions as pracademics (Friesen, 2022; Lifshitz-Assaf, 2018; Posner, 2009).

Over the past two decades, scholars have increasingly recognized the uniqueness of Shanghai’s educational system (Chen and Zhang, 2023; Feng, 2005; Pan, 2017; Tournier et al., 2025; Tsui and Wong, 2010). Some have identified the existence of a broad space for teaching and educational research within Shanghai educational system, one located between policy, research and practice. Several scholars have attempted to define and explore this space. Tsui and Wong (2010, p. 284), for instance, described it as a “third space,” arguing that China’s teaching and educational research system operates as institutional structures distributed across the municipal, district and school levels. Chen and Zhang (2023) have delineated a three-level official professional structure from the municipal level down to schools via the districts, with three groups playing middle-tier instructional leadership roles: Jiaoyanyuan (teaching-research officer), Keyanyuan (scientific-research officer; KYY) and Mingxiaozhang or Mingshi (master principal or master teacher). In this structure, the “middle-tier space” (Chen and Zhang, 2023) facilitates education reforms, as well as guiding and supporting schools by conducting school-based learning and research projects. It acts as a resource pool, collaborative platform and buffer to moderate resistance, negotiate conflicts and internalize change (Chen and Zhang, 2023; Tournier et al., 2025).

Among these, scientific-research officers (KYYs) serve as change agents in three areas (Chen and Zhang, 2023): (1) they organize and guide teachers’ research projects; (2) they support and promote practice-oriented research for school-based improvement; (3) they gather, distil and promote tested educational interventions, write academic articles and present exemplary cases that bridge the gaps between practitioners, academic researchers and policymakers.

In the Shanghai education system, there are approximately 200 KYYs, distributed across 16 districts, with each district having 10–15 KYYs. The sources of KYYs can be roughly divided into two categories: about 60% are promoted from outstanding teachers or administrators in grassroots schools, and the other 40% are those who serve as KYYs after graduating from academic sectors, like universities or institutes (Liu, 2012). KYYs play significant roles in both top-down and bottom-up approaches by conducting research and providing evidence for policymakers, identifying and evaluating best practices initiated by schools and teachers, and extracting and conceptualizing the experiences of schools and teachers for the benefit of practitioners, researchers and policymakers (Chen and Zhang, 2023; Liu, 2012).

From these previous studies, it thus can be concluded that KYYs in Shanghai participate in the nexus of multiple memberships and continuously reconcile different forms of membership through identity work (Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003; Wenger, 1999). However, the complex and somewhat ambiguous skills and competencies required to understand and perform the role of the KYY have resulted in a failure to provide specific professional training and clearly define the professional work, value, identity and career advancement opportunities of this position (Chen and Zhang, 2023). Moreover, while there has been a corpus of substantial research on the roles of teaching-research officers (JYYs) (Yin et al., 2020; Zhang and Wong, 2018; Zhang, 2022) and master teachers (Qian and Walker, 2022; Zheng et al., 2021), the roles and practices of KYYs have received limited scholarly attention. Previous studies have neither conceptualized the educational research space within the Shanghai education system through the lens of pracademia nor delved into the multiple roles and identities of KYYs within this space (Chen, 2016; Chen and Zhang, 2023; Liu, 2012).

Accordingly, this study identifies KYYs in Shanghai as a type of pracademic working in the middle space of the Shanghai education system and facilitating the transfer between and transformation of research, practice and policymaking. This study explores how, in China’s educational ecology, KYYs, as a type of pracademic, construct and reconstruct their professional identity in brokerage work in pracademia. To this end, this study explores the extent to which pracademics reconcile frictions in and between practice and academia through identity work, leading to various forms of professional identity reconstruction or combination. Instead of examining the classical identity-as-entity position, this study adopts the identity-as-process position—viewing pracademic identity construction in pracademia as dynamic identity work processes.

This study explored how Chinese pracademics, the KYYs, construct their professional identity as being engaged in pracademic brokerage work. This study’s design, data collection and analytical procedures were guided by a qualitative methodology and the case-comparison approach. This type of case comparison is useful in developing an in-depth and contextualized understanding of multiple social identity combinations (Yin, 2014).

Data were collected from January 2021 to December 2022. Research participants comprised 10 KYYs from eight districts of Shanghai, and one from the Shanghai municipal level. In 2021, six KYYs agreed to be interviewed for this study. Of these, five were from various districts and one was a municipal-level KYY. Additionally, five had completed postgraduate study before becoming KYYs. One of them held a Master’s degree and had accumulated several years of practical experience before serving as a KYY.

Considering the diversity of the participants, in 2022, we recruited additional KYYs with different career trajectories. Four KYYs from different districts accepted our invitation to join this study. Of these, three had roles as teachers, directors of educational research or principals before becoming KYYs. One of them held a PhD and practiced in the educational field for several years before becoming a KYY.

All participants were asked about (1) their KYY daily practices and brokerage work, (2) their perceptions of their identity in the role of a KYY and (3) how they proactively negotiate between internal ideas (their values and understanding about education and KYYs’ work) and external requirements to make sense of their unique positions as pracademics. All interviewees participated voluntarily and agreed to be part of the study. All participants are anonymized. Table 1 presents their biographic information.

This study conducted 12 semi-structured interviews with 10 KYYs in 2021 and 2022, as well-related field observations and document analysis. Semi-structured interviews were conducted both face-to-face and online (due to pandemic reasons). Each interview lasted the average of 110 min. Follow-up interviews were conducted with two interviewees. All interviews were recorded and transcribed with their consent. Pseudonyms were used to ensure confidentiality.

Beyond interview data, participants’ published books, reflective journal articles and informal essays regarding their professional experiences of brokerage practice were also collected. Further observation data were collected from both online and offline activities organized by participants, including two school visits in which some participants provided timely support for teachers’ research projects, and three school-based professional development workshops aimed at improving school-based reform projects.

Moreover, relevant policy documents from local and national governments regarding the promotion of educational research for school improvement were collected as well. Multiple data sources from observations, documents and in-depth interviews enabled triangulation and ensured data quality. Table 2 presents a breakdown of the data collected for this study.

Thematic analysis was employed to analyze the collected data. Data analysis was an ongoing procedure throughout the data collection phase of the research. Analysis was based on reading and re-reading interview transcripts. The coding process involved three steps: open, axial and selective coding (Lichtman, 2023). Preliminary information was synthesized into several categories as a reference point for further analysis, with interviewees’ views and hypotheses subjected to a constant comparison approach. The initial analysis produced a total of 231 open codes. During the axial coding step, the open codes were grouped into 67 initial sub-themes based on similarities in their description. Roccas and Brewer’s (2002) social identity complexity framework and the concept of identity work (Brown, 2015, 2017; Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003) were applied to guide subsequent coding, facilitating in the delineation of the overlapping sub-themes into 12 selective codes (sub-themes). As detailed in the next section, these 12 sub-themes were categorized into three themes: one fell under “dominant identity perception,” while the other two were grouped into “non-dominant identity perception.” Given the limited number of KYYs sampled in this study, this study mainly serves the purpose of theorizing their identity work of pracademics in the Shanghai context.

As discussed in the literature review, the involvement of KYY in the nexus of multi-membership, that is, the “middle” space of pracademia, in Shanghai’s educational system necessitates a complex and somewhat ambiguous set of skills and competencies. This complexity has resulted in an unclear definition of their professional work, value and identity. KYYs may face conflicts related to competing social identities and roles, as well as the tension between external systematic accountability and internal professional values, when engaging in brokerage work. Consequently, the way KYYs perceive their role in practice significantly shapes their professional identity construction and influences their brokerage work. Table 3 presents an overview of our findings about the identity, identity work and brokerage practices of KYYs as formalized pracademics in the Shanghai educational system.

Of the ten KYYs who participated in this study, three were categorized as pracademics with a dominant identity perception (Roccas and Brewer, 2002) (Table 3) as they primarily identified themselves as practitioners rather than researchers. In respect to how they perceived their work roles, KYYs with a dominant practitioner identity explicitly or implicitly expressed sentiments like, “I just think I can be a teacher” (participants Ma and Wang) and “[I] tend to serve as a problem-solver who can help teacher colleagues solve some trivial problems when they are conducting practice-oriented research projects” (participants Ma, Wang and Dong). They tended to express the view that working as a KYY was inherently fraught with struggle and uncertainty due to the need to choose between competing social identities and roles. Wang and Ma preferring to act as supportive peers of teachers or to learn alongside them when assisting with school-based research projects. They noted that they occasionally felt vulnerable when interacting with and guiding teachers in scholarly activities. They also tended to acquire tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1966, p. 4) and engage in practical discourses to socialize within the school context as part of their operational process as KYYs. Meanwhile, Dong resolved these competing feelings by narrowing her role to that of an “informational center,” that is, someone responsible for communicating the external requirements to school teachers and acting as a liaison to connect teachers with the people able to handle their problems effectively.

The image of the practitioner influences the brokerage work of KYYs. Those with a dominant practitioner identity reported that their primary tasks included conducting lectures and training sessions, assisting teachers in resolving issues, and handling the technical paperwork for project applications and management (participants Ma and Wang). They frequently described their role as “hands-on” in nature, for example, Dong asserted that: “Most of my work is very hands-on, such as helping teachers revise their research proposals or inviting relevant experts to review and comment on these proposals according to the mandated requirements.” Ma echoed that: “I felt all the work aims to ensure the proposals succeed in research applications.”

In sum, it appears that the identity work of KYYs with a dominant identity perception may hinge on their choice to define themselves as practitioners. These KYYs expressed conflicting experiences and feelings when they crossed the boundaries between practice and academia, which they resolved by acquiring tacit knowledge in practice (Polanyi, 1966, p. 4), learning in collaboration with their teacher colleagues as peers, or by acting as liaisons to effectively handle the demanding problems of teachers (de Groot et al., 2021; Roccas and Brewer, 2002). Of these KYYs, we observed relatively little tension and meaning negotiation in respect to competing roles and professional values when they encountered in-between contexts, which thus required relatively little identity work as pracademics. The scope of their brokerage work was also relatively narrow. In this regard, KYYs with a dominant practitioner’s identity appeared to be technical-instrumental in approach (Schön, 1987), focusing on complying with external system demands. They tended to place less emphasis on encouraging teachers to critically reflect on their practical realities and develop their own research interests.

Unlike the dominant KYYs, who prioritize a primary group identification (e.g. practitioners), the other KYYs interviewed in this study defined their identities through various combinations of multiple identities, referred to here as non-dominant identity types, as described by Roccas and Brewer (2002). These non-dominant KYYs tend to engage in intensive identity work. Of the seven participants in this category, five appeared to manage their social identities at the intersection of multiple group memberships (participants Lee, Han, Yu, Jia and Shan). The remaining two exhibited a nearly merged identity (participants Lan and Huan), potentially forming a unique pracademic identity that embraces differences across various professional worlds.

1. Intersected identity work: Exploring unresolved tensions through the negotiation of meanings

KYYs with an intersected identity described their role as a “bridge” or “bridge builder” between academia and practice. When asked whether they felt more like a researcher or a practitioner, such as teachers, they said, “Neither. I feel like someone standing on a bridge in-between” these roles (participants Lee, Han, Yu, Jia and Shan). They explained that they made a concerted effort to build various kinds of learning communities, including technology-based networks between schools, academies of educational sciences (educational colleges) at the district or country level and even universities. They also sought to nurture a climate of trust within the communities to facilitate teachers’ engagement in school-based inquiries (participants Lee, Yu and Shan). Among their responsibilities, interviewees included the dissemination of research findings across school boundaries via teaching, professional training or social media platforms (participants Lee, Han and Yu). In their view, disseminating research findings to schools or connecting teachers with university researchers were effective means of stimulating widespread teacher involvement in educational inquiry (participants Yu, Jia and Lee).

All participating KYYs with an intersected identity reported encountering difficulties due to competing social identities and the discourses between theory and practice. For instance, Han, who became a KYY after graduating from a PhD program, confessed that she often struggled with handling the tensions arising from the gap between theory and practice:

Echoing Han’s sentiments, Lee noted that she felt fortunate to have had the opportunity to observe mentors practicing their expertise in pracademia after graduation before becoming a KYY. Yu, Jia and Shan, who had previously served as frontline teachers and mastered practical knowledge and reasoning, also reported initially struggling to reconcile the gap between theory and practice when they became KYYs.

In addition to struggles related to competing social identities and discourses, KYYs with an intersected identity encountered challenges concerning professional values in pracademic contexts, which often lack clear value systems regarding authority, decision-making and accountability. In this study, participating KYYs highlighted that practice-oriented research is often undervalued, even referred to as “a lesser endeavor” (Avruch and Nan, 2013, p. 207) because it seldom counts for academic recognition (participants Han and Lee). Moreover, the working boundary of KYYs is vague and often overlaps with the work of teacher educators (e.g. teaching-research officers JYYs) or academic researchers. Confronted with this challenging situation, these KYYs tended to describe their exploration of professional identity as akin to “walking on eggshells” (participants Han, Yu, Lee, Jia, Shan). It has been observed that these KYYs often feel uncertain about the value of their profession (Boyd and Harris, 2014). They also tend to feel vulnerable when making professional judgments, both in terms of their inward self-reflection and outward reflection on their environment.

Nevertheless, KYYs with an intersected identity appear to have alleviated such difficulties by engaging in self-reflection, navigating different “regimes of competence” (Wenger, 1999) and peer learning. For instance, some KYYs indicated that they developed their own methods for guiding teachers in the conducting of research. They engaged in intensive negotiation of meaning and gradually moved away from trivial tasks to focus on the original needs of their work as pracademics (participants Lee and Han). Echoing this perspective, Yu, Jia and Shan reported making considerable effort to build communities of practice with school teachers and academic researchers, as well as maintain professional relationships with other colleagues. Such partnerships appear to have helped mitigate the insecure professional identities of these pracademics (Chasteen et al., 2015; Dickinson et al., 2022), supporting their ability to maneuver between multiple identities in scholarly activities.

This constant reconstruction of their professional identity also affects their brokerage work. KYYs with an intersected identity reported actively adjusting and adapting the boundary of their work according to context, guiding frontline teachers to search for new practices by conducting practice-oriented research projects. They appear to serve as more than bridges between academia and practice, constituting representatives (de Groot et al., 2021) or “revolving doors” (Murphy and Fulda, 2011, p. 279). As interviewees asserted, “On one side, we keep a close eye on the practical relevance of the studies designed by researchers design; on the other side, we assist teachers in understanding the importance of educational research and theories” (participants Lee, Jia and Shan). Moreover, they potentially served as solution-seekers (Lifshitz-Assaf, 2018), as they voluntarily or involuntarily searched for new understandings through knowledge exchange and collaboration within and across spaces during their identity work.

In sum, participating KYYs with an intersected identity gradually reconstructed their professional identity through the long-term negotiation of meaning as pracademics. The hyphenated term “practitioner-scholar” reflects the intersected identity of KYYs as a bridge between the two worlds of practice and academia (Hollweck et al., 2021; Roccas and Brewer, 2002). In this term, the practitioner tends to focus on deriving practical insights from research rather than pursuing educational research as an end in itself. As Han noted, “most of the time, I think we are another type of researcher, perhaps a practical researcher.” They almost fully resolved the tension between competing social identities and roles through self-reflection and knowledge accumulation. Nevertheless, they reported finding it difficult to address the challenges concerning professional values in pracademic contexts. Significantly, their brokerage work was shaped by their identity work for resolving the tensions between practice and academia and for making sense of their professional value in multidimensional contexts.

Compared with KYYs with dominant identities, KYYs with a non-dominant identity appeared to be involved in more diverse activities of brokerage work. More than bridges between practice and academia, they served as representatives (de Groot et al., 2021) who help teachers understand the theory underpinning practice/policy. They also acted as solution-seekers who provide innovative approaches, learn and integrate existing knowledge and pursue new solutions (Lifshitz-Assaf, 2018). In doing so, they potentially foster human and social capital across schools and systems during their identity work. However, the difficulties they encountered in respect to their professional values and navigating conflicting spaces highlight their limited decisional capital in their brokerage work (Campbell, 2022; Hargreaves and Fullan, 2012). This indicates that they are still in the process of fully constructing their professional identity as pracademics, as they continue to experience various challenges and uncertainties regarding their unique and indispensable professional values (Boyd and Harris, 2014; Chasteen et al., 2015; Hollweck et al., 2021), which are crucial for leading and conducting scholarly activities for teacher development and school innovation.

1. Merged identity work: Constructing a unique professional identity by refocusing on original needs

Of the ten participants, only two exhibited a merged identity, whereby they were able to acknowledge and reconcile the differences between the distinct worlds of practice and academia. In contrast with other participating KYYs, Lan and Huan reported that despite experiencing frictions in and between practice and academia, such tensions gradually declined. In this respect, their tensions appeared to have been mediated by dialectical understanding of theory and practice in educational contexts. As Lan noted, “educational theories are de-contextualized … until being recontextualized in local school contexts through inquiry.” Similarly, Huan observed that “theory can be applied into practice and practice is never atheoretical.”

Participating KYYs with a merged identity recognized the importance of connecting abstract theory with practical application and exhibited strong self-efficacy in their ability to do so. For instance, Lan demonstrated confidence in his role as a KYY, which stemmed from his extensive experience in learning and accumulating tacit yet meaningful knowledge and wisdom through action and reflection. Recognizing the numerous advantages of working at the boundary, Han asserted, “I can both have knowledge of teaching and develop a broad view of educational research, which allows me to lead and manage scholarly activities with ease.”

Although they were able to transition between theory and practice with ease, KYYs with a merged identity still engaged in identity work as a pracademic. When encountering other professionals, such as teacher educators, and the intensive conflicts between academia and practice, Lan used “the state of having me” and “the state of selflessness” to explain his in-between state:

As such, KYYs with a merged identity, such as Lan, appear to recognize their unique value as pracademics while belonging to multiple groups (e.g. pracademics, professional practitioners and researchers) simultaneously. Echoing these sentiments, Huan reported that she realized that it does not matter what roles she takes on, be it a teacher, KYY, teacher educator or academic researcher. Indeed, she noted, “What matters is whether I can put in the effort to narrow the gap between theory and practice by translating theories for teacher practitioners and collaborating with teachers and other professionals to explore new practices through practice-oriented research projects.” Instead of being defined by the activities and tasks of KYY work itself, both Lan and Huan were able to continuously construct their professional identity by refocusing on the original needs of their work (Lifshitz-Assaf, 2018), namely, enhancing teaching practice and school development through scholarly work.

This merged identity affected their brokerage practice. Both KYYs described their work as guiding school teachers to conduct educational inquiries within their working contexts for teaching reform. As a consultant (de Groot et al., 2021), Lan leveraged his extensive clinical experience to diagnose bottleneck issues in schools. He assisted teachers in placing these problems on the research agenda and addressing them through practice-oriented research in school contexts to facilitate transformation. Additionally, both KYYs’ engagement in scholarly work were not limited to using research findings to practice/policy, with both regarding themselves as active researchers. Both Lan and Huan have published and disseminated their research, influencing academic discussions on teacher research and school improvement (Documents K1, K4).

In sum, although not always explicit, both participating KYYs with a merged identity were found to have engaged in identity work between dual positions and recognized the uniqueness of their professional identity as pracademics. Lan and Huan were able to continuously construct their professional identity. More specifically, their professional identity was the result of a continuous process of construction during which their identity positions were redefined, extended and gradually integrated into a unified sense of being a pracademic, rather than merely being a bridge between the practice and academia (Beech, 2008; Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003). Such identity work enabled them to expand the boundary of their work.

As noted, both Lan and Huan served as consultants, assisting teachers in conducting educational inquiries to foster knowledge exchange among practitioners. They often worked as coordinators, fostering collaboration and stimulating knowledge transformation between the practical and research worlds. Their work as KYYs thus served to strengthen the human and social capital among schools and systems. Additionally, they promoted professional inquiry and the development of new knowledge by publishing academic research, demonstrating their decisional capital within the educational systems to some degree. They thus appear to have functioned as scholar-practitioners or pracademics who contributed to developing, accumulating and exchanging professional capital for innovation across schools and systems (Campbell, 2022; Hargreaves and Fullan, 2012; Kolber and Heggart, 2022).

In this qualitative case study, we investigated how Chinese pracademics in Shanghai, namely KYYs, construct their professional identity in brokerage work of pracademia. Participating KYYs exhibited differences in their perceptions of their roles as pracademics, restrained or intensive identity work in relation to their dominant- and non-dominant social identities and various level of involvement in scholarly activities. This section discusses three implications of these findings.

According to the existing literature (Caplan, 1979; Hollweck et al., 2021), pracademic identity involves assuming dual or multiple identities simultaneously. By linking the identity work and social identity perspectives (Roccas and Brewer, 2002; Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003), this study partially confirms this argument. All ten participating KYYs navigated the dual identity of academic and practitioner with conflicting values, reward systems and languages. The processes of identity work manifested in their decision-making and prioritization of their competing social identities and discourses between practice and academia.

What is newly discovered in this study is that the participating KYYs in Shanghai were engaged in varying degree of identity work, leading to different types of pracademic identity formation. While all ten KYYs (both with dominant and non-dominant pracademic identities) recognized the disconnection between competing social identities, seven KYYs with non-dominant identities were inclined to be engaged in a long-term process of renegotiating the unique professional values of KYYs in pracademia. During this process, they continuously experienced intensive identity work in an effort to create a sense of continuity, so as to overcome and expand boundaries. Few of them (KYYs with a merged identity) even created new spaces between practice and academia in unique professional identities. This higher level of identity work resulted in KYYs with non-dominant identities experiencing a degree of self-doubt and self-openness (Beech, 2008), which pushed them to make sense of their unique professional value.

This finding highlights the complexity of pracademic identities due to their specific inherently spanning positions (de Groot et al., 2021; Kluijtmans et al., 2017). It also demonstrates that pracademic identities are not the static constructs, but continually constructed and reconstructed over time through identity work in pracademia (Collinson, 2003; Warhurst, 2011). This study thus expands the theories of pracademic identity by identifying different types of pracademic identity formation (dominant and non-dominant) with restrained and intensive identity work.

In line with the existing literature (Chasteen et al., 2015; Dickinson et al., 2022; Wood et al., 2016), in this study, all participating KYYs reported resolving the conflicts between practice and academia by continuously learning and integrating knowledge, expertise and perspectives in scholarly activities. This suggests that pracademics, who occupy an ambiguous position at the boundary between the worlds of practice and academia, should possess “boundary-crossing competence” (Akkerman and Bakker, 2011), that is, the ability to manage and integrate multiple divergent discourses and practices across academia and practice (Hollweck et al., 2021).

It is worth noting that, in this study, KYYs in Shanghai who transitioned from academia to pracademia (participants Han, Wang, Ma and Lee) obtained tacit operational knowledge through action and reflection. Conversely, others (participants Yu, Jia, Shan, Huan and Lan) highlighted how their previous practitioner experience gave them the “upper hand” in sharing experiences and making better-informed decisions about practice-oriented inquiries in school contexts. Consistent with the findings of Dickinson et al. (2022) and Chaaban et al. (2022), KYYs believed that their practical experiences gave them credibility in their pracademic roles and brokerage work.

This study also adds new insights that pracademics can expand their brokerage practice only when they reconstruct and achieve synergy in their identities (i.e. the non-dominant intersected or merged identity) through self-reflection and self-openness (i.e. deeper identity work). Compared to KYYs with dominant identities, who primarily regarded themselves as problem-solvers, KYYs with non-dominant identities were engaged in a wider range of brokerage activities. They considered their roles as liaison, facilitator, coordinator and catalytic agent in bridging theory and practice (participants Jia and Shan), creating new solutions (participants Yu and Lee), and triggering knowledge exchange and conversion between the practical and academic worlds by personal deep engagement in research (participants Lan and Huan). It shows that KYYs who act with agency and reconstruct non-dominant identities will enable themselves to understand the position deeply, to accept differences between professional worlds and to cope with conflict, which are beneficial for expanding brokerage work for knowledge mobilization and innovation. As Lifshitz-Assaf (2018) noted, identity and boundary work processes are mutually reinforcing and thus strengthen over time.

As noted, encouraging pracademics to act with agency and engage in brokerage work may undertake conflicts between competing social identities and roles, as well as self-doubt regarding the professional value, legitimacy and accountability of their unique position. To what extend pracademics engaging in identity work to resolve sorts of conflicts can affect the depth of thinking about the value of their position and the scope of their working boundaries, thereby affecting the advancement of professional capital within specific educational systems (Campbell, 2022; Hargreaves and Fullan, 2012). Considering the professional development of pracademics, we thereby suggest noticing not only their skills and competencies but also the identity work involved in being a pracademic (de Groot et al., 2021; Hendriks et al., 2019). We also believe the need for exploring ways and strategies to support and nurture the capacity of pracademics to negotiate the meaning of their professional identity through identity work.

Regarding the participating pracademics engaged in long-term identity work to restructure their professional identities, this study identified that it was challenging for Chinese pracademics to expand their boundaries through self-reflection and self-openness. Echoing the findings of previous studies (Kolber and Heggart, 2022; Mynott and Zimmatore, 2022), participants in this study often felt frustrated by being invisible (participants Yu and Shan), marginalized (participants Lee and Han) or devalued (participant Lee) in their roles as KYYs. As Kolber and Heggart (2022) suggested, the expectation of unpaid and unrecognized labor is a significant concern in the current conceptualization and operationalization of pracademics.

Despite these challenges, KYYs with non-dominant identities exercised their professional agency in several ways. They explored and developed their own methods of leading teachers to conduct scholarly activities (participants Han and Yu), formed partnerships with academic scholars to address the original needs of professional learning (participants Lee, Huan, and Lan), and built learning communities within school networks to engage multiple professionals (participants Han, Yu, Lee, Jia, Shan and Lan). In this regard, this study has shed light on how pracademics build networks with one another, which not only helped mitigate their insecure professional identities (Chaaban et al., 2022; Dickinson et al., 2022) but supported their adoption of multiple identities in scholarly activities.

Moreover, although this study did not identify a distinct type of compartmentalized pracademics (Roccas and Brewer, 2002), participants (participants Jia, Shan, Lan and Huan) described how they exchanged roles in different professional contexts during the early stage of their KYY career. Such role enactment reflects the compartmentalized identity type, whereby individuals separate practice and academia by “switching hats” (de Groot et al., 2021, p. 130) depending on the context. However, this identity type diminished as participants gradually integrated their hybrid professional roles with the support of their own professional relationships and networks.

This finding highlights that pracademics who network with one another may find more opportunities to develop an integrated non-dominant identity, potentially expanding their working boundaries in scholarly activities. It also indicates that pracademics who create new spaces for professional learning and networking among teachers and school leaders primarily enhance their human and social capital across schools and systems.

Additionally, networking among pracademic professionals provides an important space to encourage reflection and negotiation of the unique value of their positions in their identity work. This reflection and negotiation can enhance not only human and social capital but also decisional capital of pracademics. Given the limitation of the sample size and supporting data, we don’t have rich evidence to support the hints.

We therefore recommend that future research draw attention to various forms of networking (especially the networking of pracademics themselves) as a means of building the collective capacities, values, and actions of pracademics. In addition to supporting pracademics’ long-term identity work to restructure their professional identities, these networks may significantly advance the professional capital of the educational system, driving educational improvement and change (Campbell, 2022; Hargreaves and Fullan, 2012).

Although KYYs in Shanghai gained external legitimacy as pracademics in a top-down manner, this study found that KYYs actively shape their professional identities by redefining their roles and engaging in brokerage work. This has resulted in the emergence of both dominant and non-dominant professional identities. KYYs with dominant identities prioritized the practitioner identification and primarily focused on routine tasks as problem-solvers. In contrast, those with non-dominant identities developed two sub-identities: first, those with an intersected identity saw themselves as bridging practice and academia and gradually reconstructed their professional identity as practitioner-scholars; second, those with a merged identity managed multiple social identities and understood the uniqueness of their professional identity as pracademics. The findings of this study underscore the complexity of pracademic identities, which evolve dynamically over time through ongoing identity work.

For the professional development of pracademics in challenging educational environments, we suggest noticing not only on their skills and competencies but also on the identity work inherent in being a pracademic. Engaging in identity work seems to reinforce pracademics’ expertise, while helping themselves accept differences, resolve conflicts and expand their working boundaries for the benefit of knowledge sharing, conversion and innovation. We also suggest that networks can help build collective capacities among pracademics, potentially advancing professional capital within educational systems to foster educational improvement and change.

Finally, as this study focuses exclusively on the limited data of 10 participating KYYs within Shanghai educational system, generalization of these findings should be approached with caution. We recommend further research on pracademic identity construction and the impact thereof on educational innovation and improvement from a larger and wider population. In particular, examining and discussing diverse pracademic roles and identity formation across different educational systems and social contexts will enrich this field going forward.

Funding: This is to acknowledge funding by the China MOE Project of Key Research Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences (No. 22JJD88024).