Scholarlink

<p>Instructional designers (IDs) in U.S. higher education play a pivotal yet often misunderstood role in advancing student learning and institutional goals. Despite contributing to critical pedagogical and technological innovations, IDs continue to navigate ambiguity in how their work is defined and valued. This basic qualitative inquiry explores how 15 instructional designers at public and private research institutions make sense of the professional status of their field within institutional contexts. Findings reveal tensions between participants’ aspirational understanding of instructional design as a pedagogical, mission-driven field and institutional practices that position their work as primarily technical or supportive. Major findings include widespread confusion about the ID role due to a lack of unified definitions, the tendency of IDs to simplify their roles when communicating with others, and the influential role of leadership in shaping departmental culture and status. Participants articulated a strong commitment to learner-centered design, access, and social impact, while navigating conditions that complicate recognition of their expertise. By foregrounding practitioner perspectives, this study contributes to ongoing conversations about professional identity, legitimacy, and the professionalization of instructional design in higher education.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Claiming professional status: identity work among instructional designers in higher education

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月26日

查看全文
  • Gustavo Roque,
  • Craig M. McGill,
  • Tonette S. Rocco

摘要

Instructional designers (IDs) in U.S. higher education play a pivotal yet often misunderstood role in advancing student learning and institutional goals. Despite contributing to critical pedagogical and technological innovations, IDs continue to navigate ambiguity in how their work is defined and valued. This basic qualitative inquiry explores how 15 instructional designers at public and private research institutions make sense of the professional status of their field within institutional contexts. Findings reveal tensions between participants’ aspirational understanding of instructional design as a pedagogical, mission-driven field and institutional practices that position their work as primarily technical or supportive. Major findings include widespread confusion about the ID role due to a lack of unified definitions, the tendency of IDs to simplify their roles when communicating with others, and the influential role of leadership in shaping departmental culture and status. Participants articulated a strong commitment to learner-centered design, access, and social impact, while navigating conditions that complicate recognition of their expertise. By foregrounding practitioner perspectives, this study contributes to ongoing conversations about professional identity, legitimacy, and the professionalization of instructional design in higher education.