Driven by neoliberalism and globalization, higher education (HE) has shifted toward a "prestige culture" defined by competition over collaboration, metric-driven validation, and reputation-based evaluation (Oliviera et al., 2024).  In this environment, academic values are sacrificed to rankings and individual indicators like citation counts and h-indexes (Blackmore, 2015). HE systems actively reproduce and legitimize this prestige culture through promotion criteria, funding mechanisms, and performance-based evaluation systems (Altbach, 2004; Brankovic, 2018). International relations, competition, and performance indicators became crucial within this prestige-driven HE system (Marginson, 2006). In this context, international research collaborations (IRC), one of the practices signifying the academic profession, has been transformed into a measure of rankings; as a result, into a tool of metric based competition. Situated at the intersection of research productivity and internationalization, IRC provides several measurable benefits, such as access to resources (Serrano Velarde, 2018), visibility (Oldac et al., 2023), and research impact (Krücken, 2021). Therefore, IRC can be considered as one of the practices academics can demonstrate their compliance with the contemporary academic norms. IRC is closely tied to academic identity as it shapes how researchers understand themselves, how they are recognized, and how they position their work within the current knowledge system. Although there are broad investigations on IRC, very limited scholarly work has been conducted on the implications of  IRC on academic identity development. This study contributes to addressing this concern by exploring how academics negotiate their identities in the context of shifting academic values, norms, and practices, particularly under the pressure of IRC. 

Academic identity is a dynamic process that is constructed and reconstructed through continuous interactions between academics and the HE system. This professional identity is progressively constructed through market-driven values, competition culture and metric-oriented quality understanding. As a result, academic identity formation is shaped by practices globally and institutionally valuesd, such as increasing research productivity, enhancing international visibility, and participating in multinational academic networks (Henkel, 2005). While, what it means to be a legitimate and successful academic is constantly defined by exogenous norms and values; academics construct and reconstruct their academic identities according to their own agency, by internalizing, resisting, or selectively conforming to these expectations in line with their epistemic commitments and personal motivations (Clarke et al., 2012; Shams, 2019).

Self-Discrepancy Theory (SDT) (Higgins, 1987) provides a framework for understanding how individuals evaluate themselves according to internal and external standards and how inconsistencies between these self-states lead to specific emotional outcomes. SDT divides the self into three main domains: actual self, ideal self, and ought self (Higgins, 1987). In this study, the actual self represents the academic's perception of their current academic position in relation to their IRC experience. The ideal self corresponds to the academic's personal desire to be internationally connected and recognized in this study. The ought self represents the qualities that the individual believes they should embody due to external responsibilities or pressures. In the current HE environment, this reflects the performance-oriented expectations, institutional and normative pressures on academics to participate in IRC (Ball, 2003; Karvounaraki et al., 2018). Discrepancy between an academic's current experiences and the demands of a performative academic culture, can lead to identity conflicts and, consequently, negative emotions such as “inadequacy" and "deficiency." Conversely, the harmony of these selves can support professional development and motivation (Timostsuk & Ugaste, 2010). Therefore; this study, which focuses on academics' feelings, perceptions, and interpretations of the harmony and disharmony between their ought, ideal, and real selves in relation to IRC, seeks to answer the following research question: In contemporary academia, how do academics negotiate their academic identities, and how do they position IRC within this process?

A general qualitative research design was used in this study to examine how academics construct and negotiate their professional identities in the context of IRC. A general qualitative research approach was deemed appropriate as the aim was to capture participants' perceptions and experiences without adhering to the procedural constraints of a specific qualitative research tradition (Merriam, 2009). A purposive sampling method combining maximum variation and snowball sampling technique was employed to ensure diversity across discipline, gender, career stage, type of institution, and IRC experience. The sample consisted of 47 academics: 24 had participated in IRC through co-authored publications or funded projects in the last five years, while 23 reported no previous IRC experience. This distinction enabled a comparative analysis of identity-negotiation processes associated with situations in which IRC was and was not experienced. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews. The semi-structured interview form, developed by the researchers, consists of five main dimensions: demographic information, the process of IRC, individual evaluation of IRC, barriers, facilitators, strategies, and the conceptualization of IRC. The interviews were recorded with informed consent and transcribed using an AI-supported transcription tool, and the transcription accuracy was checked by the researchers. This study is derived from a larger research project. In line with the study's objective and scope, the analysis mainly focused on participants' conceptualizations of IRC, their individual evaluations of IRC, and their experiences with IRC processes. Data analysis was conducted using reflective thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021) guided by the core concepts of SDT, using MAXQDA. Particular attention was paid to how IRC functioned as a context in which identity conformity and non-conformity were expressed and negotiated.

This study reveals that IRC is understood not only as an academic activity for academics but also as an area closely related to the construction and negotiation of academic identity. The findings show that IRC is internalized as the center of the ideal academic self as an implicit indicator of academic competence and legitimacy both by academics with IRC experience, “If you don't follow this trend, you can't progress very far, it's important for not to miss out” (IRC(+)_P3), and the ones without IRC experience, “… It [IRC] is one of the things that will take you much higher” (IRC(-)_P24), “... this is reflected in increased prestige within the academia.” (IRC(-)_P7). This finding reveals how the norms of performative academic culture permeate academics' perceptions of self and how academic identity is increasingly shaped around globally recognized indicators. Participation in IRC is associated with “becoming complete as a scientist,” “learning a common scientific language” (IRC(-)_P12); and "becoming a full-fledged academic" (IRC(-)_P23), showing that the contradictions between academics' ideal and real selves can create feelings of inadequacy and insufficiency. On the other hand, through IRC, the harmony between ideal and real self has been associated with positive emotions: IRC(+)_P24, "… it [IRC] makes me happy, also increases my self-confidence." IRC(+)P1, " … it [IRC] naturally brings happiness." Findings suggest that IRC is not merely a practice encouraged by institutional/ national policies “... this is beyond h-indices/impact factors” (IRC(-)P12), rather an important arena for identity negotiation where the harmony and disharmony between academics' ideal selves and their current practices become visible.

Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management, 10(1), 3-25. Ball, S. J. (2003). The Teacher's Soul and the Terrors of Performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18, 215-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065 Blackmore, P. (2015). Prestige in Academic Life: Excellence and exclusion (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315715780. Brankovic, J. (2018). The status games they play: Unpacking the dynamics of organisational status competition in higher education. Higher Education, 75(4), 695–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0169-2 Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage, London. Clarke, C., Knights, D., & Jarvis, C. (2012). A labour of love? Academics in business schools. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 28(1), 5-15. Henkel, M. (2005). Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment. Higher Education, 49, 155-176. Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319–340. Karvounaraki, A., Subramaniam, S, Hristov, H, Ojala, T, Jonkers, K, Huisman, J, & Goenaga, X. (2018). Mapping of European transnational collaborative partnerships in higher education. Publications Office of the European Union. Krücken, G. (2021). Multiple competitions in higher education: a conceptual approach. Innovation, 23:2, 163-181, DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2019.1684652 Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of National and Global Competition in Higher Education. Higher Education, 52(1), 1–39. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29735003. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Oldac, Y. I., Nkansah, J. O., & Yang, L. (2023). ‘West is must, the rest is optional’: Epistemic injustice and positional good in international research collaboration. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01127-4 Oliveira, T., Nada, C., & Magalhães, A. (2024). Navigating an academic career in marketized universities: Mapping the international literature. Review of Educational Research, 95(2), 255-292. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231226336. (Original work published 2025) Serrano Velarde, K. (2018). The way we ask for money. The emergence and institutionalisation of grant writing practices in academia. Minerva, 56(1), 85–107. Shams, F. (2019). Managing academic identity tensions in a Canadian public university: The role of identity work in coping with managerialism. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(6), 619-632. Timoštšuk, I., & Ugaste, A. (2012). The role of emotions in student teachers’ professional identity. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(4), 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2012.662637.