Transitions are hard. As a previous professional academic advisor, it was my job to aid students in their transition to college. Whether it was homesickness, learning about one’s identity, or adjusting to a new major, I was there to ask important questions, celebrate joys, and advocate for my advisees. As an advisor, I was able to walk alongside my advisees on their academic and personal journeys. In contrast, as a new researcher, I’m learning to create paths, signage, and lampposts for those on their journey. As a part of my transition to Ohio State, I’ve experienced what I like to consider identity whiplash – stress caused by a change or shift in one’s role which is considered central to their identity.
To give background to the situation, just as one has an engineering identity, I also have an advising identity. My goals as a researcher strongly relate to affective components of learning and identity development. Pursuing a PhD in Engineering Education was strongly influenced by my values and my identity as an advisor. I was not expecting my advising identity to be extremely relevant in the first year of my studies; However, as a Graduate Teaching Associate, my advising identity has been particularly salient. Within six weeks, I have had the privilege of having in-depth conversations with students on their identities, developing support networks, equal opportunity concerns, sources of motivation, and academic exploration. Although these interactions have been meaningful, they have been relatively infrequent and unexpected. After having these conversations, I felt both pride and sadness. I was happy to help my students in any way that I could; however, I missed being able to consistently walk alongside students during their journey. In some ways, I felt as though a part of my identity was being lost during this transition.
Transition – that’s the word that I focused on. After realizing that I was going through a large transition, I was immediately drawn to Schlossberg’s Transition Theory. In working with students, I would frequently use this theory to help them cope with various experiences. In analyzing my own transition to Ohio State University, I reflected on the context, impact, and type of transition that I was experiencing. In this situation, the transition can be considered as anticipated. The impact could be considered high due to a major change in daily life, the impact of values and identity, and financial considerations. In terms of context, the transition was voluntary, and embraced, yet occurs far from a familiar setting (my wife and I moved from South Dakota recently).
According to Schlossberg’s Theory, the ability for a person to cope with a transition is situated within the situation, self-factors, social support, and utilized strategies. In this reflection, I would like to focus on the situation and strategies. The situation was viewed as a role-change: particularly, one of loss, rather than of addition. The transition could be considered “off-time” based on two prevalent identities. Within the engineering field, this transition occurred slightly late, as most individuals pursue a PhD prior to working full-time. In contrast it is often expected within the student affairs realm that one pursues a terminal degree after significant service in the field. In this sense, the transition also occurred extremely early. Finally, I experienced a similar transition when moving from engineering to the student affairs realm. The experience mirrors the transition where I perceived a loss of my engineering identity.
Although each situation is unique, many individuals have similar experiences. If you, a student, or a colleague is experiencing “identity whiplash”, several interventions can be explored to help cope with the transition. According to Schlossberg’s theory, these interventions should focus on modifying the situation, controlling, or shifting the meaning of the problem, or providing a strategy to manage undue stress. This may come in the form of analyzing the transition, adopting a new coping strategy, or broadening one’s support network.
I found understanding in reflecting on my transition in the form of a blog post. This experience allowed me to consider and shift the meaning of my problem. In many ways I missed making a difference in the lives of others and aiding them in their journey. Being re-introduced to advising conversations during my transition, brought feelings of loss, and “whiplash”. In processing the experience, I’ve realized that transitioning into a new role does not necessitate a loss of my advising identity. Rather, the addition of a research identity allows my experiences to culminate in another form. In many ways, my research reflects all of my identities. Furthermore, I can implement my advising identity outside of a typical advising position. As a student and graduate teaching associate, I can impact my peers, the students in my labs, and my undergraduate teaching assistants. I will not be losing the opportunity to help others grow and develop. Rather, it will be a shift in practice. I will be walking alongside my colleagues, mentees, and students during their journeys. At the same time, I will be creating pathways, lampposts, and signage for those on their journey. Moving forward, I’m an engineer, an advisor, and a researcher – a role that I’m looking forward to adopting.