Working With Tensions

8/12/2019 Working With Tensions

1/31

http://mcq.sagepub.com/Quarterly

Management Communication

http://mcq.sagepub.com/content/22/2/258The online version of this article can be foundat:

DOI: 10.1177/0893318908323150

12 August 20082008 22: 258 originally published onlineManagement Communication Quarterly

Rebecca J. MeisenbachHigher Education Fund-Raisers

(Dis)empowerment in Occupational Identity Negotiation AmongWorking With Tensions: Materiality, Discourse, and

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

found at:can beManagement Communication QuarterlyAdditional services and information for

http://mcq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://mcq.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://mcq.sagepub.com/content/22/2/258.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Aug 12, 2008OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Oct 30, 2008Version of Record>>

at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on October 16, 2013mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/content/22/2/258http://mcq.sagepub.com/content/22/2/258http://mcq.sagepub.com/content/22/2/258http://www.sagepublications.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://mcq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://mcq.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://mcq.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://mcq.sagepub.com/content/22/2/258.refs.htmlhttp://mcq.sagepub.com/content/22/2/258.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://mcq.sagepub.com/content/early/2008/08/12/0893318908323150.full.pdfhttp://mcq.sagepub.com/content/early/2008/08/12/0893318908323150.full.pdfhttp://mcq.sagepub.com/content/22/2/258.full.pdfhttp://mcq.sagepub.com/content/22/2/258.full.pdfhttp://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://mcq.sagepub.com/content/early/2008/08/12/0893318908323150.full.pdfhttp://mcq.sagepub.com/content/22/2/258.full.pdfhttp://mcq.sagepub.com/content/22/2/258.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://mcq.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://mcq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://mcq.sagepub.com/content/22/2/258http://mcq.sagepub.com/


2/31

Working With Tensions

Materiality, Discourse, and

(Dis)empowerment in Occupational

Identity Negotiation Among Higher

Education Fund-Raisers

Rebecca J. MeisenbachUniversity of MissouriColumbia

The increasing time requirements and perceived value of occupations raises

concerns about creating and managing positive occupational identities. The

author explains how individuals pursue moments of micro emancipation and

empowerment as they negotiate the positive and negative discourses and material

realities of occupational identity within the fund-raising occupation. Interviews

with higher education fund-raisers reveal six power-laden and discourse-

influenced ways of understanding (framing) fund-raising. The findings suggest

that the potential for an empowered occupational identity resides in an individ-

uals ability to shift among framings, managing and maintaining material and

discursive tensions surrounding the framings rather than eliminating or avoiding

these tensions. Implications of these identity negotiations for various occupa-

tions and particularly the nonprofit sector are discussed.

Keywords: occupational identity; empowerment; fund-raising; materiality;

professionalism

The current shifting of job security and stability toward job insecurityand instability, coupled with the increasing amounts of time that manyemployees engage in paid work, can lead to challenges for workers in

making meaning of their work and their senses of self. Lair, Sullivan, and

Cheney (2005) noted that the trend toward personal branding of workers

promotes a belief that the individual is responsible for his or her own career,

whether a success or failure. This belief in personal agency, along with the

Management

Communication Quarterly

Volume 22 Number 2

November 2008 258-287

2008 Sage Publications

10.1177/0893318908323150http://mcq.sagepub.com

hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

258

Authors Note: This article is based on data collected for the authors dissertation, which was

completed under the direction of Patrice M. Buzzanell and Josh Boyd. The author wishes to

thank her advisors, the anonymous reviewers, andMCQ editor Jim Barker for their helpful

comments.


3/31

belief that employees should be happy in their work, individualizes the

meaning-making process and simultaneously encourages individuals to

project appropriately disciplined professional selves and to derive a positivesense of self from such constructions. These individuals are turning toward

occupations and individual careers as sites of stability for their social iden-

tities. But although entire occupations may be more stable than particular

organizations in the contemporary landscape, occupations are still suscep-

tible to a wide range of influences from both inside organizations and

society. It is not surprising then that scholars are calling for more attention

to meanings and consequences of occupation, work, and professionalism in

relation to identity negotiation (Ashcraft, 2007; Cheney & Ashcraft, 2007;Cheney, Zorn, Planalp, & Lair, in press; Lair et al., 2005).

Within research on identity negotiation, resistance, and empowerment,

Ashcraft and Mumby (2004) noted that despite increasing acceptance of

identities as sites of tension and fragmentation, existing identity studies still

tend to lack dialectical explanation of the social processes through which

identity organization occurs. Furthermore, as suggested above, material

conditions play into occupational choices and identities, yet scholars have

neglected the material aspects of identity negotiation (Cheney & Ashcraft,2007). Others have argued that awareness of tensions in identity negotiation

necessitates studies that demonstrate how organizational members

respond to and manage the binds in which they find themselves (Pepper &

Larson, 2006, pp. 51-52) and consideration of more productive ways of liv-

ing with such tensions (Ashcraft & Trethewey, 2004).

Specifically, this project recognizes that just as tensions are present

within traditional organizational boundaries (as assessed by Pepper &

Larson, 2006), they are also present in occupations, affecting the construc-

tion and negotiation of increasingly important occupational identities.

Furthermore, Tracy and Trethewey (2005) pointed out that jobs may be

chosen and avoided based on the extent to which they support preferred

organizational or, as is argued here, occupational selves. Therefore, man-

agement and organizational scholars interested in what makes a particular

career well liked and desired should turn their attention toward understand-

ing occupational identities and their tensions. Ashcraft (2005, 2007;

Ashcraft & Mumby, 2004) has started this kind of empirical work by

researching identity negotiation in a generally admired occupation, that ofairline pilots. She has called for further studies of how occupational prac-

titioners tweak available discourse as they navigate tensions between his-

torical discourses and contemporary changes in occupations (Ashcraft,

2007, p. 28). Research on occupational identity tensions should expand to

Meisenbach / Working With Tensions 259


4/31

focus on the tweaking of these discourses and identities in emerging and

less universally admired occupations (e.g., Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). In

terms of occupation types, Cheney et al. (in press) have also argued thatscholars need to broaden the locus of research on meaningful work beyond

for-profit organizations. Thus, by studying less admired occupations that are

also distinct from those found in U.S. for-profit corporations, researchers can

obtain a fuller picture of the management of occupational identity tensions

and their implications.

Fund-raising is an ideal occupation in which to study identity-negotiation

tensions because it is an emerging yet reputationally complicated occupa-

tion within nonprofit and nongovernmental sectors around the globe. Justwithin the United States in 2006 alone, Americans gave approximately

$295 billion to nonprofit organizations (Giving USA, 2007). Furthermore,

scholars have conservatively estimated that during the next 50 years $41

trillion in wealth will be transferred from one generation to the next. With

approximately $6 trillion of that money going to charities (Havens &

Schervish, 2000), fund-raisers are expected to play an essential role in the

future of the sector. Most recently, public higher education institutions have

come to recognize the value of staff fund-raisers (Brittingham & Pezzullo,1990). Although the United States leads the way in this kind of philan-

thropy, other countries are following suit, and the increasing international-

ization of philanthropic efforts only increases the relevance of and interest

in this particular occupation.

Yet the interest in fund-raisers is not always positive. Fund-raisers are

closely connected to major public concerns about the nonprofit sectors

potential to raise and use donated funds inappropriately (Kelly, 1998).

Payton (1987) noted that a lot of people dont want to be bothered with

fund-raising, dont like it, find it distasteful and dont want to be involved

with it at all (p. 133). Fund-raisers construct occupational identities amidst

these tensions and perceptions, and for the nonprofit sector to sustain itself,

ideally they will be positive and empowered ones.

Thus, by focusing on the occupational identity negotiations of higher

education fund-raisers, I explain how individuals in a growing, sometimes

revered, and sometimes despised career make sense of their work selves

while managing the tensions inherent in their work and surrounding histor-

ical and social discourses. The present findings suggest that positive andempowered occupational identities involve constant shifting in the discur-

sive construction of occupational selves rather than maintenance of a

monolithic sense of self. This movement is noteworthy in that people use it

to manage and maintain (rather than conquer or eliminate) the tensions and

260 Management Communication Quarterly


5/31

power relations inherent in and surrounding the occupation. I begin by

developing a theoretical framework from recent research on identity nego-

tiation and the current issues surrounding fund-raising as an occupation. Ithen use the framework to interpret 18 in-depth interviews with higher edu-

cation fund-raisers as they talk about their work and occupational identities.

The findings illustrate the transient character of empowerment processes

and the tension-filled dynamics of occupational identity negotiations for

fund-raisers.

Identities

Research on identity in organizational settings has grown in recent

years, considering issues such as the roles of gender (e.g., Ashcraft &

Mumby, 2004; Jorgenson, 2002; Tracy & Scott, 2006), professionalism

(e.g., Dyer & Keller-Cohen, 2000; Jorgenson, 2000), narratives (e.g., Dyer

& Keller-Cohen, 2000; Holmes, 2005), organizational control (e.g.,

Alvesson & Willmott, 2002; Ashcraft, 2005), and societal discourses (e.g.,

Ashcraft, 2007; Kuhn, 2006) in the processes of identity negotiation. Thesestudies have articulated identity as a socially constructed process, and many

of them have explicitly taken a poststructuralist stance toward the concept,

in which identities are conceptualized as fragmented, shifting, conflicted,

and lacking in coherence (e.g., Ashcraft & Mumby, 2004; Holmer-

Nadesan, 1996; Kondo, 1990; Kuhn, 2006; Shotter & Gergen, 1989; Tracy

& Scott, 2006; Tracy & Trethewey, 2005). In contrast, structuralist identity

assumptions suggest that a real and stable self exists, but the individual

must seek it out and uphold it. From a structuralist perspective, identity is

viewed as a relatively fixed essence that a person has; it is locatable and sta-

tic. Poststructuralist approaches challenge these structuralist assumptions.

Tracy and Trethewey (2005) illuminated the assumptions of a poststruc-

turalist approach to identity through the metaphor of a crystallized identity,

in which individuals identities may grow, change, and reflect differently in

different moments. Although this notion of identity may sound uncomfort-

able, they posited that poststructuralist understandings of identity can free

individuals to more readily embrace different senses of self in different

moments, offering an empowering potential. However, future researchneeds to provide empirical evidence of anyone enacting a crystallized iden-

tity and/or realizing this empowering potential.

Within identity-negotiation research, scholars frequently attend to issues

of control and resistance. This focus is natural because a poststructuralist



6/31

approach to identity suggests that these identities are developed in the con-

text of power relations (Alvesson, 2000, p. 1105) and that identity is

partly a temporary outcome of the powers and regulations that the subjectencounters (Krreman & Alvesson, 2001, p. 63). Alvesson and Willmott

(2002) have distinguished between identity regulation and identity work.

Identity regulation focuses on how discourses generate and control self-

identities. In contrast, identity work represents individuals interpretations

of and reactions (including resistance) to various discourses.

Of particular importance for the current project, Alvesson and Willmott

(2002) also pointed out that acknowledging identity-negotiation processes

as fluid and unstable highlights opportunities for microemancipation aswell as openings for newforms of subordination and oppression (p. 638).

Micro emancipation involves an emphasis on partial, temporary move-

ments that break away from diverse forms of oppression, rather than suc-

cessive moves towards a predetermined state of liberation (Alvesson &

Willmott, 1996, p. 172). These emancipatory movements thus pursue and

sometimes generate empowerment for the individual. Empowerment is a

sense of ability to control or influence ones circumstances (see Albrecht,

1988; Papa, Singhal, Ghanekar, & Papa, 2000).Recent identity research addresses the role of discourse in this identity

workregulation process (Kuhn, 2006; Musson & Duberley, 2007). Mumby

(2004) defined discourse as a material, embodied, performative process

through which social actors construct their identities in a dynamic, contra-

dictory and precarious fashion (p. 247). Kuhn (2006) noted that although

scholars are recognizing the breadth of discursive resources that are rele-

vant to identity work and regulation, studies rarely consider how organi-

zational discourses influence identity formation, and even more rarely

attend to discourses beyond the artificial boundaries of the organization

(p. 1342). The current project attends to these discourses.

Along with the interest in discourse, scholars advocate a dialectical

approach to studies of (dis)empowerment and control or resistance that

considers the simultaneity of such factors (e.g., Mumby, 2005; Papa et al.,

2000). Ashcraft (2005) used this perspective in discussing how airline

pilots overt discursive acts of consent can also function as moments of

resistance. It is important that rather than assuming that identity tensions

must be resolved, Mumbys approach relies on Adornos concept of nega-tive dialectics, which refuses to engage in transcendence or grand syn-

thesis and chooses the more difficult path of keeping tensions and

contradictions in constant play (Mumby, 2005, p. 22). Similarly, Pepper

and Larson (2006) noted the ubiquity of tensions in organizing and their



7/31

potential for positive and negative outcomes. Yet in their study of cultural

identity tensions surrounding a corporate merger, their findings revealed the

tensions (conflicting premises competing to define individuals) as negativeexperiences that generated conflict and anxiety and unhealthy and

unproductive organizational cultures (p. 52). The negativity of the experi-

ence of these identity tensions might have been tied to the postacquisition

context of the study, suggesting that further study should explore the posi-

tive and/or negative experience of identity tensions in other situations.

Most relevant to the current project is occupational identity, which is a type

of group or social identity in that it represents how individuals construct their

sense of who they are and what they do in relation to their jobs.1

Tracy andScott (2006) offered a fairly static definition of occupational identity as cen-

tral, distinctive, and enduring characteristics that typify a line of work (p. 7),

but this definition seems to be at odds with the fragmentation and changeabil-

ity associated with the poststructuralist view they take in their overall project.

More clearly reflecting poststructuralist assumptions of fragmentation and

changeability, Ashcraft (2007) noted that the formation of occupational iden-

tity is an ongoing persuasive endeavor that traverses time and space, macro

and micro messages, institutions and actors, and that serves to (re)organizework by mobilizing discourses of difference in response to lived pressures and

material circumstances (p. 15). Similar to Alvesson and Willmotts (2002)

identity regulation and work, she described occupational identity as consisting

of occupational image discourse (public discourses regarding the occupation)

and role communication (the individuals day-to-day practices and experi-

ences of doing the job). However, I believe that the use of the term role invites

confusion over distinctions between roles and identities. Thus, I define occu-

pational identity as the shifting, material, and discursive framing of image and

practices associated with a particular type of work.

Overall, recent identity research has opened up questions about the lived

experience of identity negotiations, particularly what theorized micro practices

of empowerment look like in practice and how individuals experience tensions

across and among conflicting sources of identity regulation. This need, coupled

with the increasing importance of occupational identities for those in growing

and sometimes tainted occupations, serves as the impetus for this study.

Managing the Occupational Identities of Fund-Raisers

Fund-raising is an emerging and rapidly growing career option. Although

the first staff fund-raisers tended to find their positions accidentally, the field



8/31

is slowly developing into a purposefully chosen career path (Kelly, 1998;

Wagner, 2002). The jobs tend to be plentiful, well paid (comparatively

within the nonprofit sector), and autonomous. In fact, fund-raising hasrecently been listed by U.S. News & World Reportas one of the best careers

for the coming years, along with firefighting, investment banking, and 28

other careers (Nemko, 2007).

As in other developing careers, this growth affects occupational identity.

Factors that are relevant to the reputation of fund-raisers include (a) the

fields high turnover rate and fieldwide competition for good fund-raisers,

(b) greater organizational dependence on and competition for private sup-

port, and (c) increased attention to and public concern about how funds areraised and used (Association of Fundraising Professionals, 2007; Duronio

& Tempel, 1997; Hall, 2007). Although the increased need and competition

for fund-raising dollars, along with connections to admired causes such as

education, enhance the prestige of fund-raisers, on the downside fund-

raisers face (a) long hours, (b) extensive travel requirements, (c) pressure to

produce quick, visible, and sometimes unrealistic results for their organiza-

tions, and (d) resentment by other members of the nonprofit sector for fund-

raisers perceived higher pay and proclivity to abandon one organizationfor another. Meisenbach and Jones (2003) found that some educational fund-

raisers still face disapproval from their own families regarding their career

choices. Overall, based on survey responses from nearly 1,800 fund-raisers

and 82 interviews, Duronio and Tempel (1997) found that fund-raisers fre-

quently face negative public and self-perceptions.

Although facing issues with their image and reputation, the onset of

Havens and Schervishs (2000) predicted transfer of wealth also means that

Americas fund-raisers are embarking on a half century of fund-raising that

can make them the heroes of the nonprofit sector. Existing research has

revealed and explained little about how individuals in growing but tainted

occupations negotiate positive and negative identities amidst these public

and self-perceptions. As a growing and alternately revered and tainted (see

Tracy & Scott, 2006) occupation, fund-raising offers a rich locus for seek-

ing greater understanding of occupational identity negotiation as well as

moments of micro emancipation. Thus, I ask,

Research Question 1 (RQ1): How do fund-raisers discursively negotiate theiroccupational identities?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): How do these negotiations disempower and/or

demonstrate paths for micro emancipation for fund-raisers?



9/31

Method

Participants

The participants in this study are 18 full-time fund-raisers for U.S. institu-

tions of higher education. Within fund-raising, educational institutions employ

more fund-raisers than any other type of nonprofit organization (Caboni, 2001;

Carbone, 1989). Fund-raisers came from six different states (Florida, Indiana,

North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) and 11 different

public and private institutions. Equal numbers of participants were male and

female. Participants had been fund-raisers between 6 months and 20 years,

representing a total of nearly 170 years of experience, with an average of 9.4

years. They had been in their current positions between 4 months and 17 years,

with an average tenure of 3.6 years. One fund-raiser was in an entry-level posi-

tion, 10 described themselves as having midlevel positions, and 7 described

themselves as middle to high or high-level fund-raisers. In all, 17 participants

described themselves as Caucasian or White (European American), whereas 1

described himself or herself as African American.

Procedures

Participants were located through a snowball sampling technique, begin-

ning with my personal and professional contacts within U.S. higher education

institutions. Participants completed a consent form and biographical question-

naire that supplied demographic information about them and their institutions

(e.g., educational levels, professional association memberships).

Data were then collected through semistructured interviews over a 6-

month period. The four-part interview protocol asked how participants

became fund-raisers, their perceptions and descriptions of being a fund-

raiser, their understandings of fund-raising practices, and their experiences

with a variety of issues related to fund-raising. Example questions included

What was the toughest part of becoming a fund-raiser? What do you like

best about being a fund-raiser? and how would you describe the process

of fund-raising in higher education? In-person interviews typically were

scheduled at the participants offices at their request. Six interviews were

conducted via telephone calls to the participants home or office. The inter-views lasted from 41 to 78 minutes, with an average length of 68 minutes.

All interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and verified, resulting in 556

pages of double-spaced text. Identifying information such as names, loca-

tions, and dollar amounts was changed to protect confidentiality.



10/31

Using a grounded theory approach, I began analyzing the data as I collected

it (Charmaz, 2000; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In grounded theory, data gather-

ing and analysis merge insofar as researchers engage in systematic inductivemethods to generate midlevel theory (Charmaz, 2000). As the transcripts were

verified against the audiotapes, I engaged in initial open coding, examining

each line of the data and describing its contents. I wrote brief descriptions in

the margins about what was happening and being articulated in each sentence.

Descriptions included asking for money, learning what to do, helping

others, and building relationships. This process helps keep researchers from

imposing their preexisting beliefs on the data (Charmaz, 2000; Glaser, 1978).

This method was effective because I wanted the ways that fund-raisers nego-tiate their identities and interact with empowerment opportunities to emanate

from their own words rather than be forced into preexisting categories.

I also began the process of writing memos about the data and generating

themes using the constant comparative technique (Charmaz, 2000; Glaser &

Strauss, 1967). Themes were formed out of talk that served to construct a

sense of occupational identity. Thus, any talk that related to the work and

image of the occupation and the individuals who perform this work was

coded. This method generated initial categories that were then refined throughfurther interviews and memoing. For example, early memos focused on ideas

such as fund-raisers frequent articulation of themselves as relationship

builders and students of fund-raising, their focus on making the ask, and

how they viewed their work as being onstage or offstage. During this time,

a secondary researcher also began reading the interview transcripts, engaging

in additional memoing, and discussing categories, themes, and ideas with the

primary researcher. Six ways of framing fund-raising emerged from the

grounded analysis. The memoing process developed an awareness of how

fund-raisers use of these framings simultaneously empowered and disem-

powered the fund-raisers, generating the second research question. When both

researchers independently concluded that interviews were only repeating cat-

egories without revealing new characteristics of these categories (i.e., theoret-

ical saturation, see Patton, 1990), a final two interviews were conducted.

Because no new data continued to emerge, data collection ended.

Negotiating Tensions and (Dis)empowermentin Occupational Identities

The main research question asks how higher education fund-raisers discur-

sively negotiate their occupational identities (RQ1). Fund-raisers interviews



11/31

reveal how they simultaneously employ a variety of discursive frames or ways

of bracketing and making sense of their occupational identity (see, Goffman,

1974). Specifically, the findings reveal six major modes of framing (financial,relational, educational, mission, coordination, and magical framing) on which

fund-raisers discursively rely and often simultaneously accommodate and

resist as they attempt to make meaning of their work and form occupational

identities. The findings foreground combinations of and tensions among dif-

ferent framings or ways of making sense of their occupations. In addition,

these framings simultaneously empower and disempower fund-raisers; that is,

although a particular discursive move toward empowerment may help fund-

raisers manage one discourse-influenced identity tension, the findings demon-strate how that move simultaneously generates new tensions and opportunities

for disempowerment associated with other constraining discourses (see RQ2).

Fund-raisers constantly reframe, refocus, adopt, infuse, challenge, resist,

broaden, and move among these frames as they seek to form, enhance, and

explain their occupational identities in relation to relevant discourses and

empowerment opportunities. Furthermore, fund-raisers occupational identi-

ties are not successfully managed by any one frame winning over another;

rather, their identities are managed by maintaining tensions within and amongframes that stem from materiality and historical and societal discourses.

Therefore, although in the following sections I discuss the (dis)empowerment

opportunities in each framing, I also focus on the tensions among and layer-

ing of framings. The examples shared here are by no means exhaustive of

those found in the transcripts, and I often use examples from the same fund-

raiser in discussing different frames to help demonstrate the overlapping use

of multiple frames by the same person.

Financial Framing

First, financial framing was the most clearly articulated way of framing

the occupational identities of fund-raisers. Its frequency stems from a mate-

rial reality for most fund-raisers in that they must raise money to keep their

jobs. John, an annual fund fund-raiser with 10 years experience declared,

Our job is to ask people for money. If you do not ask, do not like asking

people for money, [then] you ought not to be a fund-raiser. Peter, a major

gifts officer for 19 years, spoke of the material pressure of financial framing,saying, None of its terribly bad other than kind of having $600 million dol-

lars stamped across your forehead every day for 5 years. Chris similarly noted,

Theres so much pressure generated by schools that need money. . . .

And theres a lot of pressure from the president of the institution and the



12/31

financial office all the way through the trustees to simply go look for dol-

lars. These material demands influence how fund-raisers can and want to

frame their work and work selves.Fund-raisers frequently discussed disempowering public images of

themselves as slimy, tin-cup beggars associated with financial framings of

their work. Michele, who had been an annual gifts fund-raiser for 4 years,

noted a common belief that fund-raisers are kinda sleazy, and theyre

kinda out there with used car salesmen according to some folks. Kate,

another annual gifts fund-raiser with 4 years of experience, said,

People are scared when you say that [you are a fund-raiser]. [laughs] Um.They automatically have this, I feel like they have an automatic feeling about

you. People call me things like Oh, youre a money grubber, youre a, oh,

you beg people for money.

Fund-raisers find explanations of what they do to be particularly difficult

when this frame is the only way in which their work is understood. A sub-

servient social taint associated with being a beggar was often perceived by

the fund-raisers when articulating this frame (see Ashforth & Kreiner,

1999). Thus, the discourse of begging for money affects their occupationalidentities and can isolate and stigmatize fund-raisers. By keeping them

from interacting with others, this discourse challenges fund-raisers sense

of control, disempowering them.

Although potentially isolating, the focus on finances as part of their

occupational identities simultaneously allowed them to embody powerful

positions. Based on 10 years of experience, Chris suggested that his talent

for raising money both repels and attracts others:

Chris: If you go to a party and you say what you do . . . and you say youre a

professional fund-raiser, everybody in the room moves away from you . . .

and then throughout the evening people begin to come back to see you indi-

vidually because almost everybody you meet is involved in some organiza-

tion that has a need to raise money, and people begin to think that maybe you

have something to offer that would help with what their main project is.

Interviewer: Well what do you do when those people start returning and start

sidling up to you one by one?

Chris: I dominate the conversation by sharing all that I know about fund-raising.. . . [laughs] I love to talk about it.

Chris realized that the financial aspects of his occupation simultaneously

repel and compel others and that he has little control over the material reality



13/31


and societal discourses behind this movement. Yet he reclaims a sense of

empowerment for at least a moment by shifting into a more positive fram-

ing of himself as a sharer and teacher. Carols interview also revealed waysin which financial framing both ostracized and empowered her, noting that

her grandmother sees her as a glorified beggar but also that when we

announce our totals [at administrative meetings], we get clapping, cheering

and standing ovations. She is disempowered by her perceived inability to

end the beggar image but also sees that her occupation can get her the

recognition that she presumably desires from the university.

Thus, financial framing stands out as a tension-filled framing of their

occupational identities that is (dis)empowering in participants discourses.Although much of what follows demonstrates ways in which fund-raisers

attempt to move beyond the negative begging discourse associated with ask-

ing for money, the fund-raisers do not reject financial framing of their occu-

pational identities entirely. Indeed, the material reality of their work makes

denial of this frame implausible. Instead, they discursively layer and hold it

in tension with other framings, finding moments of emancipation from stig-

matizing discourses that create the need for still other paths.

Relational Framing

Relational framing offers a path to micro emancipation that creates new

tensions for fund-raisers as simultaneously (dis)empowered. This framing

at first suggests empowering reciprocal relations among fund-raisers and

others, and fund-raisers articulated relationship building as their favorite

thing about fund-raising, a source of positive self-image and a way to man-

age other negative framings. For example, Karen, who had worked as a

foundations giving officer for nearly 4 years, talked about how she turns to

relationships to manage the tensions associated with her financial role as a

fund-raiser:

And a lot of people even, I feel really bad sometimes when Ive hit em up

for things, when I come in just to shop in their stores, I think they like, worry,

like, Is she going to ask me for something today?

When I asked how she handled that suspicion, she said, Im like, Im onlyhere to shop today, indicating that at first she remains within the financial

frame with them and denies that she will ask for money. However, she then

turned to the relational frame:


14/31


I think they wonder what Im up to when I come in to shop. . . . But they know

me, we have that that type of relationship and you, and you build that, you build

that. People build that being comfortable and confidence in you to know if you,if youre in there for an ethical purpose and, and they like you and they like your

organization. And I think thats very important, is the relationship part of it.

So she compensates for and manages her perception of peoples suspicion

that she wants money through a personal relationship that she builds with

the shop owners. In this way she is trying to use relational framing to free

herself from a perceived undesirable image associated with her occupation.

Through relational framing, fund-raisers can be understood as ethical and

equal to those with whom they interact, enjoying higher levels of power,

respect, and reputation.

However, it is key to note that participants were articulating both fram-

ings rather than choosing one over the other. For example, Roger, a major

gifts officer with 8 years of experience, described what he does: I think

building relationships, umm, and translating those relationships into sup-

port for the, for the university is really, thats really the crux of the matter.

Similarly, Alan is a fund-raiser with 8 years of experience and a masters

degree in communication who consistently layered financial and relationalframes during his interview:

Alan: I dont like friend-raising. I think youre just, youre fund-raising. I dont

think you need to shy away from that were fund-raisers.

Interviewer: So let me reflect back. Is this kind of the way youre seeing it, that

you dont really view it as friend-raising, because making friends isnt the

goal, its fund-raising, because making funds is the goal?

Alan: No, because I disagree with both of those points. I dont think its about

making friends. I think what we do in educational fund-raising is build rela-

tionships with people . . . and bring them closer to the university . . . and

then hopefully, somewhere down the road, were going to ask them for a gift.

Thus, he resisted the interviewers attempts to categorize his occupational

identity in one frame. For him, fund-raising is not about either asking for

money or altruistically making friends; financial and relational frames must

be held in tension to fully understand how he views his work. The material

reality is certainly a factor. There is also a current of professionalism in suchstances in which the fund-raisers implied that friendships are distinct from

professional relationships. Furthermore, even though Roger and Alan

brought up the financial aspect and frame, they both articulated the financial


15/31

goal in relational and mission-based terms such as asking for support

instead of asking for money.

Turning attention to the disempowering potential of this frame, Kelly, anannual giving fund-raiser for 5 years, foregrounds the relational aspects of

fund-raising when explaining to a stranger what she does. She tells them,

I build relationships with people and then ask them for money. She

laughed and continued, People look at you, and theyre like, Okay, so are

you a hooker? From that conversational opening she would describe her

work. Kelly uses the frame to challenge peoples assumptions about her

occupational identity, but her approach highlights new tensions. Although

the beggar suffers from potential physical (filth) and social (servile rela-tionship to others) taints, a hooker also faces a moral taint stemming from

the occupations doubtful virtue (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). The strategic

use of relationships as a means to financial ends can call forth public dis-

comfort with combinations of friendship and money. Talking about build-

ing relationships as a necessary step or means of raising money challenges

any assumptions that fund-raisers are building altruistic friendships.

Overall, the addition of relational framing helps fund-raisers extricate

themselves from the disempowering begging discourse by generating afocus on respectful, honest, and reciprocal relations with others. Talking

about relationships with human beings avoids public discomfort with talk-

ing about money and connotes a sense of empowerment for fund-raisers as

those who are orchestrating and building the relationships but also leads to

questions about the ethics of their actions. Some participants seemed aware

that blending financial and relational framing, while freeing them from some

issues, creates new identity issues. Specifically, this blending can result in

even greater public mistrust of fund-raisers as people who subvert and bend

relationships to the strategic end goal of obtaining money. Strategic rather

than altruistic relations may conflict with public assumptions about philan-

thropy. Also, if they are building relationships with donors, then leaving the

organization could destroy the relationship, making it harder to justify

changing jobs. Many participants attempt to distinguish these relationships

from friendship as a way to manage these tensions. Thus, although relational

framing helps manage problems stemming from financial framing, it also

creates new tensions and issues for fund-raisers.

Educational Framing

Third, educational framing of fund-raising encompasses additional

power-laden tensions for fund-raisers, ranging from admitting that they



16/31

knew little about their jobs when they started and are still learning the work

more than 10 years later to describing themselves as knowledgeable

teachers of publics who are undereducated about fund-raising and fund-raisers. Although fund-raisers constantly persuade others to alter and form

perceptions of their work and identities, this framing addresses how they

frame their occupational identities in educational terms, that is, how they

describe themselves particularly as both students and teachers, interacting

with societal discourses about education and philanthropy as still another

way of nuancing understandings of their occupation.

Almost all the fund-raisers mentioned that they lacked any knowledge

about their occupation as they started their first fund-raising job (We knewnothing), thus distancing themselves from the professionalism and empow-

erment traditionally associated with education and knowledge in societal

discourses. For example, Kelly shared a very intimidating initial experi-

ence with her student workers that left her disempowered: It was very

nerve-racking at first to come in knowing that [my student workers] had that

expertise, and I didnt. Gary talked candidly about how he faced the initial

stumbling blocks of really knowing the, the vernacular and um, a lot of

methodology, just completely ignorant about that so yes, you know, youhave to spend some time reading, researching what works, what methodolo-

gies do people use. They typically learned on the job, matching Duronio

and Tempels (1997) findings a decade earlier. Fund-raisers spoke freely and

frequently about their initial lack of understanding of fund-raising.

Most of them turned this lack of knowledge into a discussion of how their

occupation required a willingness to constantly learn. Even fund-raisers with

18 years of experience spoke about the need to be students of fund-raising,

continuously learning skills and the needs of their organizations and

donors. Karen noted, Becoming a good, a good fund-raiser is that personal

commitment to always grow and learn what is going on in the industry of

fund-raising. This defining of their work as constantly being students

could both excite and worry fund-raisers. Janet noted, Ive been at [this

school] for 16 years, and I still dont have my arms fully around it. Because

its constantly evolving, constantly changing, and thats the beauty of an

educational institution. Several fund-raisers shared Janets excitement

about constantly learning. On the other hand, Gary described the need to

always learn new techniques as the hardest part of his job: The biggesthurdle is staying current with the methodologies and being able to, the

hardest thing for me is to be able to adapt myself. His position matches

Gregorys (2001) findings of corporate workers feeling pressured by real-

izations that they were facing a need to constantly learn, but more of the



17/31

fund-raisers shared Janets enthusiasm. Fund-raisers perceive themselves as

people who really want to and/or have to learn constantly. As perpetual

students, they can see themselves as less competent, powerful, and empow-ered than other professionals (or even students), yet the constant learning

gives them a sense of pride in their work, suggests their job is not easy, and

furthermore can reduce others expectations of their outputs.

Even as they described themselves as students, they also described

themselves as teachers of others who lacked knowledge of fund-raising and

philanthropy. By reframing others negative perceptions as uninformed or

incorrect, fund-raisers position themselves and their work positively. Even

Erin, with only 6 months of experience, was already using this framing:

I think a lot of people have misconceptions. Um, they think I think a lot of

time theyre unsure about exactly what the money is being raised for and

what it goes to support. Um, I think thats the biggest thing is just they dont

really know what goes into it.

They often shared stories of educating their administrations and faculties

about realistic goals for fund-raisers. Chris laughingly offered an example

of when his trustees wanted him to raise $3 million in 60 dayssomethingthat had never been done on the campus without someone dying: So I had

to explain to them that that would not be a realistic goal. When understood

as teachers, empowered dispensers of knowledge, fund-raisers share an

admired commonality with others in the higher education system in which

they work.

Fund-raisers also manage and create tensions by suggesting that their

job is to educate people about philanthropy in general. Moving fluidly from

student to teacher, Sarah, who had been in fund-raising for 14 years, talkedabout realizing her work could involve being a teacher: That was a real

learning lesson for me, and so what, what Ive taken as a challenge is to

help educate my alums um. Just about giving. Not only if its for me but for

other institutions. She concluded, I see our role here is [to be] educators

about the whole, about the whole philanthropic process. This discursive

move to being philanthropy teachers can assist fund-raisers in managing

ideas that it is unethical for them to switch positions because a switch in

institutions still offers the chance to educate people about philanthropy. Incontrast, relational framing would make justifying a move more compli-

cated because the fund-raiser might be damaging these relationships.

Particularly in todays workforce and in the midst of beliefs that the indi-

vidual is responsible for the success of his or her career, a perception that



18/31


an individual is morally and materially able to switch jobs is important and

empowering.

Although a few fund-raisers choose not to engage in teaching variouspublics about fund-raising, philanthropy, and fund-raisers, they often

encounter moments that contain the opportunity. Taking advantage of the

opportunity represents an additional responsibility but also a chance for

emancipation from the limits and tensions of other frames that may

improve their self-perception, their reputations, and thus their occupational

identities.

Mission Framing

Fourth, fund-raisers often negotiated identity tensions by speaking of

their occupation as mission oriented. As Janet noted, Mission is every-

thing to us. This mission framing offers a particularly rich micro-

emancipation opportunity for fund-raisers needing to transcend other

oppressive frames and understandings of their occupation. Mission framing

empowers fund-raisers as pursuing a higher cause, trumping concerns

about fund-raisers as beggars or false friends, yet the framing suggests sub-servience to these missions and therefore limits individual choices to move

up a career ladder in a new place as promoted by personal branding and

professional discourses.

Indeed, within mission framing, the fund-raisers spoke of how identify-

ing with the missions of their institutions and philanthropy could assist

them. Karen described how important it is for the fund-raiser to support a

schools mission and how that drives others to give. Focus on mission

makes her job easier and thus gives her some control over her success:

I mean I think, if you really support the mission of your organization and you

get excited about a program thats being developed and you as an individual can

support it and buy into it, I think, I think thats really the key to it. And . . .

your excitement and enthusiasm can drive others, donors and other individu-

als to really buy into your mission and buy into your organization. I mean and

cause theres, sometimes theres projects that Im asked to work on where

its very difficult for me to do research or proposals on cause I just cant get

excited on or see where at first its going to help us, but eventually when I do,when the light clicks I guess, um, I can really get into it.

Yet identifying with the mission can control fund-raisers. Peter spoke of

telling a friend:


19/31

I said, You know, Nancy, I dont return [headhunter] calls because I feel like

Id almost be, uh, if I return the call I would not be being loyal to [the uni-

versity] if I return the call. And she said, Peter, thats so stupid! They just,theyre trying to network.

Peter so strongly identifies with his organization and its mission that he was

not even willing to talk with anyone about other jobs or making more

money. Gary spoke about how he came to identify with the mission of his

current organization, (making education possible) from first questioning

what the slogan meant to becoming so involved that he really believed that

meant something. In contrast, he had left another organization because he

thought it was failing to meet its mission: It became very difficult for me to

solicit funds for an organization that was not necessarily meeting its mission,

was not living up to its mission. And I, you just lose your spirit for doing it.

So identifying with an organizations mission may simultaneously limit

career options and make being a fund-raiser easier. Thus, fund-raisers man-

age tensions between believing in and selling their organizations mission

and their own needs for career advancement.

As in educational framing, they sometimes described prioritizing a

broader philanthropic mission, often associated with donor and publicinterests, over what they may see as the short-term mission of their organi-

zations. Gary discussed the importance of this broader mission:

I dont think you can be a long term successful fund-raiser if you really dont

believe in your heart with the altruism of, of philanthropy and fund-raising.

. . . I think if youre just opportunistic and, um, and dont have that philo-

sophic base, I think its real hard.

As in the educating frame, connecting with philanthropy generates

empowering choices for the fund-raiser and can build a positive sense of

occupational identity among fund-raisers. Also, identifying with a phil-

anthropic mission over an organizational one can justify the choice to

change institutions. Yet identification with the mission of the organization

can limit a fund-raisers perception of his or her career options. Indeed,

Garys juxtaposition of altruism and opportunism illustrates a conflict

fund-raisers face between a selflessness associated with a philanthropic

mission and the self-interest and self-promotion often expected of todays

professional. Their descriptions also suggest that fund-raisers must

identify with missions.



20/31


Coordination Framing

Fifth, understandings of fund-raisers as coordinators, conduits, andbackstage participants in a drama (see Goffman, 1959) suggest contradic-

tory empowerment moments for fund-raisers. Some fund-raisers took pride

in their abilities to coordinate, whereas others lamented that coordinating,

although important, was the worst part of the job. Janet provided an

example of coordination framing as a source of pride and one that blends

back into mission framing: Its the fine art of connecting people and this

institution and I firmly believe in our mission. . . . Im proud to be a fund-

raiser. She later said, We are the thin copper wire that conducts electric-

ity between the two and we conduct it back and forth. So, thats our, thats

our role . . . and passing the excitement from one to the other as well.

Peter similarly argued, You are a conduit for support that people want to

give anyway. Sarah went further, describing herself as merely grease on

the conduit of fund-raising for her school: Were just the, were a techni-

cian. Its the faculty, um, that are, and the students that are the real conduits

for um, all of our interactions.

All of these descriptions place fund-raisers in an interesting position

power-wise. On one hand, a conduit is a tool, something to be used and eas-ily replaced without concern for who or what the conduit is, resembling

dehumanizing classical management assumptions about workers. Such a

position sounds like it disempowers fund-raisers. However, at the same

time, replaceability can be freeing to fund-raisers, making it easier for them

to move on to other situations. They are not central to the process; funds can

be raised by others without this particular fund-raiser being present. For

example, Carol expressed dislike for the background and coordinating

aspects of her work with a large donation for her school:

[The donation] was a really big deal. But I was, um, the dean got to make the

ask, and he got to tell everybody about it, and he got to do everything, and all

I did was sort of file the paperwork and pat people on the back behind the

scenes . . . and it was very like, oh, wow we raised all this money and what

a let down that I really didnt get to do it.

However, she also used this framing to justify switching institutions every

2 or 3 years:

Were building the relationship with the institution, and, um, presidents stay

at universities for you know a decade. Deans tend to stay quite, quite a long


21/31


time and, um, those are the people who are setting the vision and the direc-

tion and all were doing is communicating that with them, being a liaison,

getting their questions answered and getting them introduced to people, so. Idont think that, um, peoples gifts are cut short when the right fund-raiser

doesnt answer the phone.

Thus, coordination framing minimizes the fund-raisers importance as indi-

viduals, suggesting they have little control regarding their fund-raising suc-

cess; yet that lack of control is simultaneously an opportunity for micro

emancipation from discourses that attempt to tie fund-raisers to remaining

at one institution for their whole career as their only ethical option.

Magical Framing

Finally, magical framing generates contradictory empowerment oppor-

tunities and tensions for fund-raisers. Several fund-raisers described what

they do as akin to the work of a magician. Magical framing offers a sense

of power and even joy to fund-raisers as magicians and wish granters who

fulfill dreams. Roger spoke of his

bag of tricks I take with me when I travel to see people, but I dont always

show the entire hand because I want to be able to continue that, I want to have

something else to do with that person later on.

Carol said,

After a few years you . . . you dont have any new tricks in your bag that

this organization hasnt seen. Youve implemented them all. And youve

impressed everybody youre going to impress and its only downhill from

there. And if you havent then, you, theyre probably going to fire you any-

way, you might as well get out before it happens.

Roger and Carol referred to hiding part of a hand and having a bag of

tricks for strategically handling interactions with donors. Neither person

explicitly addressed the manipulative nature of this exchange, and through

a magicians metaphor they do not have to do so. The magician is supposed

to have tricks up the sleeve, and the audience knows and is a willing par-ticipant in the deception. The metaphor of a magician obscures any harm-

ful effects of pulling fund-raising tricks out of a bag and then

disappearing. Of course an ethical consideration for fund-raisers is whether


22/31


or not their audiences see themselves as willing participants who accept

that fund-raisers are performing magic tricks. Differing perceptions on this

point could explain some public trust issues with fund-raisers, harming theoccupations identity in the long run.

However, because the magician is a professional who is supposed to

quickly move on to the next gig, this magical framing offers fund-raisers

another path of emancipation from discourses that attempt to keep the fund-

raiser from switching positions and institutions. Yet magical framing also

fosters expectations that can create enormous pressure on fund-raisers to

perform and to deliver miraculous, and maybe unrealistic, results. Perhaps

because of this possibility, fund-raisers seemed to employ this frame onlyin brief moments and resisted its use at times by publics, faculty, and

administrations. Carol noted,

I dont think its ever a good idea for people to say, Oh I have this idea, but

lets ask the fund-raisers if they can get it funded, because we dont have

crystal balls. . . . They know so much more about their project than we do.

Overall, this way of framing is not used as frequently and prominently as

many of the other frames. It has distinctive characteristics, placing fund-

raisers in a position of privilege and apparent control over what happens but

with the associated risks of seeming to have easy jobs and to be manipu-

lative, suspicious, and untrustworthy.

Layering Fund-Raising Framing

The second research question asked how these negotiations demonstrate

opportunities for (dis)empowerment and particularly paths of micro eman-cipation. The findings above demonstrate the tendency of fund-raisers to

discursively blend, move among, and layer multiple ways of framing their

work and identities. No one frame generated empowerment as a static and

secure outcome for fund-raisers. In fact, it became apparent that fund-

raisers who primarily articulated only one frame were also the fund-raisers

who more strongly expressed difficulties in negotiating, embodying, and

presenting a positive occupational identity. For example, Kate, who

expressed discomfort with her job throughout the interview, overwhelm-ingly articulated her work through financial framing, at one point explicitly

rejecting both coordinating and relational framing, noting that if


23/31


the assistant director of alumni relations [and I] walk into a room [of alums]

I feel like they look at me completely different from her. They see her as a

friend, as a, you know, liaison. They see me as being . . . there because Iwant something.

Kate had no perception that others see her as a coordinator or relationship

builder, and though she wanted to see her work as both she struggled to do

so. Similarly, Gary indicated that when faced with opportunities to educate

others about fund-raising or philanthropy, he did not engage: I dont really

have much occasion to. Thus, he had fewer discursive resources for man-

aging his occupational identity.

In contrast, fund-raisers willingness and ability to move among and

layer multiple framings of their occupations offered the greatest potential

for moments of micro emancipation. For example, Janet, who seemed very

comfortable with and enthusiastic about being a fund-raiser, articulated all

six framings in one 41-minute interview, often in the same statement. By

constantly discursively pursuing opportunities for empowerment through

each framing, fund-raisers are achieving in-the-moment emancipation from

particular discourses, moving on to the next framing when a new societal

or material influence challenges that sense of self and control.

Discussion

My central goal here has been to understand how individuals in a grow-

ing and sometimes stigmatized job manage the tensions associated with their

occupational identities. Past research has theorized about the fragmented

and shifting character of identities but has thus far provided little empirical

evidence of how individuals manage the potential tensions and opportunities

for (dis)empowerment and micro emancipation associated with crystallized

identities. As an element of identity that is growing in importance for

employees, managers, and organizations, occupational identities need to be

researched to enhance understanding of individuals occupation choices and

the identity difficulties associated with those occupations. Specifically, the

findings reveal six major modes of framing (financial, relational, educa-

tional, mission, coordination, and magical framing) on which fund-raisersdiscursively rely and often simultaneously accommodate and resist as they

attempt to make meaning of their work and occupation amidst competing

societal discourses and material realities. The findings also suggest that the

constant (dis)empowering tensions present in each individual framing mean


24/31


that emancipation and positive occupational identities reside not in the

selection and espousal of any one frame and thus the removal of tensions

but rather in the constant movement and maintenance of tensions among thevarious ways of framing. In essence, the different framings serve as correc-

tives to each other and their associated discourses. The movement among

the framings is a path to micro emancipation.

These findings have several theoretical implications. First, the project

offers insight into the interactions of material and discursive reality in iden-

tity negotiation. As such, this project recognizes a multidimensional, inter-

active, and dynamic relationship among discourse and materiality that is

often lacking in communicative research (Cheney & Ashcraft, 2007,p. 157). The material reality of the work of fund-raising is that successful

fund-raisers generate financial donations to their organizations. And this

reality is a key factor in the discursive constructions of the occupational

identity of fund-raisers. Specifically, although the financial framing that

stems from this reality is one that raises many stigmatized and disempower-

ing reputation issues for fund-raisers, its material centrality to their work

inhibits them from rejecting the frame outright in discussions of their occu-

pational identities. Instead, fund-raisers frequently, actively, and discursivelyseek to supplement or correct financial framing and the disempowering

aspects of a discourse of money with one or more of the other five frames.

Future research should consider occupations in which the material reality of

the work generates relatively few reputational issues to compare the amount

of shifting that occurs in these less materially challenging occupations.

Along the lines of shifting framings, the findings also answer calls to

investigate the tensions among and intersections of identity regulation

(image discourse) and identity work (role communication) (Alvesson &

Willmott, 2002; Ashcraft, 2007) and particularly to research the influence

of nonorganizational discourses in this process (Kuhn, 2006). The disem-

powering tensions associated with societal and historical discourses (iden-

tity regulation) serve as impetuses for shifting and layering additional

framings of ones identity (identity work). All of the framings provide

opportunities for fund-raisers to (re)shape the potentially disempowering

historical, socioeconomic, and professional discourses surrounding fund-

raising in a given moment. As such, the findings also provide empirical evi-

dence that supports poststructuralist theorizing that individuals identityconstructions are complex and constantly shifting (e.g., Ashcraft &

Mumby, 2004), yet they offer a sense of explanation that challenges sug-

gestions that these identity negotiations are lacking in coherence. The


25/31

coherence is found in how each framing of occupational identity is associated

with material reality and historical-societal discourses. The materiality and

discourses (forces of identity regulation) and the responses to them (identitywork) are the cohesive threads amidst identity negotiations. Fund-raisers

articulate different framings and combinations to manage the reputational

and power tensions tied to each discourse.

Therefore, this project also helps answer calls for understanding pro-

ductive and enabling ways of living with tension, in this case in the realm

of occupational identities (Ashcraft & Trethewey, 2004, p. 178; also see

Pepper & Larson, 2006). The six ways of framing generate and are gener-

ated by identity tensions. By flirting with various ways of describing theirwork (Eisenberg, 1998) and in fact discursively creating new tensions (e.g.,

between raising money and building relationships), fund-raisers seem

better able to understand and negotiate their identities. The fund-raisers

manage the tensions by purposefully combining and layering them, avoid-

ing eitheror choices. This holistic picture is overlooked if one assumes that

tensions should be minimized, but it readily becomes apparent through a

poststructuralist lens and can contribute to research on identity and career

negotiation. As fund-raisers encounter and respond to discourses by shift-ing framings, they influence reputations and meanings and constantly

(re)create what it means to be a fund-raiser.

One particular discourse the fund-raisers encountered and managed that

transcends the organizational boundaries Kuhn (2006) discussed is the dis-

course of professionalism. Professionalism can be invoked to both suppress

and elevate individuals (Cheney & Ashcraft, 2007) and thus contributes to

the (dis)empowerment of workers. As they frame their work, fund-raisers

challenge and struggle with the appropriateness of embodying traditional

understandings of what it means to be a professional. The results show

fund-raisers encountering impressions that it is not okay for them to seek

the same sort of personal advancement that is expected in dominant (for-

profit) conceptualizations of professionalism (see Ashcraft & Allen, 2003).

Thus, professionalization in the nonprofit sector may create a unique

tension between an (accepted professional and for-profit) interest in

improving salaries and status through job movement and a nonprofit

sectorbased belief that philanthropic work means privileging concern for

others and the cause over concern for self. This tension is likely to extendbeyond fund-raisers to other paid work in the nonprofit sector. Elsewhere,

scholars have considered race, nationality, class, and gender biases of profes-

sional norms (see Cheney & Ashcraft, 2007). To this list, I add sector biases

to refer to the for-profit sector bias of the discourse of professionalism. As



26/31

such, the discourses of professionalism and philanthropy (or the nonprofit

sector) can be at odds with one another, and these tensions warrant further

exploration.This analysis also contributes to research on dirty work and tainted occu-

pations (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Ashforth, Kreiner, Clark, & Fugate,

2007; Tracy & Scott, 2006) in that the shifting and layering of various fram-

ings are ways of managing occupational taint. This project suggests that the

ability to constantly adapt to and shift among these various methods of

framing offers strong potential for successful management of power rela-

tions and identity tensions for the fund-raisers in this study. Specifically,

counter to modernist suggestions that workers should develop and maintaina stable sense of self (and thus eliminate tensions), fund-raisers who

invoked and maintained multiple and layered framings often had many

years of experience (e.g., Alan, 8 years; Carol, 14 years; Janet, 18 years;

and Sarah, 14 years). They spoke of their occupational identities with great

enthusiasm, whereas fund-raisers with less experience who articulated less

enjoyment and more difficulties in managing a positive identity had trouble

with or even resisted the applicability of certain framings (e.g., Gary, 3

years; Kate, 4.5 years). In other words, multiple framings of their occupa-tional identities assist fund-raisers in the management of identity tensions,

including moments of occupational taint.

Finally, this analysis addresses opportunities for micro emancipation

and (dis)empowerment in identity negotiation. The findings reveal the

dialectical presence of empowerment and disempowerment in all of the

framings and related discourses. Power is not viewed here as a repressive

force in which spaces of resistance have broken free of power. No one fram-

ing places fund-raisers in a stable empowered position. Instead, language

and knowledge are inherently tied to power, such that moments of control

and resistance are about dynamic struggles with power relations (Ashcraft

& Mumby, 2004). As the fund-raisers might encounter an undesirable sense

of self or control associated with one framing, they often discursively

focused attention on a different framing, ideally an empowering aspect of

that other framing. This is the kind of discursive micro emancipatory move

that Alvesson and Willmott (1996, 2002) discussed. Yet these moves do not

liberate the individual from oppression and control; rather, they invite new

discourses and their implications into the identity-negotiation process. Theresults demonstrate that even as a framing empowers, it can also disem-

power, requiring further discursive moves to address new issues. Thus, this

study supports Alvesson and Willmotts (1996) claim that such moves are

temporary moves away from oppression rather than purposeful moves



27/31

toward a static locus of emancipation. This study reveals that emancipation

is a temporary status constantly pursued and managed through the mainte-

nance of identity tensions.

Practical Implications and Applications

On a pragmatic level, these findings suggest some important applica-

tions for fund-raisers specifically as well as for individuals in a broader

range of emerging, growing, evolving, and/or stigmatized careers. One

overarching conclusion about fund-raiser identity is that the material real-ity of raising money affects the management of their occupational identi-

ties. For example, if fund-raisers talk about what they do only as building

personal relationships and coordinating internal and external audiences, it

would be difficult to understand it as inherently fund-raising. In contrast,

someone who asks one person for money one time is considered by many

to be a fund-raiser. The findings have demonstrated how moving among

and combining different framings of their work, including the materially

necessitated financial framing, can assist them in managing tensions asso-ciated with different aspects of their occupational identities. Basically, the

goal of this approach is to make someone who asks one person for money

not meet the sufficiency definition of being a fund-raiser. Work to encour-

age and develop the use of multiple framings held in tension may assist

fund-raisers and their organizations in recruiting and retaining successful

fund-raisers.

Second, this project offers an opportunity to realize Tracy and

Tretheweys (2005) call for scholars to play a key role in helping translate

a poststructuralist-inspired understanding of identity to an audience of

laypeople . . . accustomed to striving for a stable self (p. 185). In other

words, I argue that just as researchers have benefitted from understanding

identities as transient constructions, so can the fund-raisers and other work-

ers who are embodying these occupational identities. Because this data-

driven study challenges public assumptions that a successful identity is

unchanging, explicit training and teaching of fund-raisers and others about

this alternative conception of self and multiple ways of framing are advis-

able. In terms of consequences, this study suggests making fund-raisersaware that articulating and negotiating a variety of fund-raising frames can

discursively create moments of positive and empowered identities.

However, fund-raisers should also recognize that all frames empower and

disempower.



28/31

Beyond fund-raisers, this poststructuralist understanding of negotiating

occupational identity through multiple framings can be helpful to individu-

als in other occupations, particularly those working in emerging or stigma-tized occupations. Being new and/or ostracized is difficult, so in contrast to

everyday assumptions about finding and maintaining a fixed, real self,

consciously creating multiple ways of framing an occupation can yield a

variety of options for interacting with and managing discursive and mater-

ial challenges to occupational identities.

In conclusion, this project continues the work of conceptualizing and

understanding occupational identity negotiation. These identities are not

constructed and then left alone to fend for themselves. They are constantlyand actively challenged, developed, expanded, and contracted in every

power-laden moment of experience. Therefore, they can be affected both

positively and negatively through every interaction, every micro practice.

Research should ascertain the extent to which this constant movement and

maintenance of discursive and material tensions carries across other occu-

pations, including a diverse range of emerging or established and admired

or abhorred occupations. Furthermore, the discoveries about how tensions

are managed and how empowerment and emancipation are sought throughoccupational framing have implications beyond the occupational realm.

This same process may well be at work in the management of personal and

other social identities including organizational, gendered, and classed iden-

tities. The fragmentation seen here just among occupational framings is

likely to be even more complicated when, for example, researchers explore

tensions generated between personal and occupational identities. This

knowledge and perspective offer scholars, fund-raisers, and others encour-

agement and understanding of how to consciously negotiate and understand

identities as tension-filled experiences co-constructed in relation to mater-

ial reality and various discourses.

Note

1. Group identity and social identity are terms stemming from social identity theory, which

originated in social psychology research and distinguishes between personal and social or

group identities (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

References

Albrecht, T. L. (1988). Communication and control in empowering organizations. In J. A.

Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 11 (pp. 380-390). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.



29/31


Alvesson, M. (2000). Social identity and the problem of loyalty in knowledge-intensive com-

panies.Journal of Management Studies 37, 1101-1123.

Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (1996). Making sense of management: A critical analysis.London: Sage.

Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2002). Identity regulation as organizational control: Producing

the appropriate individual.Journal of Management Studies, 39, 619-644.

Ashcraft, K. L. (2005). Resistance through consent? Occupational identity, organizational

form, and the maintenance of masculinity among commercial airline pilots.Management

Communication Quarterly, 19, 67-90.

Ashcraft, K. L. (2007). Appreciating the work of discourse: Occupational identity and dif-

ference as organizing mechanisms in the case of commercial airline pilots.Discourse &

Communication, 1, 9-36.

Ashcraft, K. L., & Allen, B. J. (2003). The racial foundation of organizational communication.Communication Theory, 13, 5-38.

Ashcraft, K. L., & Mumby, D. K. (2004). Reworking gender: A feminist communicology of

organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ashcraft, K. L., & Trethewey, A. (2004). Developing tension: An agenda for applied research

on the organization of irrationality. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32,

171-181.

Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (1999). How can you do it?: Dirty work and the challenge

of constructing a positive identity.Academy of Management Review, 24, 413-434.

Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., Clark, M. A., & Fugate, M. (2007). Normalizing dirty work:

Managerial tactics for countering taint.Academy of Management Journal, 50, 149-174.Association of Fundraising Professionals. (2007). State of fundraising 2006 report. Retrieved

December 15, 2007, from http://www.afpnet.org/ka/ka-3.cfm?content_item_id=24149&f

older_id=2365

Brittingham, B. E., & Pezzullo, T. R. (1990). The campus green: Fund raising in higher edu-

cation. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.

Caboni, T. C. (2001). The normative structure of college and university fund raising.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

Carbone, R. F. (1989). Fund raising as a profession (Monograph No. 3). College Park:

University of Maryland, Clearinghouse for Research on Fund Raising.

Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-535).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cheney, G., & Ashcraft, K. L. (2007). Considering the professional in communication stud-

ies: Implications for theory and research within and beyond the boundaries of organiza-

tional communication. Communication Theory, 17, 146-175.

Cheney, G., Zorn, T. E., Jr., Planalp, S., & Lair, D. J. (in press). Organizational communica-

tion engages the meaning of work. In C. Beck (Ed.), Communication yearbook 32.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Duronio, M. A., & Tempel, E. R. (1997). Fund raisers: Their careers, stories, concerns, and

accomplishments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Dyer, J., & Keller-Cohen, D. (2000). The discursive construction of professional self through

narratives of personal experie

Documents

Working With Tensions