Introduction
In this chapter, I explore Impostorism, Impostor syndrome or Impostor phenomenon (terms which are used interchangeably below) as a psychological construct, examining its impact on new and emergent academics particularly in relation to scholarly writing for publication. How academics strive to establish an identity in the face of Impostorism while negotiating the multiple challenges of a complex university context, and coping strategies to combat Impostor tendencies, at both individual and institutional level, are explored. I then posit that while understanding the psychology of Impostorism and how it relates to the academic in a university context is beneficial, this approach to the Impostor phenomenon is pragmatic, linear and structured.
Instead, I look beyond the rigid structure of the Impostor phenomenon to a liminal space, where a poststructuralist lens can be applied to assist emergent academics in understanding and engaging with Impostor tendencies. In this regard, I draw on a range of poststructuralist concepts, including ‘becoming’ and the ‘rhizome’ (Deleuze and Guattari 2004), to argue that being an academic is not a fixed embodiment. In exploring these ideas, I provide a novel way in which emergent academics can view their scholarly writing and forge an academic identity. An educator since 1999, at times I am still afflicted with Impostor feelings, and as such, negotiate Impostorism in academia in shaping my own academic identity. This shaping process is founded on an existential platform that has been sustained by the poststructuralist constructs of Deleuze and Guattari, which are addressed in the last part of the chapter.
Impostor Phenomenon as a Psychological Construct
Academics who demonstrate Impostor syndrome are usually perceived as successful by those assessing their performance and are high-achieving and competent (Parkman and Beard 2008). Impostor phenomenon was originally proposed by psychologists Clance and Imes (1978) after they conducted research with highly successful professional women, many with advanced degrees and in leadership roles, who, despite their achievements, described experiencing “fraudulent thoughts” and “the inability to internally attribute personal achievement” (p. 241).
Impostor phenomenon in academics imparts a sense of intellectual phoniness in “high achieving individuals” (McGregor et al. 2008, p. 44) that leads to questioning of our professional standing. Several authors explain that the strongest indicator of Impostorism is enduring self-doubt about one’s intelligence and ability (Doyle-Morris 2010; Hutchins and Rainbolt 2017). Hutchins (2015) notes that while a measure of self-doubt is normal, those with Impostor syndrome experience “heightened emotional and cognitive anxiety” (p. 3) regarding taking credit for their achievements. Closely related to self-doubt is a sense of shame felt by the ‘Impostor’ at feeling that they have fooled everyone and are unable to live up others’ expectations. Brown (2006) defines shame as “an intensely painful feeling … believing we are flawed and therefore unworthy of acceptance or belonging” (p. 45).
Qualities of Impostorism include an incapacity to internalise success even in the face of evidence affirming this success, perfectionism, and workaholic tendencies and feelings of being a fraud (Clance and Imes 1978; Ramsey and Brown 2018). Impostor feelings may impede momentum due to fear of failure, and some individuals with Impostorism underperform, perceiving failure as inevitable. They tend to see failure as a result of enduring personal qualities, and attribute their success to external factors. These external factors include being lucky, receiving promotions and rewards because of who you know, or due to erroneous praise (Clance and Imes 1978; Cowman and Ferrari 2002). ‘Impostors’ exhibit a series of behaviours that they perceive as preventing Impostor feelings from being uncovered, including starting projects much earlier than needed, working significantly longer hours, and becoming skilled at giving polished presentations (Cowman and Ferrari 2002; Hutchins 2015; Hutchins and Rainbolt 2017; Parkman and Beard 2008). These Impostor behaviours often lead to burnout and can result in people leaving their organisation. Parkman and Beard (2008) suggest in relation to academics who experience Impostorism that when faced with “pressure to advance in position and responsibilities” they are likely to seek employment elsewhere “rather than risk being discovered as a fraud” (p. 31).
Individuals with Impostor feelings shy away from accolades, thereby minimising the importance of success. As a result of inaccurate assessments concerning their performance—made independently of actual competence—all obstacles are evidenced as professional inadequacy. This in turn leads to a lack of confidence, heightened stress, anxiety, emotional exhaustion, depression, and other psychological distress (McGregor et al. 2008). Hutchins (2015) notes that the impact of Impostorism on academics has adverse effects on well-being at work, job satisfaction and performance, including expectations regarding teaching, service and research outputs.
Academic Identity in the Face of Impostorism
Academics draw on the social context of the university, including its culture, norms, values and expectations, to construct their academic identity. The way in which academics are required to meet the university’s expectations in relation to research, teaching, service roles and responsibilities further contributes towards this identity (Ibarra 1999; Reybold 2003). According to Pajares (2001), academic motivation and achievement is highly correlated with aspects of academic identity that are affirming, including the qualities of optimism, authenticity, self-acceptance and positive regard. Those with Impostor syndrome are, however, haunted by a sense of “‘doubleness’ – a feeling of dislocation … of playing a role” (Learmonth and Humphreys 2011, p. 99). While appearing to others as competent, yet academics may have a vastly different view, seeing themselves as less than adequate. Moore (2018) refers to contemporary academic identity as a “Jekyll and Hyde” view of self, and she herself “felt shame” due to an “unwanted identity” (p. 46) and the feeling that she had to pretend to be something she was not to gain approval.
Emergent academics may be particularly prone to feelings of doubleness and dislocation. Archer (2008) observes that “younger academics are interestingly located at the nexus of competing discourses around what it means (or might mean) to be an academic” (p. 387). As a result, establishing themselves in an academic role is challenging and can make them prone to Impostorism. Bothello and Roulet (2018), meanwhile, observe that “among junior scholars … there is a growing sense of anxiety and self-doubt about the legitimacy of our profession and our position within it” (p. 1). The authors find “much evidence of an Impostor syndrome in newly minted academics” and add that junior scholars suffer from a “sense of anomie”, fearing that they lack credibility, that their role is of minimal social value, and that it will be exposed as a “sham” (p. 1).
Academic identity, is not, however, something established by emergent academics that is then embodied for the remainder of their academic careers. Rather, it continues to evolve as they engage with the nuances of their role and encounter affirming or diminishing events. Affirming events strengthens identity while diminishing events undermine confidence, reinforcing Impostorism (Hutchins and Rainbolt 2017). Diminishing events could include significant role changes, such as moving from being a doctoral student to a full-time academic, or more immediate experiences like being challenged by a student or colleague, or receiving critical commentary on an article submitted for publication (Hutchins and Rainbolt 2017). Ramsey and Brown (2018) explain that irrespective of how it arrives, Impostor phenomenon prevents academics from feeling a sense of belonging within the university context and impedes their ability to foster a resilient academic identity.
The University Context and Impostor Feelings: Challenges Academics Encounter
Impostorism has been found to be prevalent in tertiary education (Zorn 2005), and the university context and academic culture provide an ideal milieu for the development of Impostor feelings. Bothello and Roulet (2018) argue that while Impostorism is common in several professions, the inherent nature of the academic environment exacerbates the condition, because the formal and informal initiation rituals of academia are rigid and linear, and do not support the multifaceted—what Deleuze (2004) would call ‘rhizomatic’—nature of the roles embodied by academics. These initiation rituals provide a foundation for Impostorism and have well-worn refrains, including “I theorise therefore I am” and “Publish (more than your peers) or perish” (Bothello and Roulet 2018, p. 3).
Many doctoral students hold on to the idea that “I theorise therefore I am”—the focus being on establishing an ontological and epistemological viewpoint within their research domain appropriate to their study. Bothello and Rolet ((2018) further suggest that the main pursuit of doctoral students is to position their doctoral research to ensure they make an “ever elusive” contribution to knowledge (p. 2). To this end, “doctoral training functioned as a protected space where we would mostly develop expertise in conceptual refinement rather than specifically tackling practical problems” (p. 2). Emergent academics are, however, exposed to a more expansive audience, including colleagues, who may not necessarily share the same worldview, and students, who require their lecturers to apply their theoretical knowledge in their teaching.
Bothello and Roulet’s (2018) second well-worn refrain that intensifies Impostorism is “Publish (more than your peers) or perish” (p. 3). The need for research outputs and focus on publication is ingrained in new doctoral students and are seen as ways of gaining “currency on the job market” (p. 3). Bothello and Roulet (2018) report that faculty on their selection committees appoint academic applicants based on publication and research merit, irrespective of all other competencies. The competitive nature of the ‘publish or perish’ academic environment, with its increasing demands for research outputs and the securing of external funding, affects one’s confidence in one’s professional legitimacy, resulting in feelings of inadequacy and insecurity—especially for emergent research academics, women and minority academics (Hutchins and Rainboldt 2017). Bothello and Roulet (2018) explain that ‘research merit’ is a moveable feast, however, with the bar being forever raised in a competitive academic environment where academics’ research standing is determined in relation to those perceived to be more ‘advanced’ in research. The measure for this ‘advancement’, of course, is the amount of A-level publications and citation counts. This type of upward comparison is the proverbial black hole, as “there is no shortage of more productive, better cited, and more well-known scholars” (Bothello and Roulet 2018, p. 4). These comparisons can result in self-doubt and unrealistic damaging self-assessments in relation to “well-published colleagues” who “are simply more visible than most scholars and are thus often believed to be the norm” (Bothello and Roulet 2018, p. 4).
These rigid initiation rituals within a “hyper-competitive scholarly community” (Bothello and Roulet 2018, p. 1) and the resulting Impostor feelings they evoke create a sense of cognitive dissonance or mental discomfort, especially for emergent academics. On one hand, they present themselves as, and are perceived as, ‘experts’, yet harbour growing uncertainty that they are able to negotiate the rigours of producing research outputs while balancing the demands of their teaching and service roles. In addition to the sense of misalignment and cognitive dissonance that initiation rituals in academia can evoke, Impostorism is also fuelled by ‘turf battles’ between faculties for research funding, as well as perceived workload imbalances between colleagues.
Typically, an academic’s collective agreement specifies a set amount of ‘duty’ hours. My university, for example, requires lecturers to work 34 duty hours within the working week (Monday to Friday). Traditionally 40 per cent (13.6 hours—2 full days) of this time would be devoted to teaching, 40 per cent (13.6 hours—2 full days) to research and the remaining 20 per cent (6.8 hours—one full day) to service roles. This breakdown rarely reflects reality, however, as the time spent across these three areas is variable, with teaching and service roles often encroaching on research time. Houston et al. (2006) conducted research at Massey University in New Zealand and found that 90 per cent of academics reported working in excess of their allotted duty hours, with a third having worked 10 duty hours more than their contractual obligations in one week.
In addition to academic initiation rituals, there are certain events that may provoke Impostor feelings among academics (Hutchins and Rainbolt 2017). Firstly, Impostorism arises when an academic’s expertise is questioned by colleagues or students, particularly in the case of male academics (Hutchins and Rainbolt 2017). Furthermore, the incessant questioning of one’s expertise specifically by colleagues is indicative of unsupportive work environments, which are associated with increased turnover and reduced job satisfaction, conditions which are endemic in creating the Impostor phenomenon (Trower 2012). Secondly, Impostorism occurs in relation to scholarly productivity (Hutchins and Rainbolt 2017). Female academics’ Impostorism arises more during the development and submission of scholarly work or grants, in negotiating unfavourable reviews or rejections, and in striving to meet the multiple expectations required for promotion. Thirdly, Impostorism arises for academics as a result of comparisons with colleagues in relation to expertise, especially regarding research productivity. This competitive bent is encouraged in the academic environment, specifically in relation to publications and obtaining grants. Finally, academics make attribution errors regarding their successes. Rather than viewing success in publishing, receiving a grant award, or being selected as an expert speaker as due to their own merits, success is externalised and attributed to circumstances or luck (Hutchins and Rainbolt 2017).
Academic initiation rituals and mitigating events aside, the primary concern in developing an academic identity for academics is the fear of “not living up to an ideal image of what it means to be an academic” (Knights and Clark 2014, p. 342). To manage this fear, academics tend to resort to excessive impression management and self-handicapping to ensure that others do not see them as a fraud; unfortunately, these attempts at assuaging Impostor feelings fall short even in the face of success (Cowman and Ferrari 2002).
Coping with Impostor Tendencies
Coping strategies used to manage Impostorism can be classified as either adaptive or maladaptive. Adaptive coping behaviours include seeking social support, correcting cognitive distortions by validating successes, using humour, positive affirmations, positive reinforcement, and positive self-talk (Hutchins and Rainbolt 2017; Lane 2015). Maladaptive coping behaviours include self-blame, disengagement or giving up, using alcohol or substances to cope and working excessively.
According to Lane (2015), Impostorism is managed by academics learning to self-validate and wean themselves off the need for external validation. An adaptive coping strategy would be to foster self-awareness to challenge emotional processes such as negative self-talk, that reinforce Impostorism. One way in which to silence the inner critic is to normalise Impostor experiences. The hold that Impostor narratives have over many academics can be lessened by viewing Impostorism as something that is to be expected and felt at some point in their careers (Lane 2015). Impostors also benefit from maintaining a written record of positive messages, guidance, feedback and accomplishments to serve as a reality check when doubts regarding competence arise to counterbalance their sense of fraudulence (Parkman and Beard 2008; Ramsey and Brown 2018).
Hutchins and Rainbolt (2017) highlight gender differences in the utilisation of coping strategies. Females tend to utilise social support as an active/adaptive coping mechanism to manage Impostor concerns, including seeking emotional support (being listened to and empathised with) and instrumental support (obtaining advice and resources) from colleagues and friends. Furthermore, the authors found that females are more likely to work towards correcting cognitive distortions of what success ‘means’, use positive self-talk, exercise, and acknowledge other areas in their lives where they have achieved success to counter work-induced Impostorism. Males, by comparison, tend to use avoidant coping methods such as dissociating from Impostor concerns by drinking alcohol or other substance abuse, working harder, or simply not addressing Impostorism. All these strategies decrease the anxiety experienced due to Impostorism, however the relief provided is only temporary and cannot remove the underlying belief that the Impostor thoughts would occur again (Hutchins and Rainbolt 2017).
To combat Impostor feelings, ‘Impostors’ must be reminded that they are not alone in fighting their feelings of inefficiency and ostracism (Richards 2015). Combating Impostorism needs to occur not only within the individual but also within the institutional context itself. Part of this process requires managers to provide consistent, positive feedback in relation to a person’s skills and aptitudes (Richards 2015). This feedback may minimise the potential for Impostors to negate individual qualities that resulted in their achievement and reduce workaholic tendencies by establishing for the employee that they are already seen as a high achiever. Managers could further assist those afflicted with Impostorism by helping them “define success and excellence while disavowing them of the notion that either is tied to perfectionism” (Parkman and Bear 2008, p. 33).
In addition to positive input from management, Bothello and Roulet (2018) argue that collegial supportiveness is paramount, especially for emergent academics who need affirmation that their contribution beyond publication outputs is valued. Hutchins (2015) found that the academics they interviewed thought that receiving mentoring within the university context was important in managing Impostorism, including tendencies towards workaholism, setting unobtainable goals and fear of failure. Mentor training should teach mentors how to identify Impostor tendencies so that they can serve as both confidant and role model for non-Impostor behaviours (Parkman and Beard 2008; Ramsey and Brown 2018).
In higher education, training and appointing mentors to promote institutional values that encourage those with Impostorism to overcome Impostor feelings can assist in reducing Impostor phenomenon in university settings. Parkman and Beard (2008) state that mentors working with individuals who exhibit Impostor feelings must encourage them to verbalise their fears of being outed as Impostors in order to lessen the impact of those feelings and enable them to acknowledge and embrace success. Furthermore, the authors explain that women benefit from being mentored by other women, and are then more likely to achieve work-life balance and obtain promotion.
In addition to mentoring initiatives, human resource departments could establish peer groups and encourage conversations around managing high-stress work situations to benefit those with Impostor feelings (Parkman and Beard 2008). According to Stuart (2018), bravery is required in the pursuit of goals when success is not guaranteed, and failure may result. She suggests a five-step plan for conquering Impostorism: (1) Own your success; (2) Don’t let your doubt and fear stop you; (3) Let go of perfectionism; (4) No-one can see your thoughts but they may share them!; and (5) Stop comparing yourself to others (Stuart 2018).
These formal and informal support systems assist in building “a culture of indulgence and benevolence in academia” (Bothello and Roulet 2018, p. 7). Aside from establishing these support networks at institutional level, Bothello and Roulet assert that tertiary institutions need to reassess their incentive schemes around research and academics should be “encouraged to act less as mercenaries and more as public intellectuals, loyal to institutions that promote and cherish a holistic contribution” (p. 7).
Knights and Clarke (2014) suggest that the feelings of insecurity that are part of Impostor syndrome are “a mixed blessing because while they can be debilitating, they are also a driving force of our productive power that help generate high standards and pride in our work” (p. 349). Similarly, while part of the Impostor syndrome is the inherent shame the ‘Impostor’ feels at not being ‘good’ enough, this shame—if addressed appropriately—can build resilience. According to Brown (2006), “shame resilience” occurs on a continuum, with negative feelings at one extreme and factors that affect resilience at the other, which include “empathy, connection, power, and freedom” (p. 47). Brown puts forth the idea of a “speaking shame continuum,” which concerns “developing fluency in the language of shame” (p. 49). This “language of shame” provides a platform from which we can think and talk about shame and our resilience in the face thereof. Talking about our experiences of shame gives us the opportunity to develop coping strategies that enable us to build shame resilience, which can be used to address Impostorism (Brown 2006). Hutchins and Rainbolt (2017) also argue that the experience of Impostorism is not something to be avoided but instead plays an essential role in career development, influencing how academics establish their professional identity. While for some Impostor tendencies may help shape academic identity, Ramsey and Brown (2018) found that the predominant impact of Impostorism counters the successful achievement of academic goals.
Impostorism Through a Poststructuralist Lens
So far, I have positioned Impostor phenomenon as a psychological construct, exploring how academic identity is forged within the university context in the face of Impostorism, and suggested ways to address Impostor syndrome. While understanding the psychology of Impostorism and how it relates to the academic in a university context is beneficial, this approach to the Impostor phenomenon is pragmatic, linear and structured. Its delineation of possible steps that can be taken to counteract Impostor phenomenon is reminiscent of structural psychology.
Wilhelm Wundt established structuralism in psychology in the late 19th century, and extended by his student, Edward Titchener (Leahey 1981). Wundt sought to study and understand how the total sum of a person’s conscious experiences can be broken down into the basic component parts that make up the conscious mind (Leahey 1981). In identifying these elements of consciousness, psychologists can establish how they link together to create complex experiences. Psychologists identify these conscious elements in their clients and access the feelings associated with them through self-report and introspection. Conscious experiences are thus seen as reducible to basic conscious elements in the same way that physical maladies are reducible to the basic biological elements (i.e., the chemical processes in the body). By presenting Impostorism as a psychological construct, I have thus far emulated the underpinnings of structuralism, followed a linear process of researching Impostorism, collating journal articles on Impostorism and then writing about it in a logical, structured manner. To understand complex conscious experiences such as Impostorism it is not, however, enough to examine the characteristics that link together to create these complex experiences. The full embodiment of Impostorism cannot be fully understood by being cognisant of all the characteristics that comprise it. How can Impostorism be viewed so that its full embodiment is conceived? I will now argue that the Impostor syndrome be considered through a poststructuralist lens where the nature of scholarly writing is embraced as a ‘rhizomatic’ process of ‘becoming’, terms central to Deleuze and Guattari (2004) whose poststructuralist philosophy presents an alternative way in which to engage with the notion of Impostorism and stands more immediately counter to structuralism.
A poststructural approach avoids the reductionism of structuralism derived from its definitive characterisation of Impostorism, by instead advocating unpredictability and multiplicity of meaning (Williams 2014). By embracing uncertainty in this way, psychological constructs can be regarded as inseparable from the psychological phenomenon of which they are a part. Its rejection of a single, stable view of ‘self’ enables the negotiation of the tensions inherent in the multiplicity of manifold personas and ways of being. In this negotiation, poststructuralism imparts a sense of liminality to Impostor syndrome that takes it beyond a structure that seeks to keep it contained, and opens up the suggestion that Impostorism cannot be defined solely by its characteristics because its conceptualisation is inseparable from the phenomenon itself. New insights into Impostorism can be gleaned from an understanding of liminality and the other relevant concepts in the philosophies and methodologies of poststructuralist scholars.
Poststructural methodologies are distinctive in the sense that meaning is seen as fluid and neither universal nor predictable. Inquiry is shaped by interpretive and discursive practices and the so called “object” of study is inseparable from the systems of knowledge in which it is embedded. Deleuze and Guattari’s (2004) work contributes to the distinctive methodologies adopted by poststructural researchers and becomes a lens through which to engage with Impostorism in academia. By engaging with Impostorism in academia through a poststructural lens, readers will discern that my own writing shifts from a linear process of presentation to a style more fluid and liberated, and thus more reflective of a poststructural philosophy that I will demonstrate.
Forging an Academic Identity in the Liminal Space
The concept of identity within the liminal space refers to the state of ‘in-betweenness’ a person experiences when transitioning from one social role to another (Ladge et al. 2012). The new social role has not yet been established and the person in this space experiences a sense of ‘stuckness’—neither embodying the old role nor being fully established within the new one (Meyer and Land 2005). Thus, while the liminal space affords a person with the opportunity of acquiring a new identity, status or expertise, the price of this new identity requires the embracing of ambiguity and the relinquishing of the old sense of self. A new identity is established through trial-and-error practices as the person experiments with versions of the self in the new role (Beech 2011). According to Rantatalo and Lindberg (2018), these practices can include “reflection, where identities are developed through self-questioning along with a rejoining of external influences, and recognition, where identity development occurs ‘outside-in’ as a subject reacts to an identity that has been attributed to them” (p. 353).
Emergent academics who have recently completed their doctoral studies straddle the divide of the liminal space, neither ‘student’ nor ‘academic’. This state of inbetweenness is a “nonbelonging (rather than a double positioning)” (Rantatalo and Lindberg 2018, p. 356). The emergent academic is positioned in the moment as neither belonging to the student cohort nor belonging to the hallowed halls of academia. Despite these feelings of not belonging, however, the vagaries of their position mean that emergent academics must fulfil the expectations incumbent upon them and act in a manner becoming of fully-fledged academics. In addition, they must do so without having the necessary experience, resources and capacity to embody and accomplish this professional role. This results in Impostor feelings and a sensation of ‘mimicry’ whereby emergent academics feel they are actors within the role. Rantatalo and Lindberg (2018) suggest that “acting in a mimetic manner without the possibility of being informed by, for instance, peer behaviours, theory or other sources of information is connected with feelings of problematic breakdown and failures” (p. 361). The authors further explain that the “twofold character” of the liminal person in this “in-between” renders them invisible as “they are at once no longer classified and not yet classified” (p. 362). According to Cook-Sather (2006), these ‘between-positions’—what Deleuze and Guattari (2004) call “thresholds”—are, however, rich with transformative possibilities. These transformative possibilities contribute to the continual process of ‘becoming’ within the liminal space.
Beyond the Academic as a Fixed Embodiment: Always and Already Becoming
A poststructuralist lens reveals Impostorism to be part of the embodiment of an academic identity that is ever evolving and fluid. Deleuze and Guattari’s (2004) concepts of ‘molar thinking’ and ‘molecular thinking’ provide a useful starting point for reframing academic Impostorism. Molar thinking alludes to habitual thought forms, the familiar and known, and which is interpreted through the lens of a context of habitus. Molar thinking can lead to a perception of a fixed reality, where experience, sense of knowing (epistemology) and ways of being (ontology) are taken as given without question. This propensity to hold on to outmoded ways of being and thinking can trap us in the rigidity of our thinking. Molecular thinking is more creative; it expands thought as we encounter the artefacts within our context in unique and novel ways. This way of thinking may occur through an unforeseen event or rupture that breaks the mould of habitual molar patterning. Molecular creativity pushes us to relinquish outmoded ideas and opens us up to new possibilities.
Perceived solely from a molar perspective, interpretations of Impostorism are linear, the syndrome unfolding within the linear segmentarity of the university context, with equally linear solutions offered to counteract Impostorism. While there is safety within the context of molar thinking, shifting into molecular thinking may feel challenging. Nonetheless, it is at the latter, more creative level that Impostorism should be contemplated. Emergent academic writers, when faced with Impostor feelings, can take micro-risks by pushing themselves beyond their molar confines into creative writing encounters, shifting back to molar safety in tiny bursts whenever molecularity overwhelms. As the awkwardness of ‘becoming academic’ begins to feel more familiar, new territories of scholarly writing potential open up, where Impostor feelings are appeased and imperceptible, but cumulative, progress is made.
is filled by events of haecceities, far more than by formed and perceived things. It is a space of affects, more than one of properties … [I]t is an intensive rather than an extensive space, one of distances, not of measures and properties. (Deleuze and Guattari 2004, p. 479)
Smooth and striated space orientations differ in nature but exist in concert with one another, with neither one being superior. We need both space orientations because striated spaces provide security—but can be stifling—while smooth space offer freedom—but can induce fear and be overwhelming. The possibility of movement between these two space orientations (Deleuze and Guattari 2004) is liberating, and occupation of one or the other is open to assessment. A classroom setting, for example, may be set up in a striated manner but the teaching within that space may engage students from a smooth space orientation. Molar and molecular thinking do not necessarily correlate with a specific space orientation, and both forms of thinking occur in smooth and striated space. One could argue, nevertheless, that molecular thinking is more encouraged within smooth space, encouraging contextual understandings that break with binaried terms. Conversely, molar thinking tends to occur more in striated space.
According to Boberg (2018), the “university primarily operates through a striated space modality, yet it does so in a seamless way as if the logic of human performativity is striated and unquestionable. This is reflected through timetabling, room bookings, curriculum delivery and assessment procedures” (p. 69). University initiation rituals (that contribute to Impostorism in academia) and the formalities required for scholarly writing for publication also may be said to operate within a striated space. Furthermore, linear characterisations of Impostorism, and related coping strategies, are located within a striated space. While providing order and safety, this location also provides rigidity, which can stifle creativity and the exploration of new knowledges. In contrast to university initiation rituals, especially ‘publish or perish’, the emergent academic could instead embrace Impostor feelings and locate the process of scholarly writing in smooth space, opening them up to the exploration of new territories and “allowing for spontaneous acts and intuitive initiatives to be born” (Boberg 2018, p. 70). In so doing, the emergent academic encounters “unknown territory – relationally, materially, psychologically and socially” (Boberg 2018, p. 70), and this unknown territory expands thought and creativity within one’s writing.
As noted above, smooth and striated space co-occur, and we weave in and out of both spaces, often without awareness that we are doing so. Yet this weaving in between spaces enables new potentialities. For instance, the vase of flowers in the otherwise regimented striated space of an on-campus university office, allows a momentary shift into a smoother space that fuels a scholar’s creativity while trying to write a journal article. In the same way, the rigid nature of Impostor feelings may be tempered by positive feedback received from students. These moments of smooth space within striation create the expansiveness within which our creativity and competence may be recognised and acknowledged.
If the emergent academic is always situated in the rigidity and structure of the striated university space, it becomes difficult to move between the molar and molecular perspectives on Impostorism. But, by being open to the contrasts of molar and molecular thinking and striated and smooth space, emergent academics can address Impostor syndrome in subtle but effective ways. As emergent academics access more of their intuitive understanding and embrace the uncertainty of the liminal space, they open themselves up to manoeuvrability within the striated university context and encounter the smooth space of new possibilities, freeing themselves from the often dogmatic, static, ordered structure of academia. In so doing, they may overcome the sense of being an Impostor and move beyond a university context that exacerbates Impostor feelings.
Life is not just the progression of ordered sequences from some already given set of possibilities. Each branching out of difference creates the expansion of possibility, so the ‘end’ of life is not given, there is no goal towards which life is striving. (Colebrook 2002, p. 57)
There are thresholds to step across in becoming academic, but there is no end point, no fixed embodiment of an academic identity. The self “is only a threshold, a door, a becoming between two multiplicities” (Deleuze and Guattari 2004, p. 275)—a becoming that occurs within the liminal space. When we begin shifting between different conceptual spaces (smooth and striated orientations), the way in which we embody our Impostor tendencies changes and we move into a new way of becoming academic. Each shift causes a rupture in our rigid notions of what it means to be an academic, and as we step across the threshold into new territories, we take on micro-aspects of a new identity.
Emergent academics must learn to trust that as they encounter the vagaries of academia they are always and already becoming academic. Certainly, some environments can exacerbate the feeling of being not good enough, such as being surrounded by unsupportive colleagues. By applying a poststructuralist lens, however, it is possible to step outside of being the Impostor and see oneself in a more creative space orientation where one’s achievements are accepted and recognised.
In engaging with scholarly writing, the emergent academic may be tempted to focus only on the end result—the research output and what that may mean. Yet to be in the liminal space of becoming is to respect the becoming process and recognise that it is present in each and every act of scholarly writing. It is in the 20 minutes of writing every day, the small progresses and insights, the tiny bursts of daring that bring authenticity to our writing and build our confidence during the writing process. This understanding of scholarly writing is reminiscent of Deleuze and Guattari’s (2004) ideas regarding theory, research and knowledge, which they explain as a rhizome that sends its tendrils out in a non-linear, non-hierarchical way, with growth occurring in random bursts. Deleuze and Guattari drawn an analogy between this rhizomatic process and theory and research that allows for multiple, non-hierarchical entry and exit points in data representation and interpretation. Conversely, an ‘arborescent’ (organisational, hierarchical or tree-like) model of knowledge is linear, vertical, binary and dualistic. A rhizomatic perspective is about identifying connections within our research and writing that occur in sporadic ways, bringing in unplanned associations or connections of knowing. Making unexpected connections in our writing allows for rhizomatic movement from molar to molecular thinking, and beyond to what Deleuze and Guattari call ‘lines of flight’ that forever change our way of ‘seeing’. To embrace rhizomatic movement is to see scholarly writing as a kind of zigzagging, a moving in and out of smooth and striated space orientations, that extracts us from the striated orientation of Impostorism. A smoother space orientation provides refuge from Impostor tendencies and shifts us from molar to molecular thinking.
Conclusion
Impostor syndrome may not be something we can tackle head on and overcome all at once. Perhaps we first soften towards our Impostor feelings and encounter them as part of the processual acts of becoming academic. Perhaps we then entertain the idea that being an academic is not a fixed embodiment but rather a becoming within the liminal space. Perhaps becoming an academic is about holding a space for ourselves and allowing our becoming. It is realising that as academics the process of scholarly writing for publication is not linear but rhizomatic. In a poststructuralist sense, we never become academic—we are always and already in the process, in the liminality, of becoming academic.
In examining Impostorism from both a psychological and philosophical perspective, I have provided a novel way in which emergent academics can negotiate their academic identity. By viewing their situation through a poststructuralist lens, emergent academics may come to embrace their feelings of Impostorism and see it not as a deficit but rather as a strength. This will foster reflexivity within our research domain and make us more humble, conscious participants within the research process, thereby nurturing our academic capabilities as we engage in the processual acts of becoming academic.