Hecht’s (2009) Communication Theory of Identity claims identity is not a single unified concept, but rather a multifaceted one that we negotiate depending on context. Crucial to these facets are our own self-image, the behaviors we enact in interactions with others, our relationships with other people, and the identity that emerges from the communities we belong to. Language is a central piece of the construction of our identity as evidenced by the changes we make in the intonations of our voices and the verbal dressing of our words depending on the situation and person on the other end of the conversation. I gained a better understanding of this theory during the period of finding an institution in our community that I could partner with for my instructional design project. 

I approached our Sangguniang Kabataan chairwoman to propose a partnership for my special project. She was my long-time friend and classmate from elementary to high school. Although there exists my identity as a friend of the SK chairwoman, I maintained formality throughout our conversation because, in that specific context, my identity as an instructional designer should be prioritized. Therefore, I kept my greetings formal despite it being different from my usual greetings. I was also straightforward and concise with my words as I explained my agenda as though I was writing an email to a professor rather than a dear friend. I believe that these factors are critical both in the performance and construction of my multifaceted identity and the achievement of my goal i.e. securing a partnership. 

We met last Sunday and I still talked to her formally as I was explaining the elements of my instructional design project. I maintained an interested posture and acted my part as I inquired about the committee’s issues and other relevant factors. Throughout our whole discussion, I strived to maintain a positive image which made me feel more aligned with the role of an instructional designer. This stage is where I felt more aware of the project’s elements because I was already discussing it with a partner institution. I also asked follow-up questions to dig deeper into the issue and complete my understanding of the picture. We ended our conversation on a good note. However, looking back now, I wish I probed for more answers as I missed some details I had to follow up on later on. This was a mistake on my part as an instructional designer because I later found my collected information lacking. To solve this issue, I made sure that the questionnaire I sent to the rest of the SK committee was detailed and holistic.

After discussing the project and signing the consent form, we reverted to our friendly chatter which further shows how we used different identities in different contexts. A meeting of an hour and a half ended and we shed the formal atmosphere to talk and catch up. I believe our relationship will help strengthen our partnership as instructional designer and client as we already worked together for years before. Hopefully, this also extends to the other members of the committee.

Reference:

Hecht, ML. (2009). Communication theory of identity. In SW Littlejohn & KA Foss (eds), Encyclopaedia of Communication Theory, pp. 139-141. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc