Negotiating academic identity amid university reform: a study of research and teaching integration in Vietnam

This study examines how Vietnamese lecturers perceive and negotiate the integration of teaching and research under the impact of governance reforms on their academic identity. As traditionally teaching-focused universities transition towards research-intensive models, academics are increasingly expected to perform dual primary roles, not only as teachers but also as researchers. These expectations, however, often clash with long-standing institutional norms, cultural values, and established professional identities. While grounded in the Vietnamese context with specific attention to the teaching and research relationship, this research also speaks to broader ongoing debates in higher education: the impact of reforms on academic identity and their practice. Drawing on Bourdieu’s theory of practice, particularly the concepts of habitus, field, capital, and hysteresis, this study investigates how academic identity is (re)shaped through interactions between structural imperatives, cultural influences and individual dispositions. An interpretivist qualitative approach was adopted, involving semi-structured interviews with lecturers in research-intensive universities in Vietnam. Thematic analysis was employed to explore their experiences, focusing on their responses to reform-driven changes in their academic identities, particularly in relation to their perceptions and practices of integrating teaching and research. The empirical findings reveal that the entrenched primacy of teaching, rooted in Confucian heritage, socialist educational traditions, and hierarchical institutional cultures, continues to influence lecturers’ professional identity and practice. While participants generally share beliefs in the potential benefits of the integration, multiple constraints hinder their ability to realise them in practice. Several challenges have been explored, including scepticism about the rationale for changes, ambiguity in research expectations, capacity constraints, and limited structural support. These tensions have led to a spectrum of responses to changes, ranging from passive resistance to subtle reluctance. The study also examines institutional shifts in resource allocation and priority-setting that disproportionately privilege research. This has resulted in several unintended consequences related to academic identity, professional, ethical, and emotional issues. Evidence from this study demonstrates the analytical value of Bourdieu’s theory of practice in illuminating the dynamics of academic life in the Vietnamese context, provided it is adapted flexibly and contextually. This study also extends the framework by demonstrating how culturally embedded dispositions interact with shifting structural logics in a post-socialist context. The analysis demonstrates that identity negotiation has been shaped not only by institutional change but also by symbolic hierarchies, historical trajectories, and culturally specific values. The study thereby extends and contextualises Bourdieu’s theoretical framework to shed light on the realities of academic work in Vietnam, while simultaneously nuancing universalist assumptions embedded in dominant global higher education discourses. In conclusion, this study provides insights into how academics in the Vietnamese context navigate their identities amid ongoing reforms. The discrepancies between the ideal of teachingresearch integration and the lecturer’s realities play a significant role in shaping lecturers’ identity negotiation. Without attention to those issues, the push towards research-intensive models risks overburdening lecturers, undermining teaching values, creating identity tensions, and deepening inequalities rather than fostering meaningful integration. The present study underscores the necessity for policy interventions that ensure equitable opportunities and sustainable professional trajectories for all academic staff. The ultimate purpose is to create a healthier ecosystem where the reform-driven goals of increased research performance do not come at the expense of teaching quality and overall lecturer well-being.