Navigating boundaries: the evolution of homeroom teachers’ profession through professional boundary work

Abstract

In organizational contexts, professional boundaries serve a dual purpose by distinguishing various professions from one another and regulating access to power, status, and rewards. Individuals operating within professions in which such boundaries are not clearly or explicitly defined face the risk of compromising their status and autonomy. However, they possess the agency to actively define their profession and enhance its standing among both internal and external stakeholders. This study explores how homeroom teachers in the Israeli education system—recognized as a distinct occupation within the broader teaching profession—engage in boundary work to form and define their professional group. Our findings reveal that (1) homeroom teachers employ adaptable boundary work strategies, tailored to their interactions with different key stakeholders. Specifically, they (a) define boundaries to clarify, for themselves, the parameters of their own roles; (b) balance boundaries with partners inside the school (administrators and subject teachers) to facilitate day-to-day collaboration while simultaneously asserting their own roles; and (c) orchestrate boundaries when interacting with external partners (students’ parents), acknowledging the distinction between roles while primarily seeking to foster effective joint work towards the common goal of helping students succeed. (2) Despite the diversity in their approaches, all homeroom teachers exhibit a unique expertise, allowing them to combine boundary-setting with inclusivity, highlighting the dynamic and interactive nature of the boundary work process. This dual nature enhances the effectiveness of communication and collaboration within the educational system, molding the role of homeroom teachers as a distinct professional group.

Introduction

Professional boundaries serve a dual purpose, distinguishing professions from one another and delineating their access to power, status, and rewards (Welsh et al., 2004; Abbott 2014). The processes by which such boundaries are defined, negotiated, and safeguarded are collectively referred to as boundary work (Gieryn 1983; Allen 2000; Langley et al., 2019). These processes can take place at the field level (e.g., through the macro-level activities of governments or regulatory agencies), the organizational level (Bucher et al., 2016), and the individual level (Yagi and Kleinberg 2011; Azambuja and Islam 2019).

Professional boundaries exist not only across fields but also within them (Comeau-Vallée and Langley 2020). In some fields such as medicine, intra-professional boundaries are clearly delineated through top-down directives, as in the case of specialized medical training and certification (e.g., Evetts 2011). However, in other fields where institutional guidelines are less explicit, professionals must independently define and safeguard their practice domains (e.g., Alvehus, Eklund and Kastberg 2019). This creates a notable gap in organizational support—understood here as the provision of clear guidelines, resources, or structural mechanisms to help professionals delineate and defend their roles—which has received limited attention in prior research.

While prior studies have explored professionals’ boundary work strategies (Lilja 2014; Langley et al., 2019; Risan 2022) and the means by which they address challenges, establish credibility, and legitimize their practices (Abbott 2014), few studies have examined how professionals navigate this process when strong organizational frameworks are absent. This gap is particularly pronounced in education, where intra-professional boundaries are often ambiguous.

Many educational roles—such as those of teachers, counselors, and administrative staff—lack clear formal distinctions, leading to overlap of responsibilities and role ambiguity. This is particularly true for homeroom teachers, who operate within an environment characterized by overlapping responsibilities and unclear distinctions, making their boundary work both critical and understudied. Given the importance of these undefined roles, our study explores the boundary work of Israeli homeroom teachers. In the Israeli education system, homeroom teachers are fundamentally educators and integral members of the teaching profession. However, their role, as prescribed by the Ministry of Education through top-down directives, extends beyond the conventional responsibilities of teaching. They hold a unique and pivotal position within the education system, acting as a vital link between students, their parents, the class, and the school’s support systems. Homeroom teachers are essential figures who guide the educational process, shape a community of equals, and promote the development of critical social and emotional skills (Lev, Tatar and Koslowsky 2018). Their care for students’ psychological needs, autonomy, sense of competence, and sense of belonging can influence the classroom’s social-educational climate, increase students’ motivation to learn, and ultimately improve their grades. Furthermore, homeroom teachers manage the interface between the school and parents, affecting the home environment’s role in supporting students’ growth (Weissblai 2023).

Despite the centrality of homeroom teachers’ role, significant ambiguity remains regarding their professional boundaries (Gutman 2021). To address this gap, we ask: How do homeroom teachers in Israel engage in boundary work to navigate their professional roles within an educational system lacking well-defined intra-professional boundaries?

Our study is based on in-depth, semistructured interviews conducted with 75 homeroom teachers in Israel, spanning the elementary, middle, and high school levels. To analyze their professional practices, we employ theories of boundary work (Gieryn 1983; Lamont and Molnár 2002; Boussard 2018; Liu 2018; Langley et al., 2019; Lunkka et al., 2022). This framework allows us to capture the strategies that homeroom teachers use to define and navigate their professional roles, taking into account their responsibilities, the groups with which they interact, and the connections that tie these elements together.

Our research reveals that homeroom teachers employ flexible boundary work to carve out their professional group. They do so in their interactions with key stakeholders: themselves, administrators, fellow subject teachers, and students’ parents. More specifically, homeroom teachers work internally to define, for themselves, the boundaries of their role. With internal partners (administrators, fellow subject teachers), they assert and manage their role boundaries in a manner that facilitates day-to-day collaboration. Finally, with partners outside the organization (students’ parents), boundary work focuses less on segregating roles and more on integrating these external partners to facilitate joint work towards a shared goal (students’ success). Despite the diversity in boundary work approaches, homeroom teachers universally engage in distinct and specialized activities that blend boundary-setting with inclusivity. This dual approach highlights the dynamic and interactive nature of their professional group work. It also increases the effectiveness of communication and collaboration within the educational system as it clearly distinguishes their professional role from those of other educators.

In the following sections, we review the existing literature pertaining to professional boundaries and boundary work, with emphasis on the teaching profession. Next, we provide background on our research setting and outline our methodology. In presenting our findings, we examine the boundary work that homeroom teachers conduct with internal and external stakeholders, as well as their professional group development. The paper concludes with a discussion of our findings and their implications.

Literature review

Teaching as a profession and the discourse of professionalism

For an occupation to be considered a profession, it should possess several fundamental attributes, including a structured body of knowledge; continuous and comprehensive professional training; and members who show unwavering dedication to the field, adhere to ethical codes, and have the autonomy to exercise professional judgment (Hoyle 2008; Abbott 2014; Abbott and Meerabeau 2020). Some occupations, such as those of doctors, lawyers, and scientists, fulfill all these criteria. Other occupations, such as teaching, nursing, and social work, are not universally considered to have full professional status but are instead sometimes categorized as “semi-professions” (Etzioni 1969) due to the extent to which their individual autonomy is subject to organizational oversight. In particular, teachers are closely supervised by their administrators to ensure alignment between their performance and established standards, resulting in limitations to their autonomy (Demirkasımoğlu 2010). Consequently, teachers have demonstrated significant interest and agency in establishing their professional identity and crafting strategies for professionalization (Darling-Hammond 2000; Hoyle 2008; Abbott and Meerabeau 2020). Sachs (2016) provides an overview of the numerous efforts that have been made to define the concept of teacher professionalism. The proposed definitions show significant diversity, ranging from obscure descriptions that delve into the fundamental nature and attributes of professional work, encompassing aspects such as work quality and behavioral standards (Hargreaves 2000), to viewpoints that leverage the definition itself as a means of supervising teachers (Lawn 2005).

The debate regarding the professionalization of teaching relates to a broader distinction between two approaches to the process of professionalization, which produce different outcomes and serve different interests (Evetts 2011). The first approach is “professionalization from above,” in which external factors shape an occupational group’s professionalization trajectory. The second approach is “professionalization from within,” in which the group exercises agency, effectively influencing the market while actively seeking professional status (Evetts 2011: 407). According to Evetts (2011), when the impetus for professionalism originates from within, the occupational group in question can derive substantial benefit from engaging in “the discourse of professionalism” and specifically harnessing the discourse to define the group’s professional identity and enhance its status among both internal and external stakeholders (Evetts 2011). Examining professionalism as a discourse entails exploring shifts and control dynamics within specific occupational groups and occasionally within different areas of expertise within the same profession. Expertise is defined as a synthesis of academic knowledge and practical work experience. While academic knowledge is typically acquired through educational institutions such as universities or professional schools, it only transforms into expertise when applied and refined through practical experiences in the workplace (Liu 2018). On occasion, the discourse of professionalism can be used to establish boundaries between professional groups within the same profession (Martin, Currie and Finn 2009), distinguishing the tasks, roles, and responsibilities of a particular group and regulating interactions between groups (Scott and Meyer 1994; Lamont and Molnár 2002). In this context, the boundary between the two professional groups is not a strict division but rather a flexible area where the authority and responsibilities of each group can shift and overlap (S. Liu 2018: 47).

Professional boundaries: determining status and centrality

As discussed above, professional boundaries differentiate occupations from one another (Bucher et al., 2016) and define expertise within an occupational field (Liberati 2017; Boussard 2018; Alvehus, Eklund and Kastberg 2019; Comeau-Vallée and Langley 2020). This expertise enables the occupation of a specific niche and governs the competition between the newly established professional group and its rivals for dominance over the same domain of activity (Boussard 2018). Crucially, professional boundaries determine a profession’s access to desired benefits, with two of the most prominent being (1) status and (2) centrality within an organization or field (Bucher et al., 2016).

Professional status pertains to the level of authority a profession wields, particularly in its ability to regulate the activities of other professions (Freidson 2001; Abbott 2014). In a professionalized field, a profession’s status tends to increase as the profession’s domain of knowledge becomes more exclusive and specialized (Suddaby and Viale 2011; Bucher et al., 2016). For example, in the educational field, school principals have high status due to their special responsibilities (Mizrahi-Shtelman 2021; Ganon-Shilon and Becher 2024), whereas teachers have lower status because they are prevented from performing specific tasks such as making decisions on teacher placement. Phillips and Zuckerman (2001) further emphasize the significance of “middle-status” actors, who are positioned between their high- and low-status counterparts. These actors exercise agency by pursuing their own interests and adopting distinct practices. As we elaborate on below, homeroom teachers, whose roles entail more responsibility than those of other (nonhomeroom) teachers, can be considered middle-status actors in the educational field.

Centrality (Greenwood, Suddaby and Hinings 2002), in turn, refers to the extent to which the members of a particular profession are integrated into the dominant practices in an organization or field (Bucher et al., 2016). In the educational realm, particularly within schools, certain positions are regarded as more central than others. For instance, in the Israeli education system, the centrality of homeroom teachers within the school surpasses that of subject teachers, who provide instruction in specific subjects but are not responsible for students’ overall performance and well-being (Lev, Tatar and Koslowsky 2018). The distinction in centrality between homeroom and subject teachers arises from their unique expertise, the indispensable role of the homeroom teacher in imparting values-based education, and the teacher’s close relationship with a specific group of students.

Because professional boundaries are so important in determining professional status and centrality, they do not remain static; rather, professionals actively negotiate them on a continuous basis through boundary work. In what follows, we discuss what such boundary work entails.

Boundary work

Boundary work is vital to the professionalization process as it serves to establish legitimacy and autonomy, negotiate the limits of the profession, and define professional identity. Within organizations, boundary work involves the use of strategies to create, maintain, or dismantle distinctions between groups of actors (Gieryn 1983). In this sense, boundary work can be seen as constantly changing and subject to human agency (Langley et al., 2019). Langley et al. (2019) illustrate how individuals and groups proactively shape and maintain these boundaries. This form of boundary work involves professionals actively defending, contesting, and establishing distinctions that not only differentiate them from others but also enhance their legitimacy and influence. Generally, boundaries establish the limits and scope of a specific area, whether it be a professional role, a domestic space, or a work environment (Kreiner, Hollensbe and Sheep 2009). Several studies have characterized the types of actions that professionals take to set themselves apart (Gieryn 1983; Garud, Gehman and Karunakaran 2014; Liu 2018; Langley et al., 2019). These works provide insight into how competitive boundary work varies among different professional groups depending on their status within their domain. In doing so, these studies emphasize the crucial role of boundary work in increasing the influence of occupational groups, establishing legitimacy, redefining jurisdictional boundaries, and shaping professional identity (Golyagina and Valuckas 2020). For instance, Liu (2018), in his study of the Chinese legal profession, refers to this process of boundary work as “boundary making.” It involves a profession distinguishing itself from other professions or nonprofessional groups to establish its own jurisdictional domain within the social space of work. Other studies (Dumas and Sanchez-Burks 2015; Hunter, Clark and Carlson 2019) show how competitive boundaries are used to establish professional boundaries regarding the work–life interface. The enactment of work–life boundaries, viewed from both the individual and organizational perspectives, is essential for professionals in managing their role responsibilities as well as in shaping their identities and relationships within the workplace (Dumas and Sanchez-Burks 2015).

While professionals actively defend, contest, and establish boundaries, there are situations where different groups of professionals must engage in daily collaborative interactions and maintain the “social order” while simultaneously negotiating the boundaries between them (Strauss 1978). This negotiation enables professionals to address ambiguity regarding the division of tasks and roles (Comeau-Vallée and Langley 2020; Weber et al., 2022). Notably, studies demonstrate that negotiating boundaries may encompass practices of disregarding or blurring boundaries (Liu 2018), with the aim of reducing divisions between “us” and “them” to attain a sense of collective identity (Majchrzak, More and Faraj 2012; Meier 2015; Pouthier 2017). Boundary blurring often happens when a lower-status profession seeks to expand its influence by moving into areas traditionally controlled by a higher-status profession (Liu 2018). A clear example of this is the emergence of intermediary healthcare roles, such as physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and health visitors, which has blurred the lines between the professions’ distinct areas of responsibility (Nancarrow and Borthwick 2005; Comeau-Vallée and Langley 2020).

Boundary work becomes particularly evident when new professional roles or external stakeholders enter a well-established professional environment. Such a scenario introduces intricate dynamics because it can potentially threaten the central positions of elite professionals, who may engage in subtle resistance to the changes taking place (Currie and Spyridonidis 2016). In these situations, professionals engage in boundary work that not only reshapes the broader professional landscape but also plays a critical role in defining and reconfiguring professional identity. This process involves establishing, defending, and occasionally altering professional boundaries in ways that maintain or enhance the collective identity of the profession (Ybema, Beech and Ellis 2011; Bucher et al., 2016; Lunkka et al., 2022). When configured in this manner, boundaries transcend their role as mere tools for obtaining legitimacy and safeguarding professional groups and also serve as pivotal junctures that encourage collaboration (Quick and Feldman 2014). Oldenhof, Stoopendaal and Putters (2016), for example, investigated an organization’s efforts to recruit external stakeholders to boost the collaborative achievement of objectives that would otherwise remain out of reach and showed how middle managers redrew boundaries to facilitate this goal. In interpreting their findings, the authors emphasize how configurational boundary work provided opportunities to create, reevaluate, and normalize organizational classifications such as “top/bottom” and “internal/external” within and across organizations. Similarly, Cartel, Boxenbaum and Aggeri (2019), who present a case study of the carbon market, illustrate how working through boundaries created an environment of trust among both internal and external actors. This atmosphere allowed the various stakeholders to collaboratively explore fresh initiatives without being confined by previous constraints, which is an essential condition for enabling experimentation.

Numerous studies have explored the boundary work strategies employed by specific professions and occupational groups within the organizational context, particularly concerning their organizational positions (Kreiner, Hollensbe and Sheep 2009; Bucher et al., 2016). However, there remains a dearth of boundary work research specifically targeting professional groups characterized by unclear institutional definitions. Assuming that professionals occupying different organizational positions possess divergent interests, it is crucial to gain a deeper understanding of how these distinct positions manifest in boundary strategies at the organizational level. As discussed in previous sections, the need to obtain such an understanding is particularly salient in the case of professional groups that are relatively poorly defined and in which the professionals themselves bear the burden of defining the boundaries of their roles. To address these gaps, we examine how homeroom teachers engage in boundary work to navigate their professional roles.

Data and method

Setting: homeroom teachers in the Israeli education system

Homeroom teachers are widely acknowledged as playing a critical role in the Israeli education system. This role is twofold: delivering subject-matter instruction and overseeing students’ overall well-being and functioning within the school framework (Lev, Tatar and Koslowsky 2018; Sapir and Mizrahi-Shtelman 2024). Homeroom teachers in Israel, as in other countries such as China, Japan, and Russia (Nutov and Hazzan 2015), are responsible for monitoring and facilitating the general academic progress of the students in their homeroom classes. They are also expected to be aware of each student’s home situation and to be in constant contact with the students and their parents (Dor 2014; Kashy‐Rosenbaum, Kaplan and Israel‐Cohen 2018). Additionally, homeroom teachers are responsible for the social development of their students.

The roles of homeroom teachers are stipulated in a 1994 circular issued by the Director General of the Ministry of Education,¹ which sets out the powers and responsibilities of individuals in primary and secondary schools. It is important to note, however, that this circular does not offer a formal definition of the homeroom teacher’s profession. Indeed, the lack of such a clear definition is acknowledged in a comprehensive document that explicitly deals with “the role of the homeroom teacher” (in routine times and in emergency situations), which was released in April 2021 by the Ministry of Education’s Department of Elementary Education.² This document recognizes that while the role of homeroom teachers is outlined in Ministry circulars, the fulfillment of this role in practice is an evolving process that depends on the context. According to the document, several factors contribute to the complexity of this role, including the teacher’s individual interpretation of their responsibilities, the specific needs of each student and class, the characteristics of the school, the expectations and demands of the local community, the broader professional community within which the teacher operates, and the ongoing developments within Israeli society and the education system. These multiple influences make it challenging to establish a universally accepted and consensus-driven formal definition of the homeroom teacher’s role. A 2021 report published by the Yozma—Center for Knowledge and Research in Education³ identified a significant disparity between the complexity of the homeroom teacher’s role and the adequacy of the training and guidance they receive. This gap was observed both during teachers’ initial teacher education and throughout their professional careers. The report also highlighted that the requirements for entering the position are minimal, necessitating only an academic degree or teaching certification without specialized training tailored to the specific demands of the homeroom teacher’s responsibilities.

Overall, it seems that the responsibilities of homeroom teachers in Israel are ample and wide-ranging, differing from those of other teachers, yet the professional roles of “homeroom teacher” is not explicitly defined or taught, leaving it up to the teachers themselves to define their practice domains. Hence, an examination of Israeli homeroom teachers offers a useful opportunity to investigate the boundary work that professionals engage in when managing and defining their own specialized roles.

Data collection

This research is part of a broader study investigating work-related knowledge and professional learning among homeroom teachers. For the current research, we employed a qualitative methodology that involved in-depth interpretive analysis, in which we used the lens of boundary work to analyze homeroom teachers’ descriptions and perceptions of their professional roles.

Within the larger study, we conducted 142 semistructured interviews with homeroom teachers from elementary, middle, and high schools across various regions in Israel. The sample selection primarily relied on a snowball technique, in which we concentrated on homeroom teachers with at least two years of experience in Jewish state secular schools. For the present study, we focused on a subset of seventy-five interviews, which were carefully selected to ensure a representative sample while allowing for in-depth analysis within the scope of this paper. Among these seventy-five interviewees, fifty-eight were female teachers and seventeen were male teachers, with thirty-one homeroom teachers from elementary schools (thirty females and one male), sixteen from middle schools (ten females and six males), and twenty-eight from high schools (eighteen females and ten males). To ensure confidentiality, we assigned pseudonyms to all interviewees for reference purposes.

The interviews, which ranged from 45 to 70 min in duration, were recorded and transcribed in their entirety. Each interview adhered to a uniform structure, with questions crafted to promote open-ended responses (Turner 2010). Homeroom teachers were encouraged to provide specific details and examples pertaining to their daily work routines, the challenges they encountered in their role and how they navigated them, as well as the significance they attributed to their professional activities. Some of the questions posed to interviewees included:

1. Could you please describe your journey to becoming a homeroom teacher? What were your initial experiences during the first few months on the job like?

2. What valuable insights have you gained over time that you wish you had possessed during your initial weeks on the job? How did you acquire this knowledge?

3. What personal growth have your experiences as a homeroom teacher contributed to, and what lessons have you drawn from your teaching career?

To maintain the authentic voices of the interviewees, we intentionally avoided terms such as “professional boundaries,” “boundary work,” and “status” in our conversations with them. Nevertheless, the narratives conveyed interviewees’ perspectives on their professional roles and their understanding of the boundaries they engaged with to define and shape their profession.

Data analysis

The transcribed interviews were analyzed using formal content analysis, primarily utilizing the ATLAS.ti software tool. We adhered to the principles of thematic analysis as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006). As such, we adopted a systematic approach that began with the analysis of specific data units, such as significant statements, and progressed to broader units, such as meaning units (Creswell 2013). In the initial stage of analysis, we employed open coding to identify statements linked to the teachers’ profession, knowledge, and learning. We categorized statements related to being an educator or homeroom teacher or performing tasks that homeroom teachers typically engage in. Such tasks included leading meaningful educational initiatives, building trust with students, and developing strong relationships with their homeroom class. Additionally, we considered responses where participants compared their roles to those of subject teachers and emphasized what makes their experience unique. At this point, we noticed that the theme of boundary work was particularly relevant to how participants shaped their role and their interactions with various partners, both within and outside the school. In the second stage, we identified key terms associated with and related to “professional role,” “professional boundaries,” “status,” and “position.” Particular emphasis was placed on how homeroom teachers used discourse to assert their authority, manage their relationships with colleagues and parents, and navigate the complexities of their professional environment. These strategies are crucial in defining professional boundaries, as they enable homeroom teachers to articulate their roles, justify their actions, and influence the perceptions of others within the school community. By examining these narratives through the lens of discursive content analysis, we gained a deeper understanding of the use of language in the ongoing construction and maintenance of professional boundaries with different groups, thereby shaping and defining the profession. To enhance the credibility of our interpretative analysis, we engaged in a collaborative process of discussing the research findings (Guba and Lincoln 1989). This collaborative approach was instrumental in establishing the trustworthiness of our findings and in confirming the value, honesty, and reliability of the results and interpretations (Spall 1998).

Throughout the analysis, we also examined potential associations between interviewees’ demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, level of education, etc.) and their boundary work strategies. However, we did not observe any notable associations between these factors. This lack of variation may be explained by the relatively standardized expectations associated with the homeroom teacher role in Israeli schools, regardless of demographic differences.

In what follows, we elaborate on the insights our interviews provided regarding the ways in which homeroom teachers apply boundary work, both to define their profession and to shape their interactions with other stakeholders in the school environment (e.g., colleagues, parents).

Findings: boundary work as a means of defining a profession’s characteristics

Our research uncovered that homeroom teachers actively and strategically employ boundary work to define their professional group. In particular, they engage in distinct forms of boundary work with different key groups. These groups include themselves, administrators, fellow teachers, and their students’ parents. In what follows, we elaborate on the different approaches to boundary work that homeroom teachers employ when interacting with each of these groups, and on the ways in which this boundary work converges to define the professional characteristics of a ‘homeroom teacher’.

Diverse approaches to boundary work

Oneself: defining boundaries and self-professional concept.

A key component of homeroom teachers’ boundary work is an internal process of shaping and reshaping the parameters of their professional roles through dynamic interactions with their environment. This necessary process of constructing, differentiating, or broadening boundaries is referred to as defining boundaries. This aspect of boundary work denotes the ideological and rhetorical efforts that professions employ to establish a perceived distinction between their goals, methods, capabilities, and expertise and those of other entities within their ecosystem (Gieryn 1983; Boussard 2018), while simultaneously facilitating a deeper understanding of the professional’s intrinsic sense of self.

For Tomer, for example, this process entailed contending with the questions and uncertainties that defined his initial year as a homeroom teacher:

The first year of entering the role of homeroom teacher was mainly to get to know me and understand my boundaries as an educator. What I can do and what I can’t do, what are my limitations, and what are the restrictions of the organization? (Homeroom teacher in middle school)

For Amit, in turn, such boundary work was necessary to deal with the requirements of her profession:

It’s a very demanding profession that requires an investment of many hours outside the work in school. So, one of the things you need to know in this profession is to set boundaries. If you ask me what I would want to know in my first year as a homeroom teacher, it would be how to set boundaries, because otherwise, you have no life; you really have no life. (Homeroom teacher in elementary school)

Carmel similarly referred to boundary work as a means of delineating her role in the face of high demands. She also emphasized the role of boundaries as a tool for acquiring social standing and recognition.

Today, being a homeroom teacher means a lot of things. Advising, being a psychologist, being a diagnostician, being an administrator, and filling out a lot of forms… it is very difficult, very busy, very... So, you have to know how to set boundaries that will define your responsibilities and limitations and also provide you [with] the appreciation that you deserve, because I know what I’m worth. (Homeroom teacher in elementary school)

These homeroom teachers used boundaries as a means to forge and safeguard their professional identity. Tomer’s rationale for boundary establishment stemmed from uncertainty, whereas Amit and Carmel’s perspectives were rooted in the need to contend with significant and complex job demands and, in Carmel’s case, to gain access to appropriate rewards. In all scenarios, homeroom teachers engaged in the continuous process of boundary work to comprehend and define their professional standing within an ever-evolving context of challenges and transformations (Ybema, Beech and Ellis 2011).

Internal partners: balancing boundaries.

We characterize the boundary work conducted by homeroom teachers in their interactions with internal partners as balancing boundaries. This form of boundary work entails navigating, integrating, or adapting boundaries while engaging with peers and aims to foster collaboration, coordinate activities, and accomplish day-to-day tasks (Strauss 1978; Langley et al., 2019). Our findings revealed that homeroom teachers engage in such boundary work with two distinct groups of internal partners: (1) the administrative team, including the principal and vice principal, and (2) fellow subject teachers.

Leanna shared a narrative that highlighted her boundary work with the administration, which was specifically aimed at maintaining intra-organizational relationships. Notably, this boundary work effectively informed her own internal process of reshaping her professional boundaries.

I learned to set boundaries because I gave too much of myself… I don’t like to say it out loud, but I set boundaries and prioritize. An example from today: Today is my day off and not a school day. And yet the principal sent me a message to pass on to the parents. I started to write the message, and then I said to myself, “Wait, I’m not going to send the parents any message today.” They should know it’s my day off. I’m not at school. So, they will wait until tomorrow; nothing will happen. This is not such an urgent message. (Homeroom teacher in elementary school)

While Leanna defined boundaries without communicating them to the principal, Isabel described a similar situation in which she employed a different approach. By communicating her boundaries, Isabel bridges the gap between her and her school principal.

It’s also okay to say no. For example, I participated in a professional development workshop for the past three days, and during one of the days, there was a national security exercise. So, the principal and the vice-principal told me: “Why don’t you participate in the national security exercise and only then go to your workshop?” My instinct was to say yes, and I almost did. But then I took a deep breath and said no. No person is irreplaceable. I am indeed the homeroom teacher, but there are other teachers at school. I learned not to take on the burden. (Homeroom teacher in elementary school)

In their daily navigation of professional and hierarchical boundaries, homeroom teachers are constantly required to shape and reshape their professional role to suit various audiences and situations (Ybema, Beech and Ellis 2011). Thus, homeroom teachers’ boundary work with administrators differs from their boundary work in interactions with their fellow teachers, with whom they need to collaborate to complete day-to-day tasks (e.g., working with subject teachers to ensure smooth functioning of the class). When interacting with subject teachers, homeroom teachers adopt two opposing approaches: inclusion and exclusion. These two approaches reflect the inherent tension between homeroom teachers’ desire to separate themselves as a professional group from nonhomeroom teachers and the need to collaborate with these colleagues.

Yuli, for example, described her routine with the subject teachers who work with her homeroom class:

Traditionally, before the beginning of each year, I send all the subject teachers teaching in my class a list of procedures and guidance on what values I instill in the classroom. I expect us to have a shared language. It is a critical part of my job. (Homeroom teacher in middle school)

Hadas also described a collaborative routine:

When subject teachers leave the classroom, I regularly meet [with] or call them to ask how the lesson was, what happened, and where the difficulties are. If there are difficulties in the classroom, we coordinate what we should do, for example, who calls the parents. So, it is all about mutual sharing between the subject teachers and the homeroom teacher. (Homeroom teacher in high school)

Both Hadas and Yuli described boundaries characterized by collaboration, which enhance coordination, nurture intra-organizational relationships, and bridge gaps. At the same time, they assert their roles as the architects of the rules that govern these collaborative interactions. This collaborative boundary work underscores the importance of balancing boundaries. While boundaries can give rise to tensions, they are also indispensable for fostering collaboration (Langley et al., 2019). In situations such as those described by Hadas and Yuli, collaboration involves creating a mutual understanding of roles and obligations to enhance student outcomes; as such, it can contribute to shaping homeroom teachers’ professional identities. Indeed, this idea is reinforced by Stephanie’s perspective on the relationship between collegial dynamics among teachers and professional identities:

There is always a slight tension between a subject teacher and a homeroom teacher. The homeroom teacher’s profession is considered more prestigious because they set the tone. You can hear subject teachers say, “Oh, you, as a homeroom teacher, have control in the classroom, and when I enter, everything falls apart.” For example, my class this year is academically poor, and there are significant gaps between the students, so together with subject teachers, we lowered the standard and reduced the amount of learning material. I want to bring subject teachers closer and let them feel like they are part of the process. I mean, it’s true that this is my classroom, but still, I want them to be part of it. (Homeroom teacher in middle school)

As seen in this section, homeroom teachers navigate both professional and hierarchical boundaries, employing varied approaches in their interactions with administrators and fellow teachers. Despite the potential for tensions, these boundaries play a crucial role in fostering effective collaboration. The process of balancing boundaries is essential, as it allows for the necessary negotiation between maintaining professional authority and facilitating cooperative relationships.

External partners: orchestrating boundaries.

In Israel, homeroom teachers are responsible for overseeing their students’ academic progress within the school while also maintaining regular communication with external stakeholders, particularly the students’ parents. In their interactions with parents, homeroom teachers engage in what can be described as the orchestration of boundaries, in which they facilitate collaboration between individuals within and outside of the organization. This boundary work involves aligning certain activities to promote collaboration while deliberately segregating others. In their narratives, homeroom teachers emphasized the importance of setting boundaries with parents. However, their primary focus is on navigating and overseeing these boundaries to efficiently manage, simplify, and foster connections (Langley et al., 2019).

Esther, for example, explained the importance of forming connections and partnerships with parents through boundaries:

With the parents, it’s all about being real partners. That’s how I view it. We’re in this together, but there’s also a need to set boundaries. Like, don’t give me a call during specific hours because that’s when I’m focused on my own kids and family. (Homeroom teacher in high school)

Tom provided his professional viewpoint on the connections between homeroom teachers and parents:

I came to the system with the notion that I should be accessible to the parents. It was obvious to me as a parent and even more so as an educator. I have a hard time with the concept of “I am available Monday and Wednesday between 20:00 and 21:00 on the phone”; it doesn’t make sense. But at the same time, parents should know what the boundaries are. The boundaries should be set with an attitude of saying, “I’m available to you. Contact me if there’s something critical… if I can’t answer, I will inform you when I will get back to you.” I think this attitude leads to collaboration and a much more positive attitude toward my requests. (Homeroom teacher in middle school)

Ben described the evolution of his perspective on appropriate boundaries in the relationship between parents and homeroom teachers, noting how his professional identity transformed in light of this understanding:

So, you initiate these activities and make sure parents feel comfortable and play to their strengths. I’ve got parents in my class who go above and beyond, even organizing things to make it super enjoyable for the kids. It can make a huge difference. It’s quite the shift because initially, I thought being a good homeroom teacher meant not involving parents too much and setting clear boundaries. But now, my perspective has changed completely. I believe a strong teacher is someone who can support parents, letting them know that there’s power in their involvement. I’m a great educator, sure, but the real strength lies in the parents. I encourage them to step up and own this journey. (Homeroom teacher in middle school)

These narratives highlight the growing organizational complexity surrounding the parent–school relationship (Price-Mitchell 2009). While parents are regarded as external partners, they cannot assume direct control over school management. Under these circumstances, homeroom teachers must engage in the orchestration of boundaries, carefully navigating and supervising the boundaries with parents to effectively foster collaboration while respecting each party’s distinct roles and responsibilities. This boundary work involves facilitating certain activities to encourage cooperation while maintaining the necessary separation in others. Furthermore, the narratives suggest that these efforts not only enhance collaboration but also reinforce the status of homeroom teachers as a distinct professional group with specialized expertise.

The distinct expertise of homeroom teachers: a blend of boundary-setting and inclusivity

In the preceding section, we showed how homeroom teachers employ a variety of boundary work strategies when working with different groups. The purpose of these strategies is to define the homeroom teacher’s professional domain while simultaneously establishing pathways for engagement and collaboration among the diverse stakeholders with whom they interact, which is a well-known challenge in educational operations (Akkerman and Bakker 2011). In other words, homeroom teachers navigate a continuum between creating well-defined boundaries on the one hand and fostering inclusion and a sense of acceptance on the other. In essence, this duality emphasizes that boundaries serve not only as barriers but also as spaces with the potential to facilitate connections and interactions among individuals from different groups. Ultimately, this process contributes to the formation of a professional group that seeks equilibrium between boundaries and inclusion.

Roni highlighted the pivotal role of the school in fostering such equilibrium. Her perspective reveals the importance of the organizational context in enabling or hindering a sense of engagement and collaboration:

So, let’s break it down: What is the meaning of schools? I mean, they aspire to be inclusive, but at the same time, there’s this need for rules and boundaries—it’s like trying to find that sweet spot between inclusion and setting boundaries. (Homeroom teacher in elementary school)

The framing of the school as a space that serves not only as a hub for learning but also as a platform for acquiring essential skills and fostering inclusivity is reflected in the manner in which homeroom teachers define their profession. For example, when describing her responsibilities as a homeroom teacher in elementary school, Lee underscored the significance of maintaining a balance within the confines of her role: on the one hand, defining boundaries, and on the other hand, enabling flexibility and movement within those boundaries.

As a teacher, you have to know how to handle a class, which involves using both rewards and consequences. You need to connect with and engage students on an emotional level, inspiring them intellectually while also setting some boundaries. These boundaries don’t always have to be really strict or harsh. (Homeroom teacher in elementary school)

May described the learning journey associated with acquiring a professional identity that embraces the duality of boundaries.

It’s really tough, figuring out how to find this balance between my personal connection and my ability to contain [students’ needs], and setting the boundaries… I’ve put a lot of effort into finding a good balance between making sure my boundaries are crystal clear and also making them feel acknowledged and seen by me. (Homeroom teacher in high school)

Noah also described a learning process leading to the formation of a balanced professional identity:

I used to go with a wholehearted approach: “Hey, it’s me, showing you love and giving hugs.” But guess what? That doesn’t always cut it. Sometimes, you need a bit of a firmer stance, a gentle “no-no-no,” and [to] brainstorm creative ways to bring the kids together. It’s not just about one good approach for everyone. Sometimes, there are kids who simply need you to hold them close and set clear boundaries that they can rely on. (Homeroom teacher in middle school)

In homeroom teachers’ dynamic work environments, the essence of the learning process lies in cultivating a deep understanding of not only one’s own insights, goals, and approaches but also those of others, including both internal and external partners. Nina provided an in-depth explanation of the concept of duality in the context of collaborating with parents:

When it comes to dealing with parents, I find it’s a bit like how you work with kids. You want to be understanding and supportive, yet you also need to set certain boundaries. There are times when you encounter parents who don’t really have clear limits, and they might make requests that leave you wondering how they, as adults and parents, can think it’s acceptable. But then again, dealing with parents requires striking a balance…It’s about finding that balance and standing up for yourself in a respectful way when necessary. (Homeroom teacher in elementary school)

Last, Suzy and Dalia provided concrete descriptions of their own definitions and perceptions of the homeroom teacher’s professional role:

Absolutely, the role of the homeroom teacher is all about establishing well-defined boundaries and clearly communicating your expectations, while simultaneously building a personal connection. It’s like striking a balance: on one side, you’re firm and clear, and on the other, you’re gentle and nurturing. (Suzy, homeroom teacher in elementary school)

I’ll try to simplify it, but this also falls in line with my educational philosophy: a great homeroom teacher is someone who can establish boundaries while equally being accommodating. There’s this sense of necessary flexibility: understanding when to be determined and clear, and then knowing when to be supportive, flexible, and compassionate. It’s like a skill that develops over time, a kind of confidence you cultivate within yourself. (Dalia, homeroom teacher in elementary school)

Suzy and Dalia both stressed the importance of hybridity as a fundamental aspect of their professional role as homeroom teachers. They highlighted the need for balance and flexibility, and they emphasized that a dedicated learning process is required to establish a professional identity rooted in hybrid boundaries.

In sum, our qualitative findings indicate that the development of a professional identity among homeroom teachers is a multifaceted process, requiring the delicate navigation of a balance between establishing boundaries and fostering inclusion. Additionally, our findings underscore the critical role of the educational context in shaping the practices and profession of homeroom teachers.

Discussion

This paper explores the theoretical question of the significant of boundary work in redefining professional roles, particularly in contexts where institutional definitions are ambiguous. To address this, we draw on empirical data from interviews conducted with 75 homeroom teachers in elementary, middle, and high schools in Israel, an occupational group operating within an educational system that imposes substantial responsibilities but lacks a clear role definition. Our findings revealed that homeroom teachers rely on daily boundary work to define their professional role and that they adopt different boundary work strategies depending on the specific groups they engage with. We found that homeroom teachers (1) define boundaries internally to outline the parameters of their own roles; (2) balance boundaries with partners inside the school (administrators and subject teachers) to facilitate day-to-day collaboration while simultaneously asserting their own roles; and (3) orchestrate boundaries when interacting with external partners (students’ parents), acknowledging the distinction between roles while primarily seeking to foster effective joint work towards a common goal. A common thread linking these diverse strategies is their inherent duality: each approach seeks to strike a balance between clear boundary-setting and effective communication and collaboration within the educational ecosystem. This dual configuration, which represents the unique expertise of homeroom teachers, plays a pivotal role in defining their professional group.

This study contributes to three key domain: the field of professions, the realm of boundary work, and the teaching profession. We contribute to the field of professions by examining how professionals in roles with ambiguous institutional definitions actively construct their professional boundaries, thereby shaping group autonomy and status. While there is abundant research on the subject of professions (Gieryn 1983; Sachs 2003; Abbott 2014; Abbott and Meerabeau 2020) and the factors that influence, challenge, and shape professionalism within various fields (Whitty 2000; Baggini 2005; Sachs 2016), much of this research emphasizes dynamic forces rather than the active role of individuals in shaping their professional roles. Our research contributes to the smaller body of work that examines how members of occupations with ambiguous institutional definitions construct their professional boundaries (e.g., Alvehus, Eklund and Kastberg 2019). More generally, we fill a crucial gap by focusing on members of an occupation that lacks a clear institutional definition from external authorities yet nevertheless entails specialized knowledge and practices (Stronach et al., 2002; Bucher et al., 2016). The paper presents how these individuals, who perform tasks that have not been institutionally defined as part of a profession with a clear mandate, are consequently led to shape this mandate themselves (Hughes 1958).

Our findings reveal how these individuals establish and navigate the boundaries of their role, thereby shaping their occupational group autonomy and status. Importantly, we demonstrate that understanding the boundaries of a professional role—and of the capacity to function within the role—evolves through social interactions, as well as the growing familiarity with the complex demands and the contextual factors the professional group faces (Feldman 2003; Meier 2015: 64). This finding aligns with prior research on professionals shaping their roles, as seen in other fields such as accounting (Tansley and Tietze 2013), nursing (Allen 2000), radiology (Burri 2008), and hospital dietetics (Wikström 2008). However, our work extends this scholarship by showing that in contexts of ambiguous institutional definitions, professionals engage in boundary work not only to navigate organizational structures but also to reconcile competing value systems and assert professional legitimacy (Ybema, Beech and Ellis 2011).

Our second contribution pertains to boundary work. Ample research has explored boundary work (Gieryn 1983; Beauchamp and Thomas 2009; Langley et al., 2019; Lunkka et al., 2022) and identified different boundary work strategies used in organizations (Boussard 2018; Liu 2018). However, much of this research focuses on established professions or occupational groups with clearly defined institutional roles. Our work contributes new insights by focusing on the boundary work of homeroom teachers—an occupational group that has received little attention in the boundary work literature—and showing how they simultaneously use multiple distinct approaches to boundary work, which vary depending on the particular group they are engaging with. This daily routine-based boundary work is highly adaptable, adjusting to accommodate the complex demands and organizational dynamics that homeroom teachers face in their role. This adaptability underscores the dual function of boundary work: simultaneously asserting professional autonomy and fostering collaborative relationships.

In the context of professional boundaries evolving through social interactions, our findings reveal that homeroom teachers’ engagement with internal stakeholders—administrators and subject teachers—allows them to balance collaboration with the assertion of their unique role. This process enhances both their professional prestige and status. For example, Burri (2008) demonstrate how radiologists, facing transformations in their field, renegotiated their expertise and professional identity, elevating both their status and the prestige of their profession within hospitals and scientific communities. Similarly, Wikström (2008) highlights how hospital dieticians internally developed distinct professional identities and externally navigated power dynamics to strategically position themselves within healthcare hierarchies. Our findings parallel these studies while extending the discussion to an underexplored occupational group, showing that homeroom teachers carve out a professional niche through comparable strategies.

Boundary work involving external stakeholders, such as parents, presents unique challenges. Integrating parents into a professional environment often risks destabilizing established boundaries, potentially provoking resistance when professionals perceive threats to their authority (Currie and Spyridonidis 2016). Bucher et al. (2016) examined healthcare professions engaging in boundary work with external stakeholders in response to governmental initiatives, highlighting how strategies varied based on factors such as professional status and centrality. In contrast, our findings suggest that in teacher–parent relationships, boundaries function not merely to protect professional legitimacy but as points of connection that foster collaboration (Quick and Feldman 2014). Homeroom teachers act as facilitators of collaboration and managers of boundaries, ensuring these boundaries remain flexible and promote mutual respect and cooperation between teachers and parents. This nuanced form of boundary orchestration allows both parties to work together harmoniously for the benefit of the students. By demonstrating how homeroom teachers leverage boundary work to manage relationships with different groups, our study not only expands the scope of boundary work literature but also highlights the critical role of flexibility and adaptability in professional contexts with ambiguous institutional definitions.

Our third contribution is to the teaching literature by elucidating the specific boundary strategies employed by Israeli homeroom teachers to navigate their multifaceted responsibilities. Previous research has focused on areas such as school climate (Mitchell, Bradshaw and Leaf 2010; Yablon 2010), teacher–parent relationships (Addi-Raccah and Arviv-Elyashiv 2008; Addi-Raccah and Grinshtain 2017), and classroom management (J.-q. Liu and Barnhart 1999). Differentially, our research highlights the unique boundary work homeroom teachers engage in to shape their roles. Lacking external definitions, homeroom teachers construct their own professional boundaries, fostering specialized expertise. This expertise reflects a dual imperative: maintaining clear role boundaries while promoting inclusivity and collaboration.

Our findings also emphasize the crucial role of boundary work in the differentiation of homeroom teachers’ tasks and expertise. Drawing on Abbott’s (2014) framework of professional differentiation, which posits that professionalization begins with the identification of new problems followed by the development of abstract knowledge to address them, we demonstrate how homeroom teachers enact this process. They develop practical solutions to the unique challenges of their roles, establishing a professional niche that enhances their capacity to manage competition within the educational field. This, in turn, solidifies their professional expertise and status (Boussard 2018). By focusing on the interplay between boundary work and professional differentiation, our research provides a nuanced understanding of how homeroom teachers actively shape their roles and professional identities. This perspective not only enriches the teaching literature but also highlights the broader implications of role construction in professions characterized by ambiguous institutional mandates.

Concluding remarks

This study sheds light on how homeroom teachers, as an occupational group, adapt to their environment by legitimizing their actions through formal organizational expectations while balancing collaborative efforts with the constraints of their professional status. These findings contribute to a broader understanding of how occupational groups navigate organizational constraints and legitimize their actions within formal structures. By integrating homeroom teachers into the boundary work literature, the paper illustrates how these professionals actively shape their identity in roles that are often ambiguously defined, emphasizing the dynamic and interactive nature of professional identity formation in educational contexts.

The study’s findings also suggest potential implications for policy and practice. The role of homeroom teachers appears to involve unique expertise shaped by their boundary work and their efforts to mediate complex organizational dynamics. A clearer definition and structured support for this role could align with broader educational goals while enhancing professional recognition. This recognition should be reflected in policies that more clearly define and support their role within the broader teaching profession, ensuring that their contributions are appropriately valued and that they receive the necessary resources and professional development opportunities. Additionally, the insights gained here may be relevant in other contexts, offering a framework for examining the balance between professional autonomy and accountability in varied educational settings. Such frameworks could enable teachers, as professionals, to exercise their expertise while aligning their actions with broader educational goals. Addressing these areas through policy would help reinforce the professional status of teachers and enhance their effectiveness within the education system.

Finally, this study has certain limitations. It is restricted to the context of Israel and specifically examines homeroom teachers, who may not be representative of other categories (professional groups) of teachers. Subsequent research could investigate professional boundary work in other educational and national settings. Future research could also further divide the groups with which homeroom teachers interact—beyond the basic classification of internal versus external partners—and identify the boundary work strategies that homeroom teachers use with specific stakeholders to create and defend their profession.

References

Footnotes