Professional Identity (PI) is a social- and self-perceptive construct that describes how people understand themselves as professionals. PI guides professional development by shaping professionalism, role assumptions, responsibilities, values, and behaviour; and is a critical factor in professional performance and wellbeing. As such, PI has significant implications for how we support engineering designers in professional development and direct their social- and self-understanding. However, no current research provides a complete picture of PI elements important for Designers’ Professional Identity (DPI). This study aims to review and synthesise PI elements, currently discussed separately in the design literature, in order to propose a holistic understanding of DPI. Based on an extensive literature review, we find that DPI consists of two distinct sets of elements: Personal Attributes (PA) and Design Skills (DS). We present these two sets of elements in terms of meaning, possible relations between them, and their influence on DPI development. In addition, we propose multiple directions for future research.

Designers’ Professional Identity (DPI) is a social- and self-perceptive construct that describes how designers understand themselves as professionals. DPI guides development throughout a designer’s career by shaping professionalism, role assumptions, responsibilities, values and behaviour. DPI links two sets of elements: Personal Attributes and Design Skills. However, little is known about how designers perceive themselves in comparison to other critical actors affecting DPI: educators and managers. While differing perceptions between educators and managers is acknowledged, there is a critical need for more detailed understanding of these differences in comparison to how designers perceive themselves. This study uses semi-structured interviews with designers, design professors, and design managers to shed light on differences in perception of DPI. Analysis of the data highlights critical differences between the three groups. We described these differences with respect to three thematic perspectives on DPI: Technique, Creativity and Rapport. This provides important contributions to understanding DPI, with implications for education and practice.