Introduction

University teachers are facing an increasingly research-driven atmosphere. In China, for instance, linking teachers’ research productivity to national development initiatives—supported by institutional appraisal systems that predominantly emphasize their research output—poses major challenges for teachers (Zhang et al. 2022). This is especially true for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers, whose roles have traditionally focused on teaching (Borg 2010; Peng and Gao 2019). Pressured to develop research skills (Tran et al. 2017; Bao and Feng 2022), EFL teachers often experience constrained agency and professional vulnerability (Gao and Yuan, 2021). In response, many seek collaborative opportunities within professional groups, underscoring the growing significance of collective agency (Green and Pappa 2020).

Collective agency, a fundamental aspect of teacher agency, has been underexamined in academic inquiry. Teacher agency refers to teachers’ ability to make intentional choices and take actions to impact their career (Eteläpelto et al. 2013). It is vital for their professional learning (Billett 2006; Pyhältö et al. 2015; Lai et al. 2016) and identity (Kayi-Aydar 2015; Ruohotie-Lyhty and Moate 2016), contributing to sustained teacher development (Biesta and Tedder 2007). Teachers inevitably act both individually and collectively (Liu and Benoliel, 2022), thus necessitating an exploration of collective elements within agency. However, much of the existing research on teacher agency concentrates on individual-level phenomena, with insufficient attention paid to collective agency (e.g., Lasky 2005; Ketelaar et al. 2012; Tao and Gu 2016).

Additionally, although studies have demonstrated the benefits of collective agency on teachers’ professional growth (Hökkä et al. 2017; Tao et al. 2020), there is a tendency to view it as a general and abstract concept, neglecting its specific manifestations in teachers’ collaborative practices. Collective agency arises from the collaboration of individual teachers, but it is not simply the sum of individual efforts, nor a guaranteed outcome of collaboration. This study thus investigated how collective agency manifested among six university EFL teachers in a Chinese research institute as they collaborated to enhance their research performance. The guiding research question was: What are the manifestations of collective agency among Chinese university EFL teachers within a research-oriented community? This contextualized exploration sought to uncover the complexities and subtleties that characterize collective agency and offer practical insights for teachers and administrators.

Literature review

This study was grounded in Bandura’s (1999, 2000, 2006) social cognitive theory of agency, which defines agency as the intentional ability to influence one’s life circumstances (Bandura 2006). This theory argues that humans are not just influenced by their environment; they can also deploy agency to shape their circumstances. While traditional notions of agency often focus on the individual level (e.g. Giddens 1984), social cognitive theory expands it to collective agency, which arises when individuals collaborate through interdependent efforts toward a shared goal (Bandura 1999, 2006). It plays an important role in human functioning as it enables individuals to “work together to secure what they cannot accomplish on their own” (Bandura 2000: 75).

In educational contexts, recent shifts towards collaborative learning and teacher communities highlight the role of collective agency in teachers’ professional life (Ross and Gray, 2006). Teachers’ collective agency refers to their ability to exert influence, make choices, and take stances as professional communities to affect their work and their professional identities (Hökkä et al. 2017). It emerges in teachers’ collective initiatives where they have concrete “artifacts” (Vygotsky 1978, p.84) as mediational tools (Wertsch and Rupert, 1993) to synchronize their personal efforts (Spicer 2011). Research has demonstrated its importance as a means to promote teacher development and student learning. For instance, Hökkä et al. (2017) find collective agency gives teachers a transformative pathway to empower themselves, turning marginality to strength. Fu and Clarke (2019) report that it helps teachers cope with curriculum reforms by creating a collaborative culture conducive to professional learning. Charteris and Smardon (2015) reveal that it enables teachers to make informed decisions to optimize students’ learning experiences.

While acknowledging its significance, most studies treat collective agency as a highly generalized concept, often failing to specify how it manifests in teachers’ professional lives. A few studies have emphasized shared commitments and interactive features of group members. For example, Spicer (2011) finds collective agency comprises teachers’ collaborative action that transforms institutionally-defined artifacts into collectively-derived tools for teaching. Green and Pappa (2020) uncover the object-oriented nature of collective agency, evident in the shared development of routine practices and the transformation of EFL education, and in responding to shifts in power dynamics. Melasalmi and Husu (2019) discover that it manifests as a negotiated space characterized by teachers’ relational dispositions and temporal engagements. Tao et al. (2020) note this phenomenon is reflected in a cohesive structure and intense interactions among individual teachers. Lan and Mehta (2022) reveal that a “we” perspective emerges as a prominent feature of collective agency. Despite these insights, the manifestations of teachers’ collective agency remain underexplored as many studies do not delve into its emergent features in teachers’ collaboration (Vähäsantanen et al. 2020).

There is also a notable research gap regarding the collective agency of university teachers, especially EFL teachers with the mission to cultivate scholarship and establish their career as academics, as the focus has primarily centered on the educational practices of school teachers (Vähäsantanen 2015; Fu and Clarke 2019) and teacher educators (Hökkä et al. 2017; Green and Pappa, 2020). Additionally, existing studies predominantly reflect Western contexts (e.g., Lipponen and Kumpulainen 2011; Wallen and Tormey 2019), revealing a lack of attention to diverse sociocultural landscapes. To address these gaps, this study aims to explore the diverse manifestations of collective agency among Chinese university EFL teachers in a research institute. This exploration contributes to the understanding of collective agency as a complex and nuanced phenomenon and offers practical implications for both teachers and administrators to enhance collaboration and nurture collective agency among university teachers.

Methodology

Setting

The study was conducted in a research institute of a Chinese university (hereinafter referred to as the Institute). This university placed considerable emphasis on teachers’ research performance. However, the English department as a whole had produced less than satisfactory results compared with other disciplines. The Institute was set up in 2018 as a boost to EFL teachers’ research performance by encouraging cooperative studies in foreign language education and teacher development. The Institute signed a “contract” with the university every year, with specific statements of its annual research output including papers, research projects and awards. The underlying goal of the Institute was for teachers to seek opportunities to collaboratively solve difficulties they encountered in their research practice and initiate positive changes in their professional development. The members all joined the Institute on a voluntary basis. There was one director and one vice director, together with other members. The Institute had a Wechat group where all members could share thoughts and ask questions. It also had a Wechat Public Account to release updates about the Institute.

The Institute carried out a number of joint activities. Firstly, it held meetings at which members reported the progress of their research, the difficulties they faced and the help they needed. The other teachers made comments and offered suggestions to help them overcome the barriers in the research. Secondly, the teachers attended academic conferences and made group presentations in the name of the Institute. In addition, the Institute invited researchers from both inside and outside the university to give lectures on how to improve research performance.

Participants

Six core members of the Institute, including three males and three females, were selected as participants based on purposeful selection (Maxwell 2013). All the participants were faced with pressure from research which gave them a strong impetus to attend group activities and cooperate with each other as a way to improve their research productivity. Therefore, they became uniquely informative and relevant for this study.

Of the six participants, five of them worked in the university where the Institute was based and one (Weasley) worked in another university. Their age varied between 32 to 61, and their work experience varied from 4 to 36 years. Five of them had a doctoral degree and one was a doctoral student. Some participants had prior experience of cooperation through shared teaching practices or research projects. However, they had never worked together as a research-oriented professional community. As for their research performance, they had different motivation and publication experience. Georgianna, the director of the Institute, was a senior teacher with a large number of publications. Aside from her personal interest in research, she was eager to help younger teachers improve their research ability. Henry was also a senior teacher who had several papers published. Brian and Weasley were two younger teachers who were considered promising scholars with successful publication experiences in both domestic and international journals. Teddy had a smaller number of papers published, and found the whole process overwhelming. Lydia was currently working on her doctoral dissertation. Her participation in the institution thus had dual purposes: to seek advice for her dissertation and improve her general research performance. Detailed information of the participants is displayed in Table 1. For reasons of anonymity, pseudonyms are used.

Table 1 Participants’ information.
Full size table

Data collection

Data for this study was collected mainly from semi-structured interviews with the six participants between September to December 2022. The interviews involved the following themes: work history; current work practice, with particular emphasis on their collaboration with other teachers; reasons for joining the Institute; perception of personal contribution in the Institute; perception of collaboration in the Institute; evaluation of the Institute in terms of its influence on their professional development; prospects of the Institute. The participants were given a document a week before they were interviewed which explained the purpose of the interview and the questions that were likely to be asked. The interviews were guided but not strictly structured, so the participants were encouraged to talk about their personal experiences and feelings freely. Later, the recorded interviews were transcribed and translated into English with a total wordcount of 35718. One researcher, together with three research assistants, was responsible for translating the content, and the accuracy of the translations was verified by both of the two researchers involved. In addition, memos of group activities from July 2018 to December 2022 were used as a complementary source of data on collective activities of the Institute and the participants’ engagement.

Data analysis

A qualitative inductive approach was adopted for this study (Miles et al. 2014). It requires researchers to form inductive inferences by comparing and contrasting data in the quest for patterns or regularities, looking for data to support emerging clusters, and drawing inferences from the connections between new data segments and cumulative conceptualizations. This is not a linear or sequential process, but a continuous, iterative enterprise with the researcher moving back and forth within the data to construct and revise propositions.

While analyzing the data, the researchers aimed to balance insights from existing literature with empirical data. In this study, collective agency was conceptualized as the participants’ shared power to make decisions and take actions to improve their research performance, as informed by literature. First, the interview transcripts were coded line by line to identify relevant key concepts, such as “share opinions at group meetings.” Next, similar concepts were grouped to form categories. For example, “share opinions” and “offer suggestions for draft papers” were categorized under “group discussion.” These categories were then further abstracted to generate analytical themes and hypotheses. Four categories— “group discussion,” “group presentation,” “joint project,” and “lecture”—were identified as linked, leading to the analytical theme of “a collective mode of practice”. As the analysis continued, further details were identified regarding the dynamics of the participants’ collaboration. This nuanced examination led to the hypothesis that “collective agency manifested as the participants’ ability to form a collective mode of practice that unified their goals and trajectories”. In addition, the memos of group activities were also qualitatively analyzed using the same coding procedures, with a focus on how participants engaged in and contributed to group matters. In the final stage, the coding results of the interview transcripts and memos were combined and checked. For instance, the interviews revealed participants’ active engagement in group activities, which was corroborated by the memos. This integration of data sources enhances the transparency and rigor of the analysis.

Two methods were used to increase the trustworthiness of the study: intercoder agreement and participant review. Firstly, two researchers were involved in the coding process. They initially worked on a randomly selected sample of the interview (approximately 3000 words) separately, compared the results, discussed and reached agreement on the codes. When disagreement happened, they resorted to literature or consulted a third senior researcher. After that, they worked on the rest of the data separately again, checked the results, discussed and reached agreement. In this way, the research was expected to have a higher degree of intercoder reliability. Secondly, after the researchers coded the data and formed tentative hypotheses, they sent the results back to the participants for review, who mostly agreed with the interpretations. In the rare cases where disagreements occurred, they engaged in open and constructive discussions. For example, one participant, Georgianna, argued that the expression “a constrained level of belief” (as mentioned in 4.3) carried an overly negative connotation. The researchers addressed her concern by clarifying the analytical perspective and associating the expression with both the literature and the data. Confirmation from the participants also increased the trustworthiness of the study.

Results

This section elucidates the manifestations of the participants’ collective agency. The findings suggest that it manifested in three dimensions: their ability to form a collective mode of practice that aligned goals and developmental paths, to foster a dual-natured social network that supported professional development, and to maintain a shared belief in group efficacy that enhanced collaboration and collective identity. Each of these dimensions exerted positive impacts on their research competence.

Forming a collective mode of practice aligning goals and developmental paths

Interviews and memos revealed that the participants’ collective agency became visible as they broke away from individual practices and jointly created a framework that harmonized varied professional aims and routes.

Before they joined the Institute, the participants mainly relied on personal efforts. Some participants had cooperated in teaching. For example, Georgianna, Henry and Lydia all taught the same subject Integrated English for third-year students and often exchanged opinions to improve teaching. Moreover, Georgianna, Weasley, Brian, Teddy and Lydia had worked for a national research project a few years ago. However, as Lydia pointed out, research-oriented cooperation at a group level was a novel experience for all.

Lydia: There are hardly any other groups or teams like our Institute. There are cooperations in teaching, including the Integrated English Course, because four teachers teach the classes in the same grade. However, cooperation (in research) that is so intimate, selfless and bound as ours does not seem to exist.

By contrast, after joining the Institute, the participants had chances to be part of shared activities with closer cooperation among members. As Teddy noted, the most frequent form of shared practice was the group meetings where they listened to one participant’s report on his/her research and gave feedback.

Teddy: When we discuss, one teacher first says something. Then another teacher gives feedback. After that, a third teacher talks. Then the fourth teacher talks. In this way, our talk continues so we can discuss more clearly.

For collective agency to emerge, personal investment in collective endeavor in terms of time and energy was vital for the Institute to function as a community. At first, their motivation came from external sources, such as a research-oriented culture, peer pressure and routinized practices, which, as Brian stated, forced the members to take accountability for shared practices.

Brian: … this organization can activate our research atmosphere. We all have … a research culture, so we can do something systematically… When we work together, one benefit is mutual supervision because you will have a deadline to write something…When you work alone, procrastination is not a big problem, but when you work with others, you have to think of others, right?

The increased level of accountability created the initial spaces for collective agency. As time went on, the participants became aware of the positive outcomes as the result of collective endeavors. Firstly, the participants realized that collective efforts could bring them intellectual support that was vital for the development of their research capacity, motivating them to continue participating in joint activities. For instance, Lydia and Brian mentioned the intellectual support they gained from group discussions.

Lydia: What impressed me most was last month when WQ came to the Institute and gave a presentation about her dissertation. I learned a lot of things, especially when I saw the framework she eventually came up with. It gave great inspiration to my dissertation.

Brian: The clash of different minds is actually very good for improving the quality of our paper.

By sharing expertise and reflecting on their practice together, the participants had access to cognitive support that was beneficial to their research ability. In addition, helping others improve their research proposal and paper was also an important source of professional learning. It allowed the participants, such as Weasley, to obtain knowledge outside their research area and practice their logical as well as critical thinking, which all contributed to their research competence.

Weasley: From other teachers’ presentations, I know about this area. I explain and demonstrate mechanisms and processes in my papers in the same way. I think my thinking pattern has already been shaped in the Institute.

Aside from intellectual support, collective practice provided important emotional support for teachers who felt stressed in their research practice. Brian spoke for many when he said “university EFL teachers are really living a difficult life.” All the participants, including Lydia, were faced with anxiety and fear which prompted them to seek for emotional support from the Institute.

Lydia: When you fight alone, first you feel lonely, disoriented and unmotivated. Most of the time, you feel agonized and struggle forward. It (the Institute) gives me a sense that I’m not fighting alone. Instead, we are moving forward together.

Collective endeavors not only helped the participants overcome negative emotions, but also gave them opportunities to experience positive emotions. As the only member of the Institute that works in another university, Weasley’s account of his experience revealed a strong identification with the Institute by referring to it as “our university”.

Weasley: In our university, you can ask any question directly, and you can exchange any opinion. When I read something, I enjoying talking about it. It’s a safe atmosphere.

When the participants recognized the intellectual and emotional benefits of group activities, their commitment to sustain participation was reinforced. This created a positive cycle for their collective decisions and actions, making collective agency more evident in the process.

On the other hand, while the participants’ collective agency surfaced in their collaborative efforts, collaboration did not inherently equate to collective agency. Rather, it was the intentional harmonization of their individual goals and developmental courses that distinguished their collective endeavors. Initially, the participants held diverse career aspirations and professional trajectories. For instance, while Georgianna, Weasley, and Brian prioritized research, others, like Lydia, had less interest in it. She initially viewed research as unrelated to her career ambitions, stating, “it was enough to teach well in class. Nothing else was needed.” However, with the university’s increasing emphasis on research excellence, the participants were compelled to reevaluate their goals and paths. By voluntarily joining the Institute, which championed a research-oriented agenda, the participants committed to a unified objective of enhancing their research productivity. This was accompanied by a shift in their developmental paths, as they started to make joint efforts to achieve outcomes that would be difficult through personal endeavor. Teddy articulated these changes succinctly.

Teddy: Many EFL teachers are good at teaching, but fall behind in research. We can’t be like that. We must move forward instead of falling behind. We can search together for a research topic in our teaching practice. If we have an idea, it will be easier to conduct research.

In short, the participants’ collective agency manifested as their ability to form a collaborative approach that synchronized professional objectives and trajectories. This unity in purpose and trajectory fostered a supportive community to enhance their research productivity.

Fostering a dual-natured social network supporting professional development

The participants’ collective agency also manifested as their power to foster a special social network characterized by intimate relationships and hierarchical dynamics, which served as crucial social capital for professional growth.

On one hand, the participants formed a strong bond at the communal level. Before they joined the Institute, the six participants already “maintained a very close relationship” (Henry), but there was no sense of togetherness as a group. Moreover, their intimacy was not perceived as a way of directly influencing the development of their research competence. However, once they joined the Institute, they gradually formed a sense of oneness as a professional community, which motivated them to support each other in their research practice. This was demonstrated in Georgiann’s utterance.

Georgianna: We are a family. We have been together for a long time. We care about each other and treat each other sincerely. We regard it (others’ research) as our own and help each other wholeheartedly.

Echoing Georgianna’s statement, the other participants used words such as “a sense of belonging” (Brian) and “fellows” (Weasley) that indicated their intimate relationship. This relationship entailed deep interactions among them, empowering them as equal contributors in shared activities. The memos also suggested the participants’ active participation in discussions, which created interactional spaces where they had the opportunities to be positioned as meaningful contributors and authors of opinions. Once they saw their ideas were valued as solutions to practical issues, their sense of equality was enhanced. This was reflected in Brian’s interview.

Brian: In our discussion, we don’t take into consideration whether you are an authority. We say what we need to say. I think we are relatively equal.

On the other hand, it was found that there existed a clear sense of hierarchy where the participants constructed locational identities with varying degrees of authority in the Institute. This became evident as Georgianna was described by others as a critical figure in the network. The participants’ choices of words, such as “glue” (Henry), “captain” (Brian), “leader” (Weasley), “spiritual pillar” (Lydia) and “center” (Teddy) all indicated her central position. The memos also suggested Georgianna’s critical role as she chaired most meetings and was the decision-maker in many important issues. Such a dominant position was not only based on her administrative role as director of the Institute, but also constructed through her personal endeavors and achievements, which was demonstrated by Henry’s remark.

Henry: Firstly, she is an excellent researcher. Secondly, she makes selfless contribution. She is already a professor, a PhD supervisor, and is about to retire, so this Institute does not bring her any extra benefit. It is more for young people. I think that touches us.

Though humbly referring to herself as a “facilitator”, Georgianna’s statement mirrored those of her peers by linking her contributions to the lives of others.

Georgianna: I’m aware of my role: facilitator. I hope after I retire, I can see all those people I’ve helped can thrive like trees or blossom like flowers. A person may live a short time, but can have a significant meaning of life: not only about oneself, but also about how others live.

Georgianna obviously became a reference point for the other participants to position themselves in the network. By acknowledging her position as a central figure, the participants asserted their relative positioning in the network with differing degrees of authority and contribution. For instance, Brian described himself as “a sailor and First Officer” while Georgianna was like a “captain”; Weasley called himself “a slightly yellowish and immature onion seedling” while Georgianna was “a big onion”; Henry, while expressing appreciation for Georgianna’s dedication, described himself as being between “a bystander” and “an active participant”.

The complex social dynamics had a direct impact on the participants’ professional development. With affinity at group level, the participants found each other trustworthy and perceived themselves as “insiders” (Weasley) of a professional group where they felt empowered by communicating and cooperating with each other. In addition, the hierarchical relationships in the network became a strong impetus for collaboration as they were inspired by Georgianna as a “role model” (Lydia) who was “selfless and willing to contribute” (Teddy) and adopted similar practices of contributing to community affairs. As Georgianna put it, “There is also the engine, the main oarsmen, and the steering wheel. When these things work together, the boat is lifted.”

In brief, the participants’ demonstrated collective agency by fostering dual-natured group dynamics that served as social capital for the participants’ collaborative and supportive efforts toward professional growth.

Maintaining a shared belief in group efficacy enhancing collaboration and collective identity

The participants’ collective agency was also apparent as they managed to sustain a shared belief in group efficacy, which significantly influenced their collaborative experiences and identity. Firstly, the participants expressed their confidence in working together as a professional group to enhance their research performance. For example, Weasley, Henry and Georgianna commended the Institute in their interviews.

Weasley: Getting feedback from others helps you understand your work better… (and) enhance its quality. I believe this is the greatest contribution the Institute makes to individuals.

Henry: … young teachers, … have been able to attend academic conferences and publish papers in journals…More development, more chances, and a higher platform.

Georgianna: I wrote a report to the dean this morning, telling him that our Institute appears to be thriving.

However, it was also found the participants’ confidence varied as they talked about different types of group activities. Regarding group discussions, some participants, such as Brian, argued they were not the most effective form of cooperation.

Brian: The best way for us to discuss in detail is actually for people to co-write a paper, which is the most effective way of cooperation.

Brian’s words seem to suggest a constrained level of belief. By contrast, when they mentioned a group presentation, their confidence was obviously higher. For instance, Georgianna and Weasley recalled it with joy and pride.

Weasley: Our group presentation was a big success. If we had done an individual presentation instead of a group presentation, we wouldn’t have achieved such great influence.

Georgianna: We are on the track of sustainable development. This presentation in particular makes me very proud.

One possible reason for such variations was the strength of the artifacts that affected their degree of engagement. While all group activities in the Institute provided an artifact for teamwork, group discussions served as a weaker artifact as they required the participants to offer feedback to others’ work without deeper engagement in the research process. In contrast, group presentations functioned as a stronger artifact as the participants were directly involved in a joint project. They worked both individually and collaboratively to develop solutions to practical issues, such as “variety in presentation styles” (Weasley). The success of the presentation gave the participants “stronger confidence and motivation to continue doing research” (Teddy), demonstrating how different artifacts could significantly influence their engagement and ultimately their perceptions of collective efficacy.

On the other hand, even when acknowledging limitations in their collaborative efforts, the participants maintained their collective faith by attributing challenges to external factors. For instance, Brian blamed university assessment system for less productive cooperation.

Brian: … co-writing papers in humanities also involves the issue of authorship. The second author does not count when you apply for professional titles.

In addition, Henry mentioned another problem, i.e., inadequate administrative support, especially in terms of funding.

Henry: The biggest challenge, in my opinion, for the development of our institute is that it requires greater support from the college.

By blaming institutional policies and practices rather than their own initiatives, the participants could still maintain a reasonable degree of collective faith as an agentic group.

Secondly, the participants also indicated a shared belief in group efficacy by comparing it with other Institutes. When they mentioned other institutes in the department, they described them as “hollow” organizations with no real collaborative activities (Brian, Henry). In contrast, this Institute was described as “a high-quality team” (Weasley) and “a higher platform” (Henry) with real collaboration among members.

Thirdly, collective faith was also evident when the participants credited the Institute as a valued professional community in a broader institutional context. The Institute must meet a number of assessment criteria set by the department and the university. It had successfully done so and had been highly praised. As Henry noted, the Institute’s value was affirmed at an organizational level, further enhancing the participants’ faith.

Henry: The Institute also earns honor for the department and contributes to the department as well as bring development to us. The department needs such a team. It’s win-win, or win-win-win.

Collective faith not only motivated the participants’ involvement in group activities, but also shaped the values that all members were committed to. In a performance-based culture, many EFL teachers were preoccupied with the tangible outcomes of their work, such as publications. However, the participants exhibited a different perspective.

Georgianna: The Institute is made up of people whose commitment is to be more and more interested in research, more and more willing to do it, and to do it better and better.

Lydia: We do not aim for material gains. We want to do something that is meaningful. We want to do some research that we are interested in.

While both Georgianna and Lydia recognized the importance of research, they emphasized continual dedication and fulfillment over the pursuit of measurable outcomes. These judgments reflected the values they assigned to their work, guiding their motivation and understanding of their actions. With increased confidence in their collective actions and values attached to them, the participants redefined their identity as an agentic “us”.

In brief, the participants’ collective agency manifested as their ability to sustain a shared belief in group efficacy, which not only inspired their engagement in collaborative activities, but also fostered a community culture rooted in intrinsic values and meaningful pursuit, ultimately contributing to a strengthened group identity.

Discussion

Collective agency as an emergent and multifaceted phenomenon

This study addresses the manifestations of collective agency among university EFL teachers through their collaborative practices. The findings suggest that collective agency is neither an innate capacity of individual teachers nor an inherent property of a group; instead, it is a dynamic, dispositional, and emergent phenomenon that arises from teachers’ participation in collective actions. While previous research has often focused on individual-level actions in teacher agency, this study demonstrates that teacher agency also emerges from a collective enterprise (Eteläpelto et al. 2013; Lan and Mehta 2022). On the other hand, collaboration does not necessarily lead to collective agency. The participants had to form common visions, leverage social capital and strengthen common belief so that collective agency could emerge and evolve as a group-level property. This process underscores the dynamic nature of collective agency, which is constructed through the synergistic interactions and collaborative practices of individuals working towards common objectives, and grows as the group’s collective experiences and shared understanding deepen (Bandura 2006).

Additionally, this study highlights collective agency as a multifaceted phenomenon with observable manifestations in different dimensions, rather than an abstract concept. Its essence lies not in the act of individual teachers, but in various ways they work together to truly bring it to life. When teachers actively share expertise, provide social support, and reinforce shared faith, they create an intricate web of interconnected elements that empower the whole group (Tschannen-Moran and Barr 2004). Just as personal agency may be demonstrated in different forms across a teacher’s professional life (Sannino 2010), collective agency likewise varies in its manifestations across various scenarios and dimensions of teachers’ professional lives, shaping their experiences both as individuals and as a community.

Collective agency as a contextualized phenomenon

While teachers possess the capacity to collectively shape their environment to optimize professional development, they remain influenced by various factors that render collective agency as a contextualized and nuanced phenomenon. Firstly, institutional policies play a crucial role in shaping teachers’ actions and collaborative practices. The participants reported feeling pressure to improve their research performance due to the university’s appraisal system, propelling them to seek collaborative opportunities. However, this system may constrain the use of more effective artifacts, undermining their sense of productivity as a group. In addition, limited administrative support also emerged as a potential barrier, as some participants indicated that insufficient resources and guidance hindered community development. The contradiction between institutional expectations and administrative realities complicates the landscape of teachers’ collective agency (Vähäsantanen 2015). Such findings support existing literature that views institutional influences as both constraints and resources for professional agency (Lai et al. 2016).

In addition to institutional factors, the broader sociocultural context significantly impacts teachers’ collaborative efforts. For one thing, a research-driven atmosphere nationwide necessitated greater teacher cooperation. For another, the interactive dynamics among the participants were also shaped by prevailing cultural norms. Unlike previous studies which emphasize cooperativeness and affinity among group members that characterize collective agency (e.g. Lipponen and Kumpulainen 2011), this study uncovered a hierarchical network which further complicated the social dynamics within a professional community. This was significantly impacted by the Chinese sociocultural context, which emphasizes strong and caring leadership as well as harmony at a communal level (Liu and Benoliel 2022; Zhang et al. 2023).

These dynamics resonate with Bandura’s social cognitive theory. According to Bandura (2000), humans can exercise agency to transform their environment; however, they remain subject to circumstantial influences. The present study indicates that collective agency emerges not only from dynamic, localized negotiations of meaning within a specific context (Edwards 2005), but is also shaped by the sociopolitical environments of different national contexts that frame members’ behavior (Pappa et al. 2019). By recognizing these contextual influences, we can understand collective agency as a situated notion that reflects how teachers act as an agentic group to “critically shape their own responsiveness to problematic situations” (Emirbayer and Mische 1998: 971).

Conclusion

This study sheds light on the manifestations of teachers’ collective agency in their joint research efforts. In theory, the findings provide a dynamic view of collective agency as an emergent and contextualized phenomenon filled with intricacies and nuances. It also broadens the research perspectives of teacher collaboration, highlighting how it can effectively generate collective agency to promote teacher development. In practice, it demonstrates the importance for teachers to make decisions, take actions and negotiate identities as an agentic community so as to cope with external challenges. It also has practical implications for university administrators and national policy-makers. They should create platforms that not only encourage teacher collaboration but also address the barriers identified in the study, such as the limitations imposed by appraisal systems and insufficient administrative support. By fostering a supportive environment that prioritizes flexible and resource-rich collaborative opportunities, teachers can cultivate collective agency and empower themselves, ultimately enhancing their professional growth.

One limitation of this study is its underemphasis on the role of consistent and robust artifacts in nurturing collective agency. In this study, the participants engaged through a mix of weak and strong artifacts. The presence of weak artifacts might have hindered the potential for deeper collaboration, affecting the dynamics of collective agency. Future research should focus on professional communities that utilize consistent and powerful artifacts in teachers’ practices to further explore the manifestations and impacts of collective agency.