Collective agency among Chinese university EFL teachers in the era of research excellence

University EFL teachers in China face a research-driven institutional climate that ties research productivity to appraisals and national development initiatives, creating pressure on teachers whose traditional roles emphasize teaching. This can constrain agency and heighten professional vulnerability, prompting many to seek collaboration in professional groups and raising interest in collective agency. Yet, collective agency—a key dimension of teacher agency—has been underexamined, with most prior work emphasizing individual-level agency and treating collective agency abstractly without detailing its specific manifestations. This study addresses that gap by exploring how collective agency manifests among six university EFL teachers collaborating within a research-oriented institute in a Chinese university. Research question: What are the manifestations of collective agency among Chinese university EFL teachers within a research-oriented community? The study seeks contextualized insights that capture the complexities and subtleties of collective agency and provide practical guidance for teachers and administrators.

Grounded in Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1999, 2000, 2006), agency is defined as intentional action to influence circumstances, encompassing collective agency when individuals coordinate interdependent efforts toward shared goals. In educational contexts, collective agency enables outcomes unattainable individually and has been linked to professional growth and student learning. Prior studies highlight benefits (e.g., empowerment, coping with reforms, informed pedagogical decisions) and features such as shared commitments, object-oriented joint practices, negotiated relational spaces, cohesive structures, intense interactions, and a “we” perspective. However, manifestations remain under-specified, often treated in generalized terms, and university teachers—especially EFL academics—are underrepresented relative to school contexts, with a predominance of Western settings. This study targets these gaps by examining the concrete, emergent features of collective agency among Chinese university EFL teachers in a research institute, thus broadening perspectives on teacher collaboration in a distinct sociocultural context.

Design: Qualitative inductive study. Setting: A research institute established in 2018 within a Chinese university to boost EFL teachers’ research performance through collaboration. The Institute signs annual output contracts (papers, projects, awards), operates a WeChat group for communication and a public account for updates, and organizes regular activities: progress meetings with peer feedback, group conference presentations, and invited lectures. Participants: Six core members (3 male, 3 female) selected purposively; five from the host university and one (Weasley) from another university. Ages 32–61; teaching experience 4–36 years; five with PhDs and one doctoral student. Pseudonyms: Georgianna (director), Henry, Lydia, Teddy, Brian (vice-director), Weasley. They faced research pressure and were motivated to collaborate to improve research productivity. Data collection: Semi-structured interviews (Sept–Dec 2022) covering work history, collaborative practices, reasons for joining, contributions, perceptions of collaboration, influence on development, and future prospects. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and translated into English (total 35,718 words). Translation conducted by one researcher and three assistants and verified by both researchers. Supplementary data: memos of group activities (July 2018–Dec 2022). Data analysis: Qualitative inductive analysis (Miles et al., 2014), iteratively coding transcripts line-by-line, clustering concepts into categories and abstracting themes/hypotheses. Example: categories “group discussion,” “group presentation,” “joint project,” and “lecture” informed the theme of “a collective mode of practice.” Cross-validation with memos. Collective agency conceptualized as shared power to decide and act to improve research performance. Trustworthiness: Intercoder agreement (two researchers independently coded a 3,000-word sample, reconciled codes, then coded remaining data with checks), and participant review (member checking), with constructive resolution of minor disagreements.

Collective agency manifested in three interrelated dimensions that positively impacted research competence: - Forming a collective mode of practice aligning goals and developmental paths: Members shifted from largely individual efforts to joint practices (e.g., regular group meetings with structured feedback, group presentations, joint projects, invited talks). External drivers (research culture, peer pressure, routines) created accountability and deadlines; over time, recognition of intellectual support (idea exchange, cognitive scaffolding, improved paper quality) and emotional support (reduced loneliness/anxiety; sense of belonging) reinforced sustained participation. Members intentionally harmonized divergent prior goals/trajectories toward a shared objective of improving research productivity, facilitating joint topic search and practice-based research. - Fostering a dual-natured social network supporting professional development: The Institute developed both intimacy/equality and hierarchy. Communal affinity fostered deep, egalitarian interactions and a sense of belonging; active participation positioned members as meaningful contributors. Simultaneously, a clear hierarchy emerged, with Georgianna occupying a central, respected role (described as glue/captain/leader), grounded in her expertise, selfless contribution, and leadership, which inspired others as a role model. Members located themselves relative to this center. This dual structure functioned as social capital that motivated collaboration and empowered professional growth. - Maintaining a shared belief in group efficacy enhancing collaboration and collective identity: Members expressed confidence in the Institute’s capacity to improve research performance, though beliefs varied across activities. Group discussions were seen as weaker artifacts (shallower engagement), while group presentations were stronger artifacts yielding greater confidence and success, boosting motivation. Challenges (e.g., authorship credit systems diminishing incentives for co-writing in humanities; limited administrative funding/support) were attributed to external institutional factors, preserving collective faith. Compared to other ‘hollow’ institutes, this group was viewed as high-quality and substantively collaborative. Members emphasized intrinsic values (interest, meaningful research, sustained commitment) over purely instrumental outputs, strengthening a shared, agentic group identity.

Findings position collective agency as dynamic, emergent, and multifaceted—constructed through synergistic interactions and shared practices rather than being inherent to individuals or groups. Collaboration alone does not guarantee collective agency; it emerges when members cultivate shared visions, leverage social capital, and reinforce collective beliefs. Manifestations are observable across dimensions (shared expertise, social/emotional support, strengthened faith), forming an interconnected web that empowers the group. Context critically shapes collective agency: institutional appraisal systems both propel collaboration and constrain effective artifacts (e.g., co-authorship credit), and limited administrative support can hinder development. Sociocultural norms in the Chinese context influence interactional dynamics, combining communal harmony with hierarchical, caring leadership, consistent with social cognitive theory’s view that agentic action coexists with environmental influences. Recognizing these contextual factors clarifies how teachers act as an agentic collective responsive to challenges.

The study illuminates how teachers’ collective agency manifests through aligned collective practices, dual-natured social networks, and shared beliefs in group efficacy, offering a nuanced, contextualized account of collective agency as emergent and complex. Theoretically, it broadens perspectives on teacher collaboration and clarifies the multifaceted, observable nature of collective agency. Practically, it underscores the need for teachers to make joint decisions, take collective actions, and negotiate shared identities to cope with external pressures. For administrators and policymakers, the study advocates creating supportive platforms and addressing barriers (e.g., appraisal systems limiting co-authorship incentives, insufficient administrative resources) to enable flexible, resource-rich collaboration and cultivate collective agency for sustained professional growth. Future research should examine communities that employ consistent, robust artifacts to deepen collaboration and further trace collective agency’s manifestations and impacts.

The study underemphasizes the role of consistent, strong artifacts in nurturing collective agency. Mixed use of weak (e.g., feedback-oriented discussions) and strong artifacts (e.g., joint presentations/projects) may have constrained deeper collaboration and shaped perceptions of efficacy. Future research should investigate professional communities utilizing stable, powerful artifacts to better understand the development and effects of collective agency.