The influence of mentorship and working environments on foreign language teachers' research motivation in China

Research is, and has long been, a central activity of universities. The research productivity of universities is key to rankings and reflects influence and competitiveness. In a competitive HE climate, faculty are pressured to publish nationally and internationally ("publish or perish"), with research performance affecting promotion and job security. For non-English-dominant countries like China, publishing in English poses challenges; Chinese EFL academics have fewer research records than other social science disciplines. Literature identifies individual and institutional factors influencing research productivity (e.g., research competency, self-efficacy, motivation, socialisation, demographics, working experience; institutional factors like working environments, time allocation, administrative duties, financial support, culture, mentoring, training, collaboration). Few studies focus on EFL in developing countries, particularly China. China’s HEIs comprise different tiers (Projects 985/211 vs ordinary/regular) with unequal resource allocation. Motivation is a major driver of research productivity, yet few studies specialise in research motivation in China and contextual factors. Motivation varies by demographics and intrinsic/extrinsic factors; institutional support is often pivotal, but findings are inconsistent across countries. There is a need for mixed-methods research to examine institutional support in China’s EFL context and how it affects research motivation. Accordingly, this study investigates the influence of institutional support—especially mentorship and working environment—on motivation among academics in China, an EFL context where English is seldom used as a working language, and explores measures to promote Chinese EFL teachers’ research motivation.

Teachers' research motivation. Motivation initiates, directs, energises, sustains and terminates action. While motivation research is extensive, research on teachers’ motivation has a shorter history and has focused mainly on teaching; teachers’ research motivation emerged about a decade ago. Motivation is commonly categorised as intrinsic (fascination and gratification inherent in the activity) and extrinsic (incentives/pressures). Both types matter, but their relative importance varies by context. Prior work in Turkey found intrinsic motivation more salient; in China, extrinsic motivation may be more prominent. Reasons for such differences remain unclear. Investigating Chinese EFL teachers’ research motivation and institutional influences using mixed methods is warranted. Institutional support for research. Research support encompasses resources boosting scholarly engagement. A disconnect between institutional rhetoric and action can adversely affect research engagement and motivation. In China, lack of institutional support contributes to publication and citation challenges. A conducive organisational environment (policies, structure, resources, incentives, goals, skills, staffing) is necessary for significant research. This study focuses on time-related support, funding-related support, training-related support (including mentoring), and working environment support as potential influences on research motivation and engagement. Time-related and funding-related support. Time constraints are a common barrier to teacher research engagement globally. Unbalanced workloads and administrative/teaching demands impede research time, suggesting the need to separate research from teaching hours and allocate schedules allowing research activities. Funding is often output-driven; lack of funds reduces opportunities for conferences/training, weakening motivation. Increased institutional funding correlates with research engagement. Country-specific funding allocation practices differ; understanding China’s EFL funding allocation is necessary to inform improvements. Training-related and working environment support. Mentoring involves experienced members guiding less experienced colleagues, serving as role models and building confidence. Effective mentorship can increase research outputs; lack of initial and continued support hinders engagement. However, mentorship is often poorly executed due to limited knowledge/interest, negative perceptions, and absence of networks/role models; its status in China remains unclear. Collaboration and networks enhance motivation and productivity, yet participation may be limited. Research training and skill development (e.g., language, ICT) are crucial, especially in non-Anglophone, developing contexts, but teachers are often neither paid nor trained to conduct research. HEIs should provide in-service training; it is unclear whether Chinese EFL teachers receive sufficient training. Working environment. Research environment comprises shared values, assumptions, beliefs, rituals, and the centrality of research practices and outcomes. Work environments drive productivity and prominence. Limited workspace and inadequate access to books/journals impede research; better resources correlate with higher productivity. HEIs must provide conducive environments to stimulate research engagement. Studying Chinese EFL teachers’ working environment can help institutions motivate teacher research. Research questions: 1. What is the relationship between institutional support and Chinese university EFL teachers' research motivation? 2. What is the influential institutional support for motivating Chinese university EFL teachers to do research?

An explanatory mixed-methods design was adopted to leverage quantitative analyses of a large sample and in-depth qualitative insights. Quantitative phase: Anonymous online questionnaires were distributed (including via WeChat) at the beginning of the first semester of 2020–2021 for four weeks using snowball sampling; 536 EFL teachers completed them. Instruments: Questionnaire on Teacher Research Motivation (QTRM), based on the Work Preference Inventory and measuring intrinsic (interest, responsibility, mastery, achievement, flexibility) and extrinsic (respect, compensation) motivation with 19 items; Questionnaire on Institutional Support for Teacher Research (QISTR), measuring mentorship support and working environment with 10 items. Validity and reliability were examined via Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using AMOS. Qualitative phase: Semi-structured individual interviews with 12 teachers (approximately 60 minutes each) and diaries from 2 teachers over three months. Interviews elicited ideas, opinions, and experiences; diaries captured ongoing motivations and emotions. Participants: Of 536 survey respondents, 49.2% from ordinary/regular universities, 22.8% from Project 211, 19.1% from Project 985, 8.9% from colleges; 74.8% female; age distribution: ≤30 (13.2%), 31–40 (38.8%), 41–50 (39.2%), ≥51 (8.9%); ranks: assistant lecturer (11.6%), lecturer (44.5%), associate professor (38.4%), full professor (5.5%); departments: English (39.2%), College English (60.8%). Qualitative participants included teachers from 985/211, ordinary/regular universities, and colleges. Data analysis: CFA specified relationships between observed and latent variables; model fit assessed via multiple indices, with final well-fitting models retained (details in Li and Zhang, 2022). Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) modelled complex relationships between constructs, accounting for measurement error and multiple observed variables (29 items total). Thematic analysis of qualitative data followed Braun and Clarke’s six phases; coding conducted in NVivo 12, with themes developed and reviewed based on internal homogeneity and external heterogeneity criteria. Trustworthiness: primary analysis by first author, cross-checked with co-authors; partial independent coding achieved 85% inter-rater agreement. Ethical procedures adhered to institutional guidelines.

- Sample: 536 EFL university teachers (quantitative); 12 interviews; 2 diary writers. - SEM model fit for research motivation acceptable: χ2 = 1188.924 (df=367), χ2/df = 3.240, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.066, SRMR = 0.0666, gamma hat = 0.90. - Predictors: Working environment significantly predicted research motivation (β = 0.344, p < .001); mentorship did not show a significant effect (β = 0.106, p = 0.099). - Explained variance: Model accounted for 18.1% of variance in research motivation (R2 = 0.181, f = 0.22, p < .001). - Qualitative themes: Teachers at Project 985/211 universities reported supportive environments (sufficient online databases, literature-search services, workshops with invited experts, facilitation of research teams/collaboration, flexible role emphasis). Teachers at ordinary/regular universities and colleges commonly reported: shortage of mentorship (often doing research alone; lack of guidance and practical mentoring systems), poor working conditions (lack of personal offices; inadequate/absent access to databases like CNKI or English-language databases), heavy workloads and excessive administrative meetings limiting research time, and deficient funding/opportunities for attending or hosting academic conferences. - University-type disparities: 985/211 institutions had more conducive environments and higher research expectations; ordinary/regular institutions faced constrained resources and support, negatively affecting research motivation.

Findings address the research questions by demonstrating that institutional support, particularly the working environment, is a significant driver of EFL teachers’ research motivation in China. Both quantitative and qualitative strands converge on the importance of access to resources (databases, workspace), supportive policies and structures (workshops, research teams), and time/funding arrangements. Mentorship did not emerge as a significant predictor quantitatively, aligning with qualitative reports of mentorship as a poorly implemented or absent practice, thereby offering an explanation for the non-significant effect. Discrepancies between quantitative and qualitative nuances may reflect recall limitations in survey responses. The results highlight systemic disparities across university types due to unequal government resource allocation, with 985/211 universities receiving greater support and fostering higher motivation, while ordinary/regular institutions face deficits (funding, training, time support, conference opportunities) that dampen motivation and may contribute to lower research productivity among the majority of EFL teachers. The discussion situates these findings within prior literature on the centrality of work environments, the role of funding and collaboration, and the challenges posed by inadequate training and access to resources, especially in non-Anglophone contexts. Enhanced institutional and policy-level interventions are needed to cultivate research-conducive environments and effective, assessable mentorship structures.

This mixed-methods study examined how mentorship and working environments influence Chinese university EFL teachers’ research motivation. Quantitatively, the working environment positively and significantly predicted research motivation, while mentorship did not. Qualitatively, teachers at 985/211 universities reported supportive environments (databases, workshops, research teams), whereas those at ordinary/regular universities and colleges reported insufficient mentorship, constrained working conditions, heavy workloads with limited time support, and inadequate funding/opportunities for academic conferences. Overall, the working environment exerts stronger influence than mentorship in motivating EFL teachers to conduct research. Contributions: The study advances understanding of institutional factors affecting research motivation in the Chinese EFL context, comparing different HEI types and integrating quantitative and qualitative evidence. Methodologically, it demonstrates a mixed-methods approach to modelling and interpreting institutional influences on motivation. Implications: Institutions should improve research environments by ensuring access to databases and resources, allocating protected research time, offering funding and opportunities for conferences, and fostering supportive research communities. Performance appraisals could recognise research engagement time in addition to outputs. Policy-makers could address inequities by promoting resource-sharing and collaboration between 985/211 and ordinary/regular universities and by funding cross-institutional mentorship and training programmes. Future directions: Explore practical, assessable mentorship models; investigate research culture and policy differences by discipline; evaluate cooperation mechanisms between university types; and implement longitudinal/observational designs to track dynamic changes in research motivation.

- Sampling: Snowball sampling during the pandemic provided adequate numbers but was non-random, potentially yielding an unrepresentative sample and limiting generalisability. - Time frame: Data collected over one semester without observational data, precluding analysis of dynamic changes in motivation and day-to-day research behaviours. - Mentorship measurement/implementation: Institutional mentorship policies/programmes may vary widely and be difficult to assess, potentially contributing to the non-significant quantitative effect. Future studies should use random or stratified sampling, incorporate longitudinal and observational methods, and evaluate specific mentorship and training interventions.