Objective and Research Question 

In this paper we explore the construction of collective agency in the context of educational innovations employing a dual case study approach. Specifically our research question was: How is collective agency constructed when implementing top-down and bottom-up educational innovations in schools? We build on the literature regarding agency and construction of agency as a theoretical foundation for our study. 

Theoretical framework

Agency refers to teachers’ conscious ability to influence their work through their actions (Imants & Van der Wal, 2020), resulting in impact on both the school context and/or their professional identity (Etelapelto et al., 2013). Teacher agency is increasingly recognized as a crucial capacity in the context of educational innovations and educational quality (Vähäsantanen, 2015). Educational innovations are integral to every school and thus a part of teachers’ professional lives. Society and policymakers require schools to address aspects such as equal opportunities for students and educational quality by introducing innovations that improve their practices. 

Although the significance of teacher agency in the context of educational innovations is acknowledged, it concurrently faces threats from policies emphasizing school and teacher accountability, resulting in the perceived lack of space and perceived agency (Oolbekkink-Marchand et al., 2017). This pressure of policies can lead to weak or bounded teacher agency (Vahasantanen, 2015; Oolbekkink et al. 2022). In such instances, teachers perceive themselves as passive rather than active subjects, lacking influence on their work conditions in schools and in the policy decisions being made. To foster a strong or extensive sense of agency among teachers and enable them to utilize this agency in the context of innovations, a stimulating interplay of personal and social resources is essential. Support from a school leader and a strong commitment to their work can empower teachers to experience a robust sense of agency and drive changes in their professional practice (Oolbekkink et al., 2022). 

In the context of schoolwide educational innovations, the need for  not only individual agency but also collective agency becomes paramount,  Collective agency  “is manifested when a group of people share and pursue a common interest in  order to improve their own lives and to affect larger contexts, for example by  transforming structures and cultures” (Hökkä et al. 2019).  Collective agency can be manifested when a group of teachers collaboratively develops new professional practices, or reaches a shared understanding of what is important in school and their classes, defining who they want to be as teachers in this context. Despite this importance, little is known about the construction of collective agency in the professional practice of teachers and school leaders in the context of educational innovations. We assume that the ‘type of innovation’ (top-down or bottom-up) may influence the construction of collective agency in schools. Top-down innovation is initiated by school leaders sometimes in response to districts or nationwide policies, while bottom-up innovation originates from teachers often in response to perceived needs in classrooms or their subject matter department. The literature indicates that neither top-down nor bottom-up innovations are inherently superior; however, fostering interaction between bottom-up and top-down processes is crucial. This requires actors and activities that integrate these processes to establish collective agency for collaborative educational innovations aimed at improving educational quality (Fullan, 1994; Saari et al., 2015).    

This study focuses on examining  top-down and bottom-up educational innovations in school practice and the construction of collective agency in these cases. 

To explore the construction of collective agency in the context of educational innovations, we utilized a multiple case study approach involving two cases: one in the Netherlands where school-based innovations originated from teacher agency (bottom-up), and the other in Israel where school-based innovation was initiated by the school-leader's agency (top-down). This methodology involves in-depth examination of multiple cases, providing a multifaceted perspective. Case study analytic techniques facilitate pattern identification and explanation building. It requires examining data both within each case and across cases for comparative purposes (Yin, 2014). Participants, data collection and analysis In the Netherlands, participants included 20 teachers and their school-leaders from different schools implementing diverse bottom-up innovations. Data collection methods involved semi-structured interviews for teachers and their school-leaders, with storylines as the basis for teacher interviews focusing on developing agency in the context of educational innovations. In Israel, participants included 24 teachers and one school-leader implementing a Project-Based Learning initiative (PBL) at a public middle school. The PBL was initiated top-down by the school-leader. Data collection methods included two focus group conversations with 6 teachers each, addressing teachers’ experiences and attitudes toward PBL implementation, and a reflective questionnaire distributed to 24 teachers exploring their implementation and attitudes towards PBL. Within-case and cross-case analysis We employed a case study approach to conduct within-case and cross-case analyses (Yin, 2014). Within-case analyses facilitated a detailed examination of collective agency construction within each case, revealing processes and challenges in implementing school innovation. The cross-case analysis compared the two cases and aimed to integrate findings from individual cases and draw conclusions. In the initial stage, we generated case summaries for each case. Adopting an inductive qualitative content analysis methodology (Hsieh & Shannon, 2015), we conducted open coding for the data of each case separately. To ensure trustworthiness, two researchers independently abstracted categories. Comparing notes, discussing disparities, and revising the coding scheme led to an agreement on the categorization scheme, with each researcher providing examples from the data to support it. This process facilitated the creation of categories illustrating how collective agency is constructed in the implementation of both top-down and bottom-up educational innovations in schools. In the second stage, for the cross-case analysis, we used the categories abstracted from the within-case analysis as starting points for further analysis. This allowed us to compare and construct the cases, leading to conclusions regarding the construction of collective agency in the context of educational innovation.

Preliminary results from both within and cross-case analyses reveal similarities and differences in the ways collective agency is constructed in the two cases. In the top-down case in Israel, the school leader experienced individual agency in introducing the innovation to the school but faced challenges in building collective agency. There appeared to be a deficiency in shared dialogue, and the top-down structure of the innovation overlooked aspects related to teacher autonomy. Teachers involved in the implementation reported inadequate collaborative learning structures, and felt that the innovation was imposed on them, resulting in a lack of ownership and motivation to pursue innovative goals for school development. In the bottom up case individual teachers experienced individual agency but faced challenges in building collective agency, particularly due to their informal role within the school. The struggle to construct collective agency among fellow teachers was evident. While there was some shared dialogue, it was not always sufficient in order to promote ownership and motivation to collaboratively pursue innovative goals and promote school development. Furthermore, there was a high dependency on support from the school leader, such as appreciation and facilitations of the innovations in schools. In some cases circumstances for teachers changed when school leaders departed and new school leaders arrived with sometimes a different perspective on the innovation. Overall, these two case studies underscore the significance of constructing collective agency and highlights the challenges faced by both teachers and school-leaders in establishing shared dialogue for collaborative ownership of the innovations. It is possible that there is a deficiency in competencies on the part of both parties to effectively engage in and facilitate this dialogue, suggesting a need for professional development. Implications for the construction of collective agency in future research and in school practice will be discussed.

Fullan, M. (1994). Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies for educational reform. Systemic reform: Perspectives on personalizing education, 7-24. Hökkä, P., Rautiainen, M., Silander, T., & Eteläpelto, A. (2019). Collective agency-promoting leadership in Finnish teacher education. International research, policy and practice in teacher education: Insider perspectives, 15-29. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288. Oolbekkink-Marchand, H. W., Hadar, L. L., Smith, K., Helleve, I., & Ulvik, M. (2017). Teachers' perceived professional space and their agency. Teaching and teacher education, 62, 37-46. Oolbekkink-Marchand, H., van der Want, A., Schaap, H., Louws, M., & Meijer, P. (2022). Achieving professional agency for school development in the context of having a PhD scholarship: An intricate interplay. Teaching and Teacher Education, 113, 103684. Saari, E., Lehtonen, M., & Toivonen, M. (2015). Making bottom-up and top-down processes meet in public innovation. The Service Industries Journal, 35(6), 325-344. Vähäsantanen, K. (2015). Professional agency in the stream of change: Understanding educational change and teachers' professional identities. Teaching and teacher education, 47, 1-12. Yin, R.K., (2014). Case Study Research Design and Methods . Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 30(1), 108-110.