Environment Influences in the Development of Transformational Agency Among Chemical Engineering Faculty

In response to the growing demand for more ethically grounded and socially responsive education, national organizations and scholars have called for a greater integration of social responsibility into the engineering curricula. However, existing faculty development models often underemphasize the complex organizational and collaborative systems that support pedagogical transformations. This study examines how organizational and systemic factors influence chemical engineering faculty members’ ability to exercise transformational agency in their teaching practices.

The study began with the formation of a structured Community of Practice (CoP) composed of chemical engineering faculty members organized through the American Institute of Chemical Engineering (AIChE). Two participants engaged in a series of three in-depth interviews, conducted at the beginning, midpoint, and at the end of the CoP, to capture longitudinal reflections on their teaching practices and professional learning experiences.

Interview data was analyzed using the Transformational Agency (TA) framework (Baja,2018), to identify manifestations of sustained, coalitional, strategic, and relational agency. Then, Ecological Systems Theory (EST) (Bronfenbrenner, 2005) was then applied as a complementary analytical lens to address the following research question: How do institutional and professional environments influence the development of transformational agency among engineering faculty?

A reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021) combining deductive and inductive coding was employed. The TA and EST were integrated into a Transformational Agency Ecosystem Framework, which provided the foundation for analysis while also allowing for emerging themes that may extend or challenge these initial frameworks. The iterative process offered a nuanced understanding of how faculty agency is enacted, shaped, and constrained by the professional ecosystems in which faculty operate.

Findings suggest that interpersonal, microsystem, and mesosystem influences, such as critical reflection, evolving instructional identities, and peer engagement, are key to shaping faculty transformational agency. These results highlight the importance of professional learning environments that not only focus on content but also provide relational and structural support. By emphasizing how institutional and disciplinary systems enable or constrain pedagogical innovation, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of the conditions in which faculty can meaningfully engage in transformative teaching practices.