Creating Sustainable Collaborative Spaces for Professional Growth: A Cross-Institutional Study in Higher Education

Abstract

Addressing the urgent need for sustainable transformation in higher education, this paper explores how a collaborative action research group of teacher educators from different institutions contributed to higher education transformation through sustainable education approaches. Drawing on cultural–historical activity theory (CHAT), we analyze how cross-institutional partnerships fostered personal and professional development through digital collaboration, regular online meetings, and reflective dialogue. The study employed participatory action research, using weekly reflective journals and group meetings as mediating tools supporting sustained professional learning. Findings indicate that building common ground across institutional contexts and investing in trust-building cultivated a meaningful collaborative environment, a “third space” that mediated expansive learning and professional transformation. Within this space, the diversity of institutional backgrounds enriched the activity system, and productive contradictions served as generative mechanisms that catalyze expansive learning by exposing participants to diverse institutional perspectives. The study further shows that sustainable collaboration emerged not from formal institutional structures but from shared ownership, cultural alignment, and relational commitment. These social and cultural processes supported the development of systems-thinking, strategic-thinking, and interpersonal competencies supporting sustainable professional development. The study highlights the potential of sustainable cross-institutional spaces as a model for professional growth in higher education.

1. Introduction

“I needed a space where I could grow professionally despite not being at the same institution as others.”

This introductory quote from one of our journal entries reflects our shared experience of seeking connection and professional development beyond our individual institutional contexts.

Teacher educators face increasing pressure to develop professionally while navigating institutional constraints, limited resources, and geographic isolation. The need for collaborative professional learning communities has become particularly acute in the context of higher education’s evolving role in sustainability education and the development of future-ready educators [1,2]. Although research has documented successful collaborative initiatives among colleagues within single institutions [3], less is known about how teacher educators from different institutions, at different career stages, and with varying professional commitments can create sustainable spaces for collective growth.

In alignment with calls for embedding sustainability principles into higher education curricula and pedagogies [1], cross-institutional collaborative models demonstrate how teacher educators can develop the systems-thinking and interpersonal competencies identified as essential for addressing sustainability challenges [2]. This approach responds to the need for multidisciplinary pedagogies that produce educators who are responsible, active citizens capable of handling complex sustainability concerns. Recent scholarship has emphasized the critical role of professional learning communities in furthering educator development. Research has demonstrated that participants in teacher-education learning communities experience enhanced professional growth through exposure to multiple perspectives [4]. Other studies have argued that sustainable educational infrastructure depends on these communities serving as catalysts for lasting inclusive practices [5]. These findings are consistent with broader calls for sustainability implementation methodologies that enhance learning, as well as stakeholder engagement and monitoring in higher education institutions [6], while addressing the need for higher education institutions to provide students with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to handle challenging sustainability concerns as responsible, active citizens [7].

Drawing on Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory [8] and Engeström’s cultural–historical activity theory (CHAT) [9,10], we conceptualize collaborative professional spaces as complex activity systems where individual and collective learning is mediated through cultural tools, division of labor, rules, and community. Through this theoretical framework, we can examine how teacher educators negotiate shared meanings and practices across institutional boundaries. However, a key question exists in the literature regarding the necessary conditions for such collaboration: whereas some scholars emphasize the importance of shared institutional context and formal support structures [3], others suggest that distributed leadership and voluntary commitment may be sufficient [4,5].

Our group was not formed around a specific shared project but around the desire for professional growth and development within a supportive community. This distinguishes our experience from that described by previous research [3], where collaborative groups evolved out of furthering specific institutional goals. Unlike those working within the same institution who faced similar professional challenges, our study explored how teacher educators from different institutions, at different career stages, and with different professional commitments could create a meaningful collaborative space for growth through shared cultural tools and mediational means.

This study addresses a critical gap in the understanding of how cross-institutional collaborative learning communities can be sustained over time without formal institutional support. We document the journey of a voluntarily formed group of teacher educators who came together with the shared goal of professional development within a supportive community. Significantly, our findings demonstrate that sustainable collaborative spaces can emerge and endure through shared commitment, distributed leadership, and carefully negotiated cultural tools—offering a replicable model for geographically dispersed educators seeking professional growth beyond their immediate institutional environments.

In this study, we focused on how teacher educators from different institutional contexts can create and sustain a collaborative space for professional development through action research. Our specific aim was to understand the mechanisms through which cross-institutional collaboration functions as a mediating tool for professional growth, even in the absence of formal institutional support. By employing cultural–historical activity theory as our analytical lens, we sought to illuminate how diverse institutional backgrounds can serve as resources rather than barriers to collaborative professional development. Furthermore, we investigated how these collaborative spaces contribute to the development of sustainability competencies essential for contemporary higher education. This study offers both theoretical insights into the nature of cross-institutional collaboration and practical guidance for teacher educators and institutions seeking to create sustainable professional learning communities that transcend traditional organizational boundaries.

1.1. Teacher Educators’ Professional Self-Understanding and Development: A CHAT Perspective

Teacher educators’ professional identity development can be understood through the lens of cultural–historical activity theory (CHAT) as a historically and culturally mediated process. According to Vygotsky [8], human development occurs through interactions with more knowledgeable others and through utilizing cultural tools. For teacher educators, these cultural tools include theoretical frameworks, pedagogical approaches, reflective practices, and professional discourse. As elements that function within activity systems alongside rules, communities, and division of labor, they mediate the ongoing development of professional self-understanding and professional identity [9]. This development is based on the relationship between the sense of self, the sociocultural context, interactions with others, past and current experiences, and what is understood as essential in their work [11,12].

From a CHAT perspective, contradictions within and between activity systems serve as sources of change and development [10]. For teacher educators, these contradictions may arise when expectations from academia contradict their personal pedagogical values, when institutional rules constrain innovative practices, or when they move into new roles requiring different expertise. These contradictions, although potentially causing tension and discomfort, also provide opportunities for expansive learning and professional growth.

This understanding of professional development through collaborative communities is supported by recent research on professional learning communities [4,5]. Studies have found that participants in teacher-education learning communities develop enhanced professional awareness through engaging with diverse voices and perspectives, which aligns with our CHAT-based understanding of how cultural tools and community interactions mediate professional growth [4]. Furthermore, research emphasizes that sustainable professional learning communities require intentional design and ongoing commitment to inclusive practices, supporting our focus on creating enduring collaborative spaces across institutional boundaries [5].

Unlike groups who experienced contradictions within a shared institutional context [3], our group encountered contradictions between different institutional contexts, creating a unique dynamic for professional development and learning.

1.2. Action Research in Teacher Education: A Vygotskian Approach

Action research in teacher education can be conceptualized through Vygotsky’s theory of learning and development. Vygotsky [8] introduced the concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD), defined as the distance between what individuals can accomplish independently and what they can accomplish with guidance from more capable peers. In collaborative action research, the group functions as a collective ZPD where participants scaffold each other’s learning and development.

Action research is defined as “a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own practices, their understanding of these practices, and the situations in which the practices are carried out” [13] (p. 162). This definition aligns with Vygotsky’s emphasis on the social nature of learning and the role of reflection in development.

From a CHAT perspective, action research serves as a mediating tool that enables teacher educators to examine and transform their practice. The cyclical process of action research—planning, acting, observing, and reflecting—creates a structured activity system in which participants collectively engage in meaning-making and knowledge construction.

Whereas self-study focuses specifically on studying one’s own practice [3,14], action research broadens the scope to include the social, cultural, and historical dimensions of practice. This broader perspective aligns with our goal of understanding how teacher educators from different institutional contexts can create a collaborative space for professional development. Although both approaches involve systematic inquiry into practice, action research explicitly examines the collective and systemic dimensions of educational change, making it particularly suited for investigating cross-institutional collaboration.

1.3. Collaborative Action Research as a Cultural Activity System

Collaborative action research can be understood as a cultural activity system where participants engage in collective inquiry mediated by shared cultural tools. According to Engeström [9], activity systems consist of subjects, objects, mediating artifacts, rules, community, and division of labor.

In our collaborative action research group, each member represented a different activity system with its own rules, community, and division of labor. Coming together, we created a new, shared activity system with the common object of professional development. This boundary-crossing between different activity systems generated what Engeström [10] called “expansive learning,” where participants construct and implement a radically new, wider, and more complex object and concept for their activity.

Collaborative action research also aligns with Vygotsky’s concept of collective mediation, where learning and development occur through group interaction and dialogue. In our group, we created a collective zone of proximal development where each member provided and received scaffolding for professional growth.

Unlike collaboration situated within a shared institutional context [3], our collaboration crossed institutional boundaries, creating a more complex activity system with multiple cultural tools and perspectives.

1.4. Creating a Collaborative Space: A “Third Space” for Professional Development

Drawing on CHAT, we conceptualize our collaborative space as a “third space” [15] that emerges when different activity systems interact. This “third space” is characterized by expanded possibilities for meaning-making, identity formation, and professional development.

Whereas previous research described collaborative spaces as “free spaces” built on mutual trust [3], we expand this concept to include the cultural and historical dimensions of space creation. Our collaborative space was not only free from institutional constraints but was also rich with diverse cultural tools and perspectives contributed by members from different institutional contexts.

From a Vygotskian perspective, this collaborative space served as a site for internalization (the transformation of external social activities into internal psychological processes) and externalization (the transformation of internal thoughts into external actions and artifacts). Through dialogue, reflection, and collaborative inquiry, we collectively constructed new understandings of our professional practice and identity. This conceptualization of collaborative spaces as sites for professional transformation is supported by empirical research on professional learning communities.

1.5. CHAT and Sustainable Educational Transformation

Cultural–historical activity theory’s emphasis on mediated collective learning aligns with Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) principles by fostering the anticipatory, normative, strategic, and systems-thinking competencies essential for sustainability education [2]. Our collaborative approach exemplifies the kind of pedagogical innovation that supports the sustainable development of educators’ knowledge, understanding, and skills in higher education contexts. The technical, organizational, and pedagogical drivers identified as essential for facilitating and transforming instructional processes in higher education [16] align with our understanding of how collaborative spaces function as mediating artifacts in the development of sustainability competencies.

1.6. Research Questions

Based on the theoretical framework presented above, this study addresses the following main research question: How can teacher educators from different institutional contexts create a sustainable collaborative space for professional development through action research, viewed through the lens of cultural–historical activity theory?

Specifically, we examine (1) what cultural tools and mediational means enable the establishment of common ground across institutions; (2) how cross-institutional collaboration creates a “third space” supporting authentic dialogue and trust; (3) what role contradictions between institutional activity systems play in fostering expansive learning; (4) how such spaces can be sustained without formal institutional support; and (5) what sustainability competencies participants develop through this collaboration.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Context and Participants

Our action research group consisted of three teacher educators (n = 3), all women, aged 49 to 60 (M = 54.3), representing three different teacher education institutions and with extensive experience in both high school teaching and teacher education. All participants held doctoral degrees. Participants’ teaching experience ranged from 22 to 35 years. Career stages varied: one (age 49) was head of the special education department at her college, another (age 54) facilitated internship workshops in a teacher retraining program, and one (age 60) served as a pedagogical mentor for literature instruction and as a high school literature coordinator. All participants maintained active supervision responsibilities with preservice teachers during practicum experiences in schools, providing them with mentorship and guidance.

Regarding professional commitments, all participants maintained active supervision responsibilities with preservice teachers, supervised between eight and 15 practicum students per semester, and held varying administrative roles within their institutions. Weekly time investment in the collaborative group ranged from 2 to 4 h, divided between individual reflection (1 to 2 h) and group meetings (2 h). The research community convened regularly from October 2021 through April 2022, holding 28 formal meetings and maintaining ongoing informal communication throughout the period.

As Vygotsky [8] emphasized, learning is processed through social and cultural interactions within historical contexts, making our professional backgrounds and study context essential for understanding our actions, interactions, and development. Alongside our shared experiences, we differed in many areas. For example, we were at different stages of our research development and had worked with distinct research genres. In addition, each of us had supervised preservice teachers with varied backgrounds and life experiences at different stages of their professional development.

Unlike research communities that consist of teacher educators from the same institution [3], our research community comprised teacher educators from different institutions, who were at varying professional development stages and were not committed to a single institutional project. The diversity of our participants enriched our activity system, as each member contributed unique cultural tools and perspectives from their respective institutional contexts. This cross-institutional character created a more complex collaborative space, with rich opportunities for what Engeström [10] termed “expansive learning”—learning that transcends the boundaries of individual activity systems to create new, shared understandings and practices.

Whereas some research groups found common ground in shared frustration about specific institutional projects [3], our common ground was built on a broader desire for professional growth and development. Despite our diverse institutional backgrounds, we established a collaborative space that enabled meaningful professional development through shared cultural tools and mediational means.

Our action research projects addressed diverse aspects of teacher education practice, each reflecting the participant’s professional context and interests. These included examining the development of preservice teachers’ critical reflection skills during practicum experiences; exploring how teacher educators scaffold student teachers’ navigation of theory–practice gaps; investigating the role of emotional support in clinical supervision; analyzing how preservice teachers develop pedagogical content knowledge through collaborative lesson planning; and examining teacher educators’ practices for fostering inclusive education perspectives.

Although each participant pursued her own inquiry focus aligned with institutional responsibilities, our group meetings provided space to share emerging questions, analyze data collaboratively, consider alternative interpretations, and receive critical feedback. This structure allowed individual projects to benefit from collective insight while remaining contextually relevant. The breadth of inquiry foci ensured continual exposure to multiple dimensions of teacher education practice, broadening participants’ understanding beyond their immediate institutional settings.

This interaction across boundaries of different activity systems created what Engeström [10] described as a “third space” where new meanings and practices can emerge. This cross-institutional collaboration model addresses the need for technical, organizational, and pedagogical drivers that transform instructional processes in higher education institutions, while demonstrating sustainable approaches to professional development that can be integrated into broader ESD implementation strategies. Our approach addresses the characteristics, barriers, and enablers of ESD in higher education institutions identified in recent literature [17], while responding to the call for enhanced ESD integration in higher education leadership, pedagogies, and curriculum development to uncover critical implications for sustainable development goals (SDG4).

2.2. Research Design and Theoretical Framework

Our study employed participatory action research (PAR) methodology, a collaborative process that actively engages participants in identifying and addressing issues affecting their professional lives while promoting personal growth and collective development [18,19]. This cyclical approach, characterized by iterative cycles of planning, action, observation, and reflection [18], allowed us to engage in what has been described as “looking backward and forward” [19] as a dynamic process of reflecting on past actions while planning future interventions based on emergent insights. PAR recognizes the value of participants’ knowledge and experiences, positioning us as co-researchers and agents of change in our own professional development [20].

2.3. ESD-Informed Research Design and Sustainability Considerations

Our PAR methodology aligns with sustainable development principles by creating resource-efficient, collaborative learning processes that model the participatory pedagogies increasingly recognized as essential for ESD implementation in higher education.

Throughout our research process, we remained attentive to the sustainability of our collaborative space. We deliberately developed practices and structures that could be maintained over time without external funding or formal institutional mandates. This included establishing flexible meeting formats, rotating facilitation responsibilities, and creating shared digital spaces for ongoing communication and resource sharing.

2.4. Data Collection

Data were collected primarily through reflective journals written weekly between October 2021 and April 2022 following mentorship sessions with preservice teachers and after our group meetings. These journals documented our experiences, observations, challenges, and insights, serving as mediating artifacts that facilitated our collective meaning-making and knowledge construction from a CHAT perspective.

We held regular group meetings in which these written reflections served as the foundation for collaborative dialogue. The research design intentionally created space for authentic engagement, where participants could candidly share their experiences, vulnerabilities, and uncertainties. This authentic sharing was essential for building trust and enabling risk-taking that moved participants beyond their comfort zones. The group meetings were held on an online video conferencing platform (Zoom 6.6.6), recorded, and transcribed. In addition, extensive email and WhatsApp correspondence was included in the research database.

Our primary data source consisted of reflective journals (78 entries in total, ranging from 500 to 2000 words each). To strengthen credibility and address potential limitations of self-reported reflections, we triangulated across multiple complementary sources: group meeting recordings (28 sessions, approximately 2 h each), which provided evidence of collaborative dialogue and meaning-making in action; meeting protocols; and shared documents (including collaborative writing projects, email correspondence, and planning documents). As the study was longitudinal (7 months of active data collection followed by 18 months of continued collaboration), we observed patterns and changes over time.

2.5. Data Analysis

Our analytical approach integrated deductive and inductive strategies in what Braun and Clarke [21,22] described as reflexive thematic analysis, where theoretical frameworks guide inquiry while remaining open to unexpected patterns emerging from the data.

2.5.1. Analytical Process

The analysis was a collaborative process aligned with Vygotsky’s concept of co-construction of knowledge. We engaged in cycles of individual and collective reflection, using our journals as points of departure for dialogue about professional development. Through this iterative process, we identified contradictions within and between our activity systems and developed new insights and understandings.

Our multi-stage analysis employed a dual approach: In the deductive dimension, CHAT was used as an analytical lens to examine experiences through theoretical concepts such as activity systems, contradictions, and mediating artifacts. In the inductive dimension, systematic coding was used: marking sections, identifying concepts, grouping similar concepts into categories, and then defining and linking categories, which produced emergent themes [20,21].

2.5.2. Implementation

Analysis began with each researcher reading texts and writing notes linking content to theoretical conceptualizations. As data collection and analysis cannot be separated in action research, analytical notes were documented simultaneously throughout the year-long study. Texts were then analyzed into categories, with connections identified in relation to research literature [21]. The categories created corresponded to both participants’ descriptive expressions and conceptualizations from research literature.

2.5.3. Validation and Trustworthiness

Several validation strategies ensured trustworthiness: (1) data triangulation across multiple sources (journals, meeting recordings, correspondence, shared documents); (2) member checking, where participants reviewed thematic analysis and provided feedback on whether themes accurately represented their experiences; (3) critical discussion within the research group to reduce potential bias; and (4) audit trail with detailed analytical memos documenting interpretive decisions, disagreements, and reasoning behind categorizations. Revisions were made based on participant feedback, ensuring interpretations remained grounded in lived experiences while being theoretically informed.

As insider researchers in participatory action research, we employed reflexivity strategies to enhance credibility: maintaining reflexive memos, examining our assumptions, creating analytical distance through temporal separation (analyzing journal entries weeks after writing), and collaborative validation where interpretations were challenged through group dialogue. Our insider position provided a deep understanding of collaborative dynamics while requiring conscious critical examination of our own practice.

3. Results

Our group gradually evolved from a collection of individuals seeking professional growth into a cohesive action research community. We present our findings under four categories that illuminate the processes through which this shared activity system was constructed and sustained.

Central to our results is the role of productive contradictions in shaping expansive learning within our cross-institutional collaboration. Rather than functioning as obstacles, the tensions arising from differing institutional norms, expectations, and pedagogical assumptions became mediational forces that deepened inquiry, encouraged reflexive engagement, and facilitated transformation of practice. Consistent with CHAT, these contradictions operated as generative sites of development, prompting participants to articulate implicit beliefs, challenge taken-for-granted routines, and expand their professional understanding through collective meaning-making.

3.1. Building Common Ground Through Productive Contradictions: Negotiating Shared Objects and Tools

Although we did not share an institutional context or a specific project like groups described in previous research [3], we found common ground in our shared commitment to professional growth as teacher educators. This process involved negotiating a shared object (professional development) and identifying common cultural tools that could mediate our collective activity. Central to this progression was our experience of productive contradictions—tensions between different institutional contexts that functioned as catalysts for expansive learning and professional transformation. Significantly, the very diversity that could have fragmented our collaboration generated these productive contradictions, which became essential resources for learning.

• One member reflected:

Despite coming from different institutions with different expectations and cultures, we were able to find common ground in our shared passion for improving our practice as teacher educators. This common ground became the foundation for our collaborative work [...] I, along with my fellow group members, had a deep passion to learn and more fully internalize the methods of action research and to experience them firsthand. For me, action research has become a central tool that has shaped the way I view reality and has influenced my practice as an educator.

Through dialogue and reflection, we identified contradictions within and between our activity systems that could serve as sources of learning and development. Unlike groups united by frustration related to a specific new role [3], our common ground was built on a broader desire for professional development mediated by diverse cultural tools.

In Vygotskian terms, our diverse institutional backgrounds became a resource rather than a limitation, as each member presented unique perspectives and experiences that enriched our collective understanding. This aligns with research demonstrating that interdisciplinary approaches and active faculty involvement are essential for fostering sustainability education [7], while showing how collaborative spaces can serve as methodologies for learning and stakeholder engagement in sustainability implementation [6]. The tension between our different institutional contexts created what Engeström [10] termed “productive contradictions”—points of divergence that led to deeper inquiry and new insights. These contradictions were not obstacles to be overcome but generative forces that pushed us beyond our individual institutional assumptions toward a more complex understanding. This is apparent in the following example from one participant’s research journal:

During a group discussion, I heard from a teacher educator at another institution that her expectations of students were markedly different, even opposite to mine. This experience was deeply unsettling and prompted a process of critical reflection, leading me to ask: What implicit messages am I conveying to my students?

This participant’s reflections demonstrate how exposure to contradictory teaching approaches functioned as a productive contradiction [10], stimulating her growth and professional change. The discomfort of encountering opposing pedagogical assumptions, rather than being smoothed over, was embraced as an opportunity for critical self-examination. Similarly, another participant, in her research journal, addressed the tension she experienced regarding the pace of her research, the emotions associated with it, and her eventual progress. She expressed this as follows:

I felt a sense of frustration when comparing myself to the rapid pace of my colleagues; they advanced in their research faster than I did. In retrospect, I realize that the group meetings and the exposure to my colleagues’ working processes both stimulated the need and gave me the capacity to advance professionally as a researcher.

In Vygotskian terms, these interactions illustrate how our diverse institutional contexts and varying developmental trajectories became an asset that fostered deeper inquiry and expanded our collective understanding. The productive contradictions generated by institutional diversity thus functioned as mediating artifacts that facilitated both individual professional growth and collective knowledge construction, a dynamic particularly valuable for developing the systems-thinking and critical reflection competencies essential for sustainability education.

3.2. Creating a Collaborative Space Built on Trust: Establishing Rules and Community

Similar to findings in previous research [3], our experience showed that investing time in building relationships and trust was essential for creating an effective collaborative space. This process involved establishing shared rules (norms of interaction) and a sense of community that supported our collective activity.

• One member wrote:

The trust we built allowed us to be vulnerable with each other, to share our struggles and uncertainties without fear of judgment. This trust became a crucial mediating factor in our professional development.

Even though we belonged to different institutions, we managed to create a safe environment where we could be honest, authentic, and vulnerable. This environment functioned as what Vygotsky would have called a collective ZPD, where each member both provided and received scaffolding for professional growth, as reflected by one participant:

I felt comfortable sharing my difficulties and mistakes here, precisely because we do not share responsibility for the same students, we do not run into each other in the college hallways, and there is no competition between us for positions within the institution. The responses from my colleagues were supportive. They shared similar experiences of their own and offered me helpful advice.

This dynamic illustrates how the absence of institutional hierarchies and competition laid the ground for open dialogue and mutual support, thereby deepening our collaborative learning and fostering individual and collective development.

The investment of time to talk about our lives beyond the immediate research focus was crucial for building the necessary trust for authentic collaboration. This practice of stepping back from daily work routines to engage in dialogue and collective reflection created what could be described as a “third space” (in our CHAT-based conceptualization), a space characterized by democratic interaction and mutual support.

3.2.1. Critical Recognition

We recognized that the values underlying our collaborative space contrasted sharply with typical academic work cultures, which tend to be individualistic, competitive, measurement-driven, and control-oriented while discouraging vulnerability. By intentionally creating a different kind of space, we were able to support risk-taking and movement beyond individual comfort zones, which is essential for professional growth, as expressed in the following reflection:

For the first time, I began presenting my action research at academic conferences. It was only through my participation in this community that I found the courage to attend a conference where I was required to present in a language that is not my mother tongue. My group members advised me and rehearsed my presentation with me. They even attended the conference, to listen and offer their support, which created a profound sense of solidarity.

This experience illustrates how a supportive, non-competitive community enabled members to take risks that would have been unlikely in more conventional academic contexts, ultimately fostering both confidence and professional growth. The trust established in our collaborative space thus functioned as a foundation through which productive contradictions could be experienced as generative rather than threatening.

3.2.2. Sustainability Through Shared Ownership

An important dimension of our collaborative space was its sustainability through distributed ownership and responsibility. Rather than relying on a single leader or institutional support, we developed shared practices for maintaining the group’s continuity. This included rotating meeting facilitation, establishing communication protocols, and creating flexible participation structures that could accommodate changing personal and professional circumstances. This distributed approach proved crucial for the group’s longevity and resilience. One participant described the flexibility within our community:

We established a tradition that if someone could not attend a meeting, we would all search together for an alternative time, making every effort to adjust our schedules so that everyone could be present and every voice could be heard. As a result, my commitment to this community fundamentally reshaped my personal and professional priorities.

In this way, flexibility became a practical expression of shared ownership, shaping how members co-constructed and sustained the collaborative space. By prioritizing each member’s presence and voice, we underscored that sustainability derives not from institutional mandates but from mutual investment and reciprocal responsibility. The flexibility described here was not merely logistical accommodation but an expression of the relational bonds and collective responsibility that sustained our collaboration over time.

3.3. Individual and Collective Professional Development: Expansive Learning

Our collaborative space offered opportunities for professional development through dialogue, reflection, and collective inquiry. This process represents what Engeström [10] called “expansive learning,” where participants construct and implement a radically new, wider, and more complex object and concept for their activity. All members highlighted research journal writing as something that was new to them and expanded their professional activity. One participant reflected:

Through our collaborative process, I’ve developed new understandings of my practice that I couldn’t have achieved on my own. For example, writing in my research journal, sharing it with colleagues, and reading their journals transformed this activity into an integral part of my daily work. The diverse perspectives and experiences within the group opened new directions for me.

Like groups in previous research [3], we experienced a profound sense of shared responsibility for our professional growth. Through our collaborative process, we developed not only as individuals but also collectively, creating shared understanding and knowledge that transcended our institutional boundaries. This process aligns with Vygotsky’s concept of internalization, where social interactions become the basis for individual psychological development.

The collaborative space facilitated our connection with our professional selves and helped us to gain new insights and experience a sense of harmony and value. By engaging in collective reflection on our practices, we were able to identify patterns, challenge assumptions, and develop new approaches to our work as teacher educators.

3.3.1. Concrete Manifestations

This expansive learning was evident in our collaborative writing of academic papers and conference presentations. Through these shared writing activities, we continued to refine our understanding of how teacher educators can create effective spaces for professional development across institutional boundaries, as one participant noted, “Writing together made our thinking clearer and helped us articulate what we were actually doing.”

3.3.2. Long-Term Sustainability

The group’s existence beyond the formal research period served as proof of the sustainability of our collaborative learning. We continued to meet, collaborate on projects, and support each other’s professional development, suggesting that the collaborative space had become self-sustaining through the shared investment and mutual benefit it provided to participants. One colleague noted as follows:

Even after completing the documentation and writing phase of my action research, I continued to consult with my community colleagues on a variety of issues. I deliberately make time for these meetings because they are deeply meaningful to me and essential for my ongoing professional development.

This reflection illustrates how the group’s shared ownership evolved not merely from structural decisions, such as flexible scheduling, but from the relational commitment and mutual accountability cultivated over time. This ongoing negotiation of participation norms reflects the internalization of shared rules and the collective redefinition of the object of activity. These moments of flexibility were not incidental but functioned as evidence of the group’s emergent capacity to sustain its collaborative space through distributed leadership and reciprocal responsibility. Collectively, this ongoing commitment demonstrates how shared ownership, mutual benefit, and strong relational ties enabled our collaborative space to develop into a sustainable professional learning community that extended well beyond its initial research purpose.

3.4. Developing Sustainability Competencies Through Cross-Institutional Collaboration

Through our collaborative space, participants developed key sustainability competencies identified in the literature [2], including systems thinking through cross-institutional perspective-taking, strategic thinking through collaborative planning, and interpersonal skills through sustained dialogue and reflection, directly contributing to the pedagogical transformation needed for ESD in higher education.

In particular, the cross-institutional nature of our collaboration naturally fostered systems thinking as members were required to understand and navigate different institutional contexts, policies, and cultures. This exposure to diverse systems enhanced our ability to perceive interconnections and understand complex relationships within educational environments. Strategic thinking developed through our collective planning processes, where we had to consider multiple perspectives and develop approaches that would work across different institutional contexts. The sustained dialogue and reflection inherent in our collaborative process strengthened interpersonal competencies, essential for effective collaboration in sustainability initiatives. Notably, these competencies emerged from engaging with the productive contradictions inherent in cross-institutional collaboration, demonstrating how boundary-crossing professional development can function as sustainability pedagogy in practice.

4. Discussion

This study offers three principal contributions to the understanding of sustainable cross-institutional professional development. First, it demonstrates how productive contradictions serve as generative mechanisms that catalyze expansive learning in settings with pronounced institutional differences. Second, it provides empirical evidence of how relational and cultural factors compensate for the absence of formal institutional structures, resulting in what we describe as a “productive distance” that supports vulnerability, reflexivity, and professional growth. Third, it articulates a set of sustainability competencies emerging organically from collaborative action research—systems thinking, strategic planning, and interpersonal mediation—thereby linking the collaborative process itself to the broader demands of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). These contributions extend existing scholarship by foregrounding process-based mechanisms rather than relying solely on institutional conditions.

4.1. Key Findings and Theoretical Contributions

Our study illustrates how teacher educators from different institutional contexts created a sustainable collaborative space for professional development through action research, viewed through the lens of cultural–historical activity theory. While existing research has documented professional learning communities within single institutions [3], our findings reveal five mechanisms through which cross-institutional distance paradoxically becomes a resource for sustainable professional development, challenging assumptions about proximity as a prerequisite for effective collaboration. In response to our main research question, we found that cross-institutional collaboration is possible and productive when participants negotiate shared objects (professional development), establish common cultural tools (reflective journals, theoretical frameworks), and create flexible structures that accommodate diverse institutional contexts.

Addressing our first sub-question regarding cultural tools and mediational means, our findings revealed that reflective journals served as powerful mediating artifacts that enabled participants to establish common ground despite institutional differences. Unlike same-institution collaborations where shared discourse emerges organically from proximity [3,23], our cross-institutional positioning required deliberate negotiation of mediating artifacts. The practice of writing, sharing, and discussing journal entries created what we conceptualize as “translational discourse,” a shared language system that participants could translate back into their respective institutional contexts while maintaining collective meaning. This extends CHAT-based research [23] by demonstrating that cultural tools gain enhanced mediating power when they must bridge rather than merely support existing institutional contexts. More significantly, this negotiation process itself became professional development, as participants developed meta-awareness of their own institutional assumptions. As one participant noted, exposure to contradictory expectations prompted examination of “implicit messages,” a level of critical reflection unlikely to emerge within familiar contexts where shared assumptions remain unexamined.

Regarding our second sub-question about creating a “third space,” we found that cross-institutional collaboration paradoxically facilitated rather than hindered the development of trust and authentic dialogue. This finding aligns with Wenger’s [23] demonstration that sustained professional learning communities depend primarily on mutual engagement and shared repertoire rather than formal organizational structures. However, our results appear to contradict studies suggesting that without institutional recognition and allocated time, teacher educators struggle to sustain collaborative inquiry amid competing demands [24]. In our case, the cross-institutional nature paradoxically freed participants from institutional hierarchies, allowing relational trust and cultural alignment to become primary sustaining forces, suggesting that strong relational bonds may be enhanced by, rather than compromised by, the absence of formal frameworks. The absence of institutional hierarchies, competition for resources, and shared accountability created psychological safety that enabled vulnerability and risk-taking, which we term “safe distance”: psychological safety derived not from familiarity but from institutional separation. As one participant articulated, comfort in sharing difficulties emerged “precisely because we do not share responsibility for the same students” and “there is no competition between us.” This finding extends previous research on professional learning communities [4,5] by demonstrating that geographic and institutional distance can serve as assets when they remove competitive pressures inherent in shared institutional contexts.

In response to our third research question about productive contradictions [10], our findings demonstrate that contradictions between different institutional activity systems functioned as catalysts that stimulated expansive learning through boundary-crossing.

However, our analysis reveals a crucial distinction: in same-institution collaborations, contradictions typically emerge from shared frustrations with institutional constraints [3], whereas our cross-institutional contradictions arose from encountering genuinely different pedagogical assumptions and institutional cultures. These differences prompted participants to question not only institutional policies but fundamental pedagogical beliefs, moving from single-loop learning (adjusting practices) to double-loop learning (transforming underlying assumptions) [25]. Exposure to contradictory teaching approaches functioned as beneficial disruptions that participants could process at psychological distance, reflecting on alternative approaches without immediate pressure to implement institutional changes. This temporal and spatial buffer enabled deeper cognitive processing than contradictions experienced within one’s own institution, where defensive responses may be triggered by immediate accountability pressures.

Addressing our fourth sub-question about sustainability, we found that collaborative spaces can be sustained over time through distributed leadership, shared commitment, flexible participation structures, and mutual benefit—even without formal institutional support. This challenges assumptions about the necessity of institutional backing for professional development initiatives and suggests that relational and cultural factors may be more critical than structural support. Supporting Wenger’s [23] communities of practice framework, we found that intrinsic motivation and reciprocal benefit were primary sustaining forces. However, contradicting research that emphasizes institutional time allocation and recognition as essential [26], we found that institutional support was not merely unnecessary but potentially counterproductive; its absence freed participants from performative pressures and allowed authentic, participant-driven agendas to emerge. We propose a “compensatory model” of collaboration sustainability, in which strong relational and cultural factors compensate for, and may even be enhanced by, the absence of institutional infrastructure.

Significantly, participation in this community influenced our actual teaching practices in ways that institutional professional development initiatives rarely achieve. The theoretical language we acquired helped us gain a deeper understanding of group dynamics in our own teaching, and we implemented collaborative structures from our group—such as rotating facilitation and vulnerable sharing—within our own institutional contexts. Beyond individual professional growth, the collaboration produced tangible outcomes that benefited all participants: collaborative academic publications, conference presentations, and transferable pedagogical practices that enhanced teaching in our respective institutions. These concrete products reinforced the sustainability of the collaborative space by demonstrating mutual benefit and validating the investment of time and effort.

Finally, regarding our fifth sub-question about sustainability competencies, participants developed systems thinking through understanding multiple institutional contexts, strategic thinking through collaborative planning across institutions, and interpersonal competencies through sustained dialogue and reflection. These competencies align with those identified as essential for sustainability education [2]. Unlike competency development through formal training, these competencies emerged organically from the structural demands of cross-institutional collaboration itself. Navigating multiple institutional contexts required systems thinking; coordinating across different schedules and priorities required strategic thinking; sustaining relationships across distance required interpersonal competencies. This suggests that cross-institutional collaboration may function as inherent sustainability pedagogy—not because it teaches about sustainability, but because it models and requires the very competencies essential for addressing complex sustainability challenges.

Synthesizing these five findings, we propose a theoretical framework of “productive distance” in cross-institutional professional development: institutional separation creates safe distance for vulnerability; cultural tools become objects of negotiation enhancing meta-cognitive awareness; inter-systemic contradictions generate expansive learning through comparative reflection at psychological distance; relational bonds compensate for and may be enhanced by absence of institutional infrastructure; and structural demands of collaboration organically develop sustainability competencies. This framework challenges traditional assumptions equating proximity with effectiveness in professional learning communities and suggests that for professional development goals requiring vulnerability, fundamental questioning, or systems-thinking, strategic institutional distance may be more effective than institutional proximity.

Our findings suggest that collaborative action research groups can flourish despite their members’ diverse institutional backgrounds, highlighting the importance of shared cultural tools and meaning-making rather than shared institutional contexts. This challenges traditional assumptions about the necessity of shared institutional frameworks for effective professional collaboration. Our findings contribute to the growing body of research on professional learning communities in educational contexts. Building on previous work [4], which examined how participants experience growth through engaging with diverse voices, our study demonstrates how cross-institutional collaboration can amplify these benefits by bringing together even more diverse perspectives and cultural tools. Similarly, our emphasis on sustainability aligns with frameworks for sustainable educational infrastructure [5], showing how professional learning communities can serve as catalysts for lasting change when they are designed with attention to individual and collective well-being.

In terms of similarities, like groups described in previous research [3], our research group consisted of experienced teacher educators with backgrounds in both high school teaching and teacher education. All members of the groups had experience in mentoring preservice teachers during their practicum in schools. Both groups engaged in collaborative research focused on improving professional practices, although we framed ours within an action research methodology and a CHAT theoretical framework rather than in self-study. The differences, however, are notable. Unlike teacher educators who all worked at the same institution on the same new project [3], our group members belonged to different institutions, were at different professional developmental stages, and were not committed to the same project. Whereas other groups had a common interest in the success of a new program, our common ground was more broadly focused on professional growth without being tied to a specific institutional initiative. This difference created unique dynamics: whereas same-institution groups may face institutional hierarchies and competition, our cross-institutional nature paradoxically created greater psychological safety for authentic sharing.

4.2. Implications for ESD Integration in Higher Education

This study demonstrates how cross-institutional teacher educator collaborations can serve as catalysts for embedding sustainability principles into higher education pedagogy, addressing the call for enhanced ESD integration in leadership, pedagogies, and curriculum development. Our findings contribute to understanding how participatory pedagogies can create both challenges and opportunities in higher education contexts, particularly in developing the anticipatory, normative, strategic, systems-thinking, and interpersonal competencies essential for sustainability education. The “productive distance” framework we propose offers a practical model for developing these competencies through collaborative structures rather than through formal curriculum alone, suggesting that the process of cross-institutional collaboration itself becomes a form of sustainability education.

4.3. Practical Implications

Our model provides practical guidance for higher education institutions seeking to develop educators’ capacity to handle challenging sustainability concerns, while promoting the multidisciplinary approaches essential for sustainable knowledge development.

4.3.1. For Teacher Education Institutions

Our study suggests the value of supporting collaborative spaces that cross institutional boundaries. By providing time, resources, and recognition for such collaborations, institutions can foster expansive learning and professional development among teacher educators. However, our findings also indicate that sustainable collaborations can emerge and thrive through the commitment of individual participants, even without formal institutional backing. This paradox suggests that institutional leaders might best support such initiatives by removing barriers rather than mandating participation. Leaders can support ESD implementation by recognizing cross-institutional collaborations as pedagogical drivers that develop sustainability competencies among faculty while modeling the stakeholder engagement approaches essential for comprehensive ESD integration.

4.3.2. For Teacher Educators

Our study offers insights into the potential of collaborative action research as a mediating tool for professional development. By engaging in collective inquiry with colleagues from different institutional contexts, teacher educators can expand their understanding of practice and develop new approaches to teaching and learning. The sustainability of such collaborations depends on shared commitment, distributed responsibility, and the development of flexible structures that can adapt to changing circumstances. Our collaborative model illustrates how to embed the systems-thinking and interpersonal competencies central to sustainability education into professional development processes, providing a framework for curriculum designers seeking to integrate ESD principles. Teacher educators seeking to initiate such collaborations could consider prioritizing establishing psychological safety and shared cultural tools before addressing specific institutional projects or outcomes.

4.3.3. For Research Communities

The study demonstrates the viability of cross-institutional collaborative research groups, suggesting new models for professional development that transcend traditional institutional boundaries. These models offer potential for creating more resilient and sustainable professional learning communities that are less dependent on institutional resources and more responsive to participants’ authentic needs. Teacher educators can utilize collaborative action research as a multidisciplinary pedagogy that develops the anticipatory, normative, and strategic thinking abilities that students need to become responsible, active citizens capable of addressing sustainability challenges. Research communities might consider how cross-institutional structures can be deliberately designed to maximize the benefits of “productive distance” while maintaining the relational trust essential for authentic collaboration.

4.3.4. Sustainability Framework

Based on our experience, we propose that sustainable cross-institutional collaborations require: (1) shared commitment to collective learning, (2) distributed leadership and responsibility, (3) flexible participation structures, (4) authentic and vulnerable sharing, (5) regular reflection on group processes, and (6) tangible outcomes that benefit all participants. This framework emphasizes that sustainability emerges from relational and cultural factors rather than from institutional mandates or resources, suggesting that the most effective support structures may be those that create space for self-organizing professional communities rather than those that impose predetermined goals or processes.

4.4. Limitations and Future Research Directions

Our study provides valuable insights into cross-institutional collaboration, but several limitations must be acknowledged, nevertheless. First, our research involved a small group of teacher educators from a specific geographic region, which may limit the generalizability of our findings to other contexts. Additionally, all participants were women in teacher education institutions, which may have influenced group dynamics and collaborative processes in ways that differ from mixed-gender groups. Second, all participants were experienced teacher educators with backgrounds in supervising preservice teachers, which may have facilitated our ability to find common ground. Future research is recommended to explore whether similar collaborative spaces can be created among educators with more diverse professional backgrounds and whether the “productive distance” framework operates similarly across different institutional contexts, cultural settings, and participant demographics.

Additionally, our study focused on the perspectives and experiences of the participants themselves, without examining the impact of our collaboration on our students or institutions. The research did not include external observations or institutional documentation of outcomes (e.g., evidence of pedagogical changes in classroom practice or impact on student learning). The focus was specifically on the participants’ experience of creating and sustaining the collaborative space itself, rather than on downstream institutional or student outcomes. Future research could investigate how participation in cross-institutional collaborative action research affects teacher educators’ practice and student outcomes through observations of teacher educators’ lessons and systematic documentation of pedagogical and institutional changes. Such research might employ mixed methods approaches combining participant perspectives with external observations and student learning data to provide a more comprehensive picture of impact.

Furthermore, future studies might explore how to support and sustain such cross-institutional collaborative spaces systematically: the specific mechanisms that enable productive boundary-crossing between different institutional contexts; how insights from these collaborations can be translated into institutional policy and practice; and frameworks for creating and maintaining sustainable professional learning communities across organizational boundaries. Longitudinal studies could examine the long-term sustainability and evolution of such collaborative spaces, investigating particularly whether the “compensatory model” of relational and cultural factors sustaining collaboration continues to operate over extended periods or whether institutional support eventually becomes necessary. Comparative studies could explore differences between voluntary cross-institutional collaborations and institutionally mandated partnerships, examining whether mandated collaborations can develop the psychological safety and authentic engagement we observed in voluntary settings.

5. Conclusions

Our study demonstrates that collaborative spaces can be created and maintained across institutional boundaries, suggesting new possibilities for professional development in academic contexts that typically prioritize individual achievement over collaborative growth. The concept of a “third space” emerging from the interaction of different activity systems provides a powerful theoretical tool for understanding and fostering cross-institutional collaboration among teacher educators. Our findings challenge traditional assumptions about the necessity of shared institutional contexts for effective professional collaboration and point toward new models of professional development that leverage diversity as a resource for expansive learning.

In response to our research question, “How can teacher educators from different institutional contexts create a sustainable collaborative space for professional development through action research?”, we found that success depends on five key elements: negotiating shared cultural tools that mediate collective activity; establishing trust through authentic dialogue free from institutional competition; leveraging contradictions between institutional contexts as productive sources of learning; developing distributed leadership and flexible participation structures; and creating tangible outcomes that provide mutual benefit to all participants.