Scholarlink

<p>This article examines the profound imbalance in scholarly research on university governance: while studies on leadership in higher education have proliferated globally, analyses of the processes through which leaders—rectors, presidents, and chancellors—are appointed remain scarce and theoretically underdeveloped. Drawing on systematic literature reviews and bibliometric evidence, this study shows that less than 5% of leadership-related publications address appointment mechanisms. This asymmetry reflects the dominance of managerialist and organizational paradigms that depoliticize governance and obscure the power struggles inherent in leadership selection. Adopting a political sociology perspective, this article contends that appointments are not neutral administrative acts but deeply political processes that shape institutional autonomy, academic freedom, and governance legitimacy. Rather than positing a direct causal relationship, this article interprets this asymmetry as reflecting broader epistemological tendencies associated with managerialist paradigms that privilege organizational analysis over political inquiry. The paper concludes by proposing a research agenda grounded in comparative and critical approaches to re-politicize governance studies and illuminate the contested nature of authority in higher education.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The politics of appointment: reframing leadership studies in higher education governance

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月1日

查看全文
  • Imanol Ordorika

摘要

This article examines the profound imbalance in scholarly research on university governance: while studies on leadership in higher education have proliferated globally, analyses of the processes through which leaders—rectors, presidents, and chancellors—are appointed remain scarce and theoretically underdeveloped. Drawing on systematic literature reviews and bibliometric evidence, this study shows that less than 5% of leadership-related publications address appointment mechanisms. This asymmetry reflects the dominance of managerialist and organizational paradigms that depoliticize governance and obscure the power struggles inherent in leadership selection. Adopting a political sociology perspective, this article contends that appointments are not neutral administrative acts but deeply political processes that shape institutional autonomy, academic freedom, and governance legitimacy. Rather than positing a direct causal relationship, this article interprets this asymmetry as reflecting broader epistemological tendencies associated with managerialist paradigms that privilege organizational analysis over political inquiry. The paper concludes by proposing a research agenda grounded in comparative and critical approaches to re-politicize governance studies and illuminate the contested nature of authority in higher education.