功绩轨迹:重新审视精英大学的领导力

IF 3.1 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Sarah Aiston, Tanya Fitzgerald
{"title":"功绩轨迹:重新审视精英大学的领导力","authors":"Sarah Aiston, Tanya Fitzgerald","doi":"10.1080/00131911.2023.2267188","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTVice-Chancellors, Presidents, or Rectors occupy elite public positions in universities. A cursory glance of the roll call of names across elite universities (‘top 100') globally reveals the dominance of white males. Research has given us some insight into the profiles of these senior leaders and their selection, but not with a particular focus on elite universities. Our theoretical disquiet in this conceptual article is linked with an enduring unease that processes of formal and informal merit work to reproduce, not eradicate, deep inequities in the recruitment and appointment of Vice-Chancellors, Presidents, or Rectors at elite universities. In this article, we suggest that we need to rethink and reframe how we approach equality, diversity and inclusion in higher education leadership at elite universities. We propose a different set of questions need to be asked; questions about performative understandings of merit and meritocracy. We argue that underpinning rhetoric of meritocracy works as a visible and audible performative tool that offers an appearance of a just, fair, and neutral process, yet reinforces the sameness of leadership. In querying discourses of merit and troubling the façade of diversity we take an intersectional approach, moving beyond single and conventional forms of discrimination. This conceptual paper draws upon a range of literatures and illustrative biographical examples to highlight the critical importance of an intersectional analysis that situates merit as a form of advantage/disadvantage precisely because of the way in which these discourses are framed and enacted. Vice-Chancellors, Presidents, or Rectors occupy elite public positions in universities. A cursory glance of the roll call of names across elite universities (‘top 100’) globally reveals the dominance of white males. Research has given us some insight into the profiles of these senior leaders and their selection, but not with a particular focus on elite universities. Our theoretical disquiet in this conceptual article is linked with an enduring unease that processes of formal and informal merit work to reproduce, not eradicate, deep inequities in the recruitment and appointment of Vice-Chancellors, Presidents, or Rectors at elite universities. In this article, we suggest that we need to rethink and reframe how we approach equality, diversity and inclusion in higher education leadership at elite universities We propose a different set of questions need to be asked; questions about performative understandings of merit and meritocracy. We argue that underpinning rhetoric of meritocracy works as a visible and audible performative tool that offers an appearance of a just, fair, and neutral process, yet reinforces the sameness of leadership. In querying discourses of merit and troubling the façade of diversity we take an intersectional approach, moving beyond single and conventional forms of discrimination. This conceptual paper draws upon a range of literatures and illustrative biographical examples to highlight the critical importance of an intersectional analysis that situates merit as form of advantage/disadvantage precisely because of the way in which these discourses are framed and enacted.KEYWORDS: Leadershiphigher educationmeritocracyequality diversity and inclusioneliteVice-Chancellors and university Presidents Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).","PeriodicalId":47755,"journal":{"name":"Educational Review","volume":"5 22","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trajectories of merit: re-viewing leadership in elite universities\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Aiston, Tanya Fitzgerald\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00131911.2023.2267188\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACTVice-Chancellors, Presidents, or Rectors occupy elite public positions in universities. A cursory glance of the roll call of names across elite universities (‘top 100') globally reveals the dominance of white males. Research has given us some insight into the profiles of these senior leaders and their selection, but not with a particular focus on elite universities. Our theoretical disquiet in this conceptual article is linked with an enduring unease that processes of formal and informal merit work to reproduce, not eradicate, deep inequities in the recruitment and appointment of Vice-Chancellors, Presidents, or Rectors at elite universities. In this article, we suggest that we need to rethink and reframe how we approach equality, diversity and inclusion in higher education leadership at elite universities. We propose a different set of questions need to be asked; questions about performative understandings of merit and meritocracy. We argue that underpinning rhetoric of meritocracy works as a visible and audible performative tool that offers an appearance of a just, fair, and neutral process, yet reinforces the sameness of leadership. In querying discourses of merit and troubling the façade of diversity we take an intersectional approach, moving beyond single and conventional forms of discrimination. This conceptual paper draws upon a range of literatures and illustrative biographical examples to highlight the critical importance of an intersectional analysis that situates merit as a form of advantage/disadvantage precisely because of the way in which these discourses are framed and enacted. Vice-Chancellors, Presidents, or Rectors occupy elite public positions in universities. A cursory glance of the roll call of names across elite universities (‘top 100’) globally reveals the dominance of white males. Research has given us some insight into the profiles of these senior leaders and their selection, but not with a particular focus on elite universities. Our theoretical disquiet in this conceptual article is linked with an enduring unease that processes of formal and informal merit work to reproduce, not eradicate, deep inequities in the recruitment and appointment of Vice-Chancellors, Presidents, or Rectors at elite universities. In this article, we suggest that we need to rethink and reframe how we approach equality, diversity and inclusion in higher education leadership at elite universities We propose a different set of questions need to be asked; questions about performative understandings of merit and meritocracy. We argue that underpinning rhetoric of meritocracy works as a visible and audible performative tool that offers an appearance of a just, fair, and neutral process, yet reinforces the sameness of leadership. In querying discourses of merit and troubling the façade of diversity we take an intersectional approach, moving beyond single and conventional forms of discrimination. This conceptual paper draws upon a range of literatures and illustrative biographical examples to highlight the critical importance of an intersectional analysis that situates merit as form of advantage/disadvantage precisely because of the way in which these discourses are framed and enacted.KEYWORDS: Leadershiphigher educationmeritocracyequality diversity and inclusioneliteVice-Chancellors and university Presidents Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).\",\"PeriodicalId\":47755,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Review\",\"volume\":\"5 22\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2023.2267188\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2023.2267188","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要副校长、校长或校长在大学中担任精英公职。粗略地看一下全球精英大学的名单(“前100名”),就会发现白人男性占主导地位。研究让我们对这些高级领导人的个人资料和他们的选择有了一些了解,但并没有特别关注精英大学。在这篇概念性文章中,我们在理论上的不安与一种持久的不安有关,即正式和非正式的择优过程在精英大学的副校长、校长或校长的招聘和任命中再现而不是消除了深刻的不平等。在这篇文章中,我们建议我们需要重新思考和重新构建我们如何在精英大学的高等教育领导中对待平等、多样性和包容性。我们提出了一系列不同的问题;关于对功绩和精英政治的行为理解的问题。我们认为,精英统治的基础修辞作为一种可见和可听的表演工具,提供了一种公正、公平和中立的过程,但却强化了领导的同一性。在质疑功绩论和质疑多样性的公平性时,我们采取了交叉的方法,超越了单一和传统形式的歧视。这篇概念性的论文借鉴了一系列文献和说明性的传记例子,以强调交叉分析的重要性,这种分析将优点定位为优势/劣势的一种形式,正是因为这些话语的框架和制定方式。副校长、校长或校长在大学里担任精英公职。粗略地看一下全球精英大学的名单(“前100名”),就会发现白人男性占主导地位。研究让我们对这些高级领导人的个人资料和他们的选择有了一些了解,但并没有特别关注精英大学。在这篇概念性文章中,我们在理论上的不安与一种持久的不安有关,即正式和非正式的择优过程在精英大学的副校长、校长或校长的招聘和任命中再现而不是消除了深刻的不平等。在这篇文章中,我们建议我们需要重新思考和重新构建我们如何在精英大学的高等教育领导中实现平等、多样性和包容性。关于对功绩和精英政治的行为理解的问题。我们认为,精英统治的基础修辞作为一种可见和可听的表演工具,提供了一种公正、公平和中立的过程,但却强化了领导的同一性。在质疑功绩论和质疑多样性的公平性时,我们采取了交叉的方法,超越了单一和传统形式的歧视。这篇概念性的论文借鉴了一系列文献和说明性的传记例子,以强调交叉分析的重要性,这种交叉分析将优点定位为优势/劣势的形式,正是因为这些话语的框架和制定方式。关键词:领导力高等教育精英管理质量多样性和包容性精英副校长和大学校长披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Trajectories of merit: re-viewing leadership in elite universities
ABSTRACTVice-Chancellors, Presidents, or Rectors occupy elite public positions in universities. A cursory glance of the roll call of names across elite universities (‘top 100') globally reveals the dominance of white males. Research has given us some insight into the profiles of these senior leaders and their selection, but not with a particular focus on elite universities. Our theoretical disquiet in this conceptual article is linked with an enduring unease that processes of formal and informal merit work to reproduce, not eradicate, deep inequities in the recruitment and appointment of Vice-Chancellors, Presidents, or Rectors at elite universities. In this article, we suggest that we need to rethink and reframe how we approach equality, diversity and inclusion in higher education leadership at elite universities. We propose a different set of questions need to be asked; questions about performative understandings of merit and meritocracy. We argue that underpinning rhetoric of meritocracy works as a visible and audible performative tool that offers an appearance of a just, fair, and neutral process, yet reinforces the sameness of leadership. In querying discourses of merit and troubling the façade of diversity we take an intersectional approach, moving beyond single and conventional forms of discrimination. This conceptual paper draws upon a range of literatures and illustrative biographical examples to highlight the critical importance of an intersectional analysis that situates merit as a form of advantage/disadvantage precisely because of the way in which these discourses are framed and enacted. Vice-Chancellors, Presidents, or Rectors occupy elite public positions in universities. A cursory glance of the roll call of names across elite universities (‘top 100’) globally reveals the dominance of white males. Research has given us some insight into the profiles of these senior leaders and their selection, but not with a particular focus on elite universities. Our theoretical disquiet in this conceptual article is linked with an enduring unease that processes of formal and informal merit work to reproduce, not eradicate, deep inequities in the recruitment and appointment of Vice-Chancellors, Presidents, or Rectors at elite universities. In this article, we suggest that we need to rethink and reframe how we approach equality, diversity and inclusion in higher education leadership at elite universities We propose a different set of questions need to be asked; questions about performative understandings of merit and meritocracy. We argue that underpinning rhetoric of meritocracy works as a visible and audible performative tool that offers an appearance of a just, fair, and neutral process, yet reinforces the sameness of leadership. In querying discourses of merit and troubling the façade of diversity we take an intersectional approach, moving beyond single and conventional forms of discrimination. This conceptual paper draws upon a range of literatures and illustrative biographical examples to highlight the critical importance of an intersectional analysis that situates merit as form of advantage/disadvantage precisely because of the way in which these discourses are framed and enacted.KEYWORDS: Leadershiphigher educationmeritocracyequality diversity and inclusioneliteVice-Chancellors and university Presidents Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Review
Educational Review EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
3.00%
发文量
105
期刊介绍: Educational Review is a leading journal for generic educational research and scholarship. For over seventy years it has offered scholarly analyses of global issues in all phases of education, formal and informal. It publishes peer-reviewed papers from international contributors across a range of education fields and or perspectives including pedagogy and the curriculum, history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, international and comparative education and educational leadership. Articles offer original insights to formal and informal educational policy, provision, processes and practice and the experiences of all those involved in many countries around the world. The editors welcome high quality, original papers which encourage and enhance debate on social justice and critical enquiry in education, besides innovative new theoretical and methodological scholarship. The journal offers six editions a year. The Board invites proposals for special editions as well as commissioning them.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信