{"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}
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).
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.