Conference Agenda

This joint symposium brings together researchers from Networks 22 and 26 who specialise in higher education and educational leadership research to examine how academic leaders across diverse higher education institutions (HEIs) seek to advance academic, civic and global missions, as well as the challenges they encounter in an increasingly polarised world.

In an increasingly competitive higher education sector measured by league tables, research outputs, social impact, and graduate employability, universities seeking to attract global talent, rely on strong academic leaders. Academic leaders are essential for fulfilling universities’ civic and global commitments and for demonstrating the power of research in addressing pressing global challenges (Beresford-Dey et al., 2024; Tian et al., 2023). The emergence of sub-specialisation necessitates a rethinking and re-conceptualisation of academic leadership in higher education (Macfarlane, 2006). Due to increasing specialisation and the unbundling of academic tasks, academic leadership encompasses individual agency, inclusive leadership, collaborative decision-making, and network governance, all of which shape academic practices and discourses related to addressing global challenges (Kusters et al., 2026; van Winkel et al., 2018).

In our theorisation, academic leaders are not defined merely as managers or administrators who make a deliberate shift from research to administrative work upon assuming formal leadership titles—such as deans, vice-chancellors, or presidents—within HEIs (Macfarlane et al., 2024). Rather, we abandon this new managerialist viewpoint and conceptualise academic leaders as prominent scholars who are recognised as thought leaders, advocates, activists, and change agents. These individuals excel not only in academic research but also in championing social and institutional change that contributes to a fairer and more sustainable world.

Some academic leaders hold formal leadership positions, while others operate as informal leaders and role models within their scholarly communities, influencing peers, students, policymakers, and wider societies. They practise inclusive leadership, actively support and elevate others, and are willing to challenge forms of injustice embedded within the higher education sector and broader society (Deem, 2009). This theorisation aligns closely with Macfarlane et al.’s (2024) reformist perspective on leadership in higher education.

This symposium seeks to develop a conceptual framework and provide empirical evidence on academic leadership that builds a fairer world, and fosters trust in polarised times by addressing three key questions:

1. What constitutes academic leadership for tackling global challenges in the natural and social world?
2. How do academic leaders build trust with colleagues, practitioners, learned societies, policymakers, and wider communities in polarised times?
3. How do universities support academic leaders and demonstrate the higher education sector’s irreplaceable role in addressing global challenges?

This symposium brings together empirical papers from four countries—the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Finland and Australia —to offer a global and analytically rich exploration of academic leadership in contemporary higher education. Each paper draws on in-depth studies to examine how academic leadership is constituted in context and how academic leaders construct and negotiate their agency, particularly in relation to the shifting expectations placed upon academics in an increasingly complex and polarised world.

Collectively, the papers investigate the types of global and societal challenges academic leaders seek to address through their research, teaching, and engagement with society and policy, including issues such as equity, sustainability, health, geopolitical and ideological tension, information technology, immigration, and social cohesion. Particular attention is paid to how academics exercise leadership both within and beyond their institutions, and to the ways in which HEIs position themselves as civic and global actors. By foregrounding lived experiences and context-sensitive practices, the symposium contributes to a deeper understanding of the role of academic leadership in responding to, and potentially mending, an increasingly polarised world.

Previous research has shown that, within the UK higher education context, administrative leadership, academic leadership, and teaching leadership are subtly differentiated. Administrative roles, such as heads of department, are often undertaken by academics who elect to assume additional responsibilities on a rotational or term-based basis, commonly perceived as a form of academic citizenship (Bolden et al., 2012, 2014; Macfarlane, 2006). Teaching leadership is expected of all academics who deliver learning content to students; however, it is distinguished from academic leadership, which is characterised by active research engagement, high levels of academic esteem, and recognised scholarly expertise within a particular knowledge domain, discipline, or subject area (Beerkens and Hoek, 2022; Rayner et al., 2010). In this study, we conceptualise academic leadership as a form of professional agency that extends beyond academic prowess alone. Academic leadership, as defined here, foregrounds academics’ social and ethical responsibilities to conduct ‘research that matters’, to translate scholarly knowledge into meaningful responses to pressing global challenges, and to contribute to positive change in both the human and natural worlds (Bolden et al., 2014; Rehbock, 2020). To explore this form of leadership empirically, we purposively selected 10 academic leaders from a diverse range of disciplines, including environmental science, education, health and medicine, data science, and political science. These academic leaders are actively tackling major global challenges such as climate change, geopolitical and ideological conflicts, large-scale human migration, global health crises, and persistent inequalities in education. The findings reveal how these academic leaders make sense of their professional identities through multiple, intersecting lenses: as academic citizens, research leads, citizens of the wider society, and change agents. Particular attention is given to how these leaders mobilise their scholarly expertise, professional networks, and social influence to build trust with key stakeholders, including policymakers, international organisations, learned societies, and local communities, in ways that drive positive and sustained change. The study also surfaces the challenges, tensions, and dilemmas these academic leaders encounter as they navigate competing expectations and structural constraints. In doing so, this study invites critical reflection on the evolving role of academics and the higher education sector in addressing global challenges in today’s complex and polarised world.

Beerkens M and Hoek M van der (2022) Academic leaders and leadership in the changing higher education landscape. In: Research Handbook on Academic Careers and Managing Academics. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 121–136. Bolden R, Gosling J and O’Brien A (2014) Citizens of the academic community? A societal perspective on leadership in UK higher education. Studies in Higher Education 39(5). Routledge: 754–770. Bolden, R, Gosling, J, O'Brien, A, Peters, K, Ryan, M, Haslam, S. A., et al. (2012). Academic leadership: changing conceptions, identities and experiences in UK Higher Education. University of Exeter. Report. https://hdl.handle.net/10871/15098 Macfarlane B (2006) The Academic Citizen: The Virtue of Service in University Life. London: Routledge. Rayner S, Fuller M, McEwen L, et al. (2010) Managing leadership in the UK university: a case for researching the missing professoriate? Studies in Higher Education 35(6). Routledge: 617–631. Rehbock SK (2020) Academic leadership: challenges and opportunities for leaders and leadership development in higher education. In: Modern Day Challenges in Academia. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 252–264.

Inclusive leadership provides powerful guidance for leaders in today's and tomorrow's academic work environments, providing proven benefits for both organizational culture and faculty's well-being and performance. Inclusive leadership is not merely a trend, but a crucial leadership approach that influences the experiences of employees at work and in the workplace (Korkmaz, 2024). Furthermore, Korkmaz (2024) concludes that inclusive leadership has the potential “to become an overarching leadership style that brings together essential relational leadership skills”. Against the backdrop of numerous leadership theories, inclusive leadership is proposed as a guiding framework for leaders in today's and future diverse work environments including higher professional education (Korkmaz 2024). However, the concept of inclusive leadership remains an abstract concept in higher education. Conceptualization and the development of common language is needed. More than 100 years of research on leadership has shown that the success of an organization depends on the leadership of its leaders (Thompson & Matkin, 2020). Various benefits of inclusive leadership are described in the literature. Inclusive leadership is described as essential for achieving future goals, creating and maintaining inclusive culture within groups and workplaces (Ferdman, 2013), developing talent (Schiltmans et al., 2023), facilitating and supporting both community and individuality (Randel et al., 2018), greater engagement and less tendency to leave, and it increases faculty's job satisfaction and performance (Çelik et al., 2013). Inclusive work environments foster members’ sense of belonging by valuing their contributions as essential to organizational success (Adjo et al., 2021) and align with the basic psychological needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence that underpin personal development and optimal functioning (Ryan & Deci, 2000).In this study, we examine whether inclusive leadership is recognizable and applicable in higher education. We collected data through a large-scale national survey among leaders and lecturers at universities of applied sciences in The Netherlands. The survey included items on inclusive academic leadership (Korkmaz, 2024), basic psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000), and the experience of an inclusive environment, with the dimensions underlying inclusive leadership encompassing these psychological needs (Korkmaz et al., 20220). Both teaching faculty members and their academic leaders were asked to complete the survey. To test the hypotheses and answer the sub- questions, inclusive leadership was measured using the items from the INCLEAD scale and the items from the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction at Work Scale.

Adjo, J., Maybank, A., & Prakash, V. (2021). Building Inclusive Work Environments. Pediatrics, 148, e2021051440E. Çelik, S., Ashikali, T., & Groeneveld, S. (2013). Diversiteitsinterventies en de binding van werknemers in de publieke sector: De rol van een inclusieve organisatiecultuur. Gedrag & Organisatie, 26(3). Ferdman, B. M. (2013). The Practice of Inclusion in Diverse Organizations. In B. M. Ferdman & B. R. Deane (ed.), Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion. Wiley. Korkmaz, V. A. (2024). The Realm of Inclusive Leadership: Insights into the What, Where, When, Why, and How. Tilburg University. Randel, A. E., Galvin, B. M., Shore, L. M., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., & Kedharnath, U. (2018). Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 190-203. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67. Schiltmans, J., & Davies, D. (2023). How to Be an Inclusive Leader in Higher Education. Journal of Higher Education Policy &Leadership Studies, 4(1), 7-20. Thompson, H., & Matkin, G. (2020). The Evolution of Inclusive Leadership Studies: A literature review. Journal of Leadership Education, 19(3).

Pedagogical leadership has become an established concept in Finnish higher education institutions (HEIs) and is widely regarded as central to institutional quality and success. Over the past fifteen years, Finnish-language scholarship has articulated increasingly systematic and accountable understandings of pedagogical leadership. Within HEIs, pedagogical leadership is commonly conceptualised as comprising three interrelated dimensions: (1) the management and leadership of pedagogical action, (2) leaders’ intentionally pedagogical modes of operating, and (3) leadership exercised through pedagogical thinking (Nevgi & Korhonen, 2016; Niinistö-Sivuranta & Mäki, 2022). These dimensions are linked by a participatory ideal, often articulated through the concept of distributed leadership (Kinnunen et al., 2024). This presentation starts from the observation that pedagogical leadership at HEIs is predominantly conceptualised as an internal and strategy-oriented practice (Elo & Uljens, 2023; Ripatti-Torniainen & Ilola, 2025). While strategic framing highlights the importance of pedagogy in contemporary HEIs, it also risks reducing pedagogical leadership to a form of strategic alignment and persuasion. This orientation generates tensions between strategically prioritised pedagogical initiatives and educational concerns that remain marginalised or excluded from institutional strategies (Ripatti-Torniainen & Stevanovic, 2023). Against this backdrop, the presentation argues for a more open-ended and plural interpretation of pedagogical leadership by foregrounding its public role. The argument draws on theories of publicness that conceptualise public communication as open, unpredictable, and grounded in an initial expectation of critique. Under such conditions, communication can develop in new and multi-voiced directions (Ripatti-Torniainen, 2018). From a pedagogical perspective, publicness is particularly significant in its capacity to foster reflective engagement with pressing societal issues. Over time, such engagement supports the development of public judgement across broader sections of the population (Yankelovich, 1991). This perspective is timely for European HEIs. Across national contexts, shifting political power relations increasingly manifest as rapid policy initiatives and demands concerning the mission, values, and purposes of higher education. Meaningful participation in such debates presupposes the ability to evoke resonance with the values and concerns of wider publics (McCammon, 2022), a capacity requiring sustained public presence and long-term communicative engagement. Simultaneously, societies and ecosystems face profound existential challenges, intensifying calls for higher education to articulate publicly its pedagogical potential for constructive societal transformation (Huttunen et al., 2022). By proposing an explicitly public role for pedagogical leadership, this presentation conceptualises pedagogical leadership as emancipatory practice materialising through continuous and long-standing dialogue among formal leaders, staff, students, and society at large.

Elo, J. & Uljens, M. (2023). Theorising pedagogical dimensions of higher education leadership—a non-affirmative approach. Higher Education, 85, 1281–1298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00890-0 Huttunen, R., Kakkori. L. & Värri, V-M. (2022). Ekokatastrofi ja kasvatuksen uusi imperatiivi. Kasvatus, 52(5), 484–496. https://doi.org/10.33348/kvt.114930 Kinnunen, P., Ripatti-Torniainen, L., Mickwitz, Å. & Haarala-Muhonen, A. (2024). Bringing clarity to the leadership of teaching and learning in HE: A systematic review. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 16(1), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-06-2022-0200 Nevgi, A. & Korhonen, V. (2016). Pedagoginen johtaminen yliopiston keskijohdon johtamistyössä. Kasvatus, 47(5), 419–433. Niinistö-Sivuranta, S. & Mäki, K. (2022). Ekososiaalista sivistystä edistävä pedagoginen johtaminen – Tapaustutkimus suomalaisten korkeakoulujen strategioiden kestävyysosaamisen tavoitteista. Ammattikasvatuksen aikakauskirja, 24(4), 28–45. https://journal.fi/akakk/article/view/125875 Ripatti-Torniainen, L. (2018). Becoming (a) public: What the concept of public reveals about a programmatic public pedagogy at the university. Higher Education, 75(6), 1015–1029. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0182-5 Ripatti-Torniainen, L. & Ilola, H. (accepted). Korkeakoulun pedagoginen johtaminen osaksi julkista keskustelua yhteiskunnassa. Prologi. https://doi.org/10.33352/prlg.148599 Ripatti-Torniainen, L. & Stevanovic, M. (2023). University teaching development workshops as sites of joint decision-making: Negotiations of authority in academic cultures. Learning, Culture & Social Interaction, 38, 100681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2022.100681 Yankelovich, D. (1991). Coming to public judgment: Making democracy work in a complex world. Syracuse University Press.

Australian higher education is highly corporatised after three decades of managerialism and marketisation and reliance on international students for research funding. Covid highlighted the precarity of academic work and lack of government support- financially and politically (Blackmore 2020). Multiple reviews of the higher education sector since have highlighted bad governance by university management—vice chancellor salaries, lack of expertise on university councils, casualisation and underpay of staff, failure to implement sexual harassment policies, and underrepresentation of academics and students in decision-making. Academics do not trust their managers and the role of the university as contributing to the public good has been lost (Blackmore 2023). Recent government moves include developing principles of good governance and a national oversight body to restore public trust but which also challenges university autonomy. These events have eroded academic voice in and outside the university. Add in public concerns over pro- Palestinian public and on-campus protests since 2023, followed by a terrorist attack by in December 2025 on Jewish celebrations at Bondi. Political responses are being criticised for restricting freedom of speech with implications for universities and academic freedom. In this context, academic leadership understood as distinct from executive management is even more critical but also more difficult. Progressive discourses (eg. of cultural safety) are being mobilised to shut down critical discussion. I utilise feminist theories of critical policy sociology (Bacchi 2012), social justice (Fraser 2008), democracy (Arendt 2009), and critical leadership (Jamison 2019) to analyse contemporary discourses and empirical studies of Australian universities. Restoring academic leadership requires considering ways in which academics can exercise their intellectual power and position to restore trust in universities as sites of informed debate about issues that matter in a democracy.

Arendt, H. (2009). Responsibility and Judgement, Penguin. Bacchi, C. (2012). Introducing What is the Problem Represented to Be (WPR) approach. https://carolbacchi.com/about/ Blackmore, J. (2020). ‘The carelessness of entrepreneurial universities in a world risk society: A feminist reflection on the impact of Covid 19 in Australia’, Higher Education Research & Development , 39 (7), 1332-1336. Blackmore, J. (2023). Disrupting leadership in the entrepreneurial university: Diversity and disengagement in Higher Education, Bloomsbury, London. Fraser, N. (2008). Scales of Justice, reimagining political space in a globalising world. Columbia UP. Jamison, J. (ed.) (2019). Critical university leadership international perspectives on leadership in higher education: Critical thinking for global challenges, Routledge.