F1000Research F1000Research 2046-1402 F1000 Research Limited London, UK 10.12688/f1000research.146044.5 Systematic Review Articles Explicating collegiality and change management in neoliberalism during the dynamics of higher education institutions: A Systematic Literature Review using PRISMA Checklist

[version 5; peer review: 3 approved, 3 not approved]

 Ani Marlia Makna Conceptualization Data Curation Formal Analysis Funding Acquisition Investigation Methodology Project Administration Resources Software Validation Visualization Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4114-6518 1 Fahmy Rahmi Conceptualization Supervision Validation Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing a 1 Lukito Hendra Methodology Supervision Validation Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing 1 Games Donard Methodology Resources Supervision Validation Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing 1 Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Andalas, Padang, West Sumatra, 25000, Indonesia rahmifahmy@eb.unand.ac.id

No competing interests were disclosed.

 17 12 2025 2024 13 237 2 12 2025 Copyright: © 2025 Ani Marlia M et al. 2025 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Background

The neoliberal approach to higher education management has significantly transformed collegiality and university governance. This study identifies and analyzes how and where these changes have occurred, as well as their impact on the efficiency and competitiveness of universities. It addresses existing research gaps and provides new insights for adaptation strategies.

 Methods

We selected all retrieved sources based on the keywords and analyzed all the documents we obtained. This study obtained data from Scopus retrieved on October 27, 2023. There are 416 sources were retrieved in Scopus Database within 1971 to 2023 publication year, then 662 documents were obtained. This study utilized bibliometric analysis to ensure a structured review of the literature on collegiality, change management, and neoliberalism in higher education.

 Results

The findings show that organizational management, leadership, education, technology, curriculum, innovation, organizational change, decision-making, and human beings are significant trajectories of neoliberalism in higher education.

 Conclusions

This study offers other constructs for accelerating leadership success in higher education. This relates to how change leadership can navigate changes resulting from neoliberal ideology.

 change management collegiality neoliberalism NPM managerialism higher education The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Amendments from Version 4

This revised version incorporates several substantial improvements in response to the reviewers’ feedback. First, the introduction has been expanded to acknowledge key seminal works on neoliberalism and higher education governance, clarifying that this study addresses a methodological rather than a theoretical gap. The revised section explicitly recognizes foundational contributions by earlier scholars and explains how the present study extends this literature through a systematic literature review guided by the PRISMA framework. Second, the discussion now includes a new paragraph referencing Burton R. Clark’s (1998) Creating Entrepreneurial Universities, situating the study within the broader tradition of research on organizational transformation in universities. This addition strengthens the conceptual grounding and demonstrates how the study builds upon and updates Clark’s framework. Third, the manuscript has undergone detailed language and clarity revisions throughout, including improvements to the opening of the Discussion section to more clearly describe the influence of globalization as an external driver of change in higher education. Finally, the Conclusions section has been significantly revised to highlight the study’s novel contributions. The updated version emphasizes the integration of bibliometric and systematic review methods, the identification of eight emerging thematic areas, and the extension of Lewin’s change management framework to contemporary neoliberal contexts. These revisions collectively enhance the paper’s theoretical depth, methodological transparency, and global relevance.

 Introduction

The intersection of globalization, neoliberalism, and higher education has created unprecedented pressures for organizational transformation in universities worldwide. This systematic review examines how neoliberal ideologies have transformed university governance, with particular focus on their impact on collegiality and change management processes. These transformations represent a fundamental shift from traditional models of academic governance toward market-oriented approaches that prioritize efficiency, accountability, and competition ( Croucher & Lacy, 2022; Gaus et al., 2020). Traditionally, before the 1980s, universities were established for public and collegial management aimed at public welfare, which was considered the best way to manage all the unique attributes of universities. Before neoliberalism, universities were influenced by the ideology of managerialism, which radically uprooted this idea ( Fleming, 2020). The adoption of neoliberal ideology in the form of New Public Management (NPM) or New Managerialism has shifted the traditional approach to what is said to be a corporate or business approach ( Ajayan & Balasubramanian, 2020; Fleming, 2020; Martin-Sardesai, Guthrie, Tooley, & Chaplin, 2019).

Osborne and Gaebler (1992) developed the NPM in the context of the United States, which has promoted the principles of business in Higher Education through value for money, quality assurance, monitoring, evaluation, auditing, and accountability ( Ajayan & Balasubramanian, 2020; Gaus et al., 2020; Gaus, Tang, & Akil, 2019; Gaus & Hall, 2015). Integrating the concept of corporatization or commercial practices into higher education and academia and using performance-based metrics indicates government control ( Gaus & Hall, 2016) and coercion disguised through technological policies ( Foucault, 1982). This undermines academic independence and autonomy, resulting in the prioritization of financial interests in public service administration, commonly referred to as a “money culture”.

The theoretical foundation for our analysis draws from Lewin’s ( Lewin, 1947) three-stage model of organizational change: unfreezing, changing, and refreezing. This framework allows us to conceptualize how universities navigate the tensions between established academic values and emerging market imperatives. We employ this model to analyze how neoliberal forces have “unfrozen” traditional governance structures, initiated organizational “change” through market mechanisms, and attempted to “refreeze” new institutional arrangements that balance academic and market values.

Despite the corrosive effects of the NPM agenda on higher education and the work of academia, it continues to evolve in higher education worldwide ( Christopher, 2012a; Haake, 2009; Hossan, 2015; Middlehurst, 2004; Yokoyama, 2006), including Indonesia ( Gaus, 2019b; Gaus et al., 2020, 2019; Gaus & Hall, 2015, 2016). The governments of Malaysia and Thailand strongly believe in the doctrine of neo-liberalism, believing that implementing market concepts and strategies would enhance service delivery and foster good governance in the public sector ( Gaus & Tang, 2023; Taib & Abdullah, 2015). These changes affected each university’s mission, values, and overall operations at different levels of change.

Some researchers have discussed the application of NPM/managerialism in higher education, such as Mok (1999), in his study of higher education sectors in Hong Kong, stating that implementing managerialism has led organizations to adopt a more “customer-oriented” approach and treat consumers. Kalfa and Taksa (2016) found that institutions that follow the practice of managerialism focus on developing robust relationships with stakeholders, such as industries that expect graduates to have the skills to obtain employment. Thus, managerialism requires universities to be more entrepreneurial in terms of having alternative earnings mechanisms ( Ajayan & Balasubramanian, 2020). However, Nickson (2014) lamented that colleges may be able to sacrifice academic freedom and collegiality to obtain alternative sources of income. Gaus and Tang (2023) espoused NPM from the application of neoliberal ideology with its economic rationality leading to the corporatization of higher education has preserved the business lexicon, such as individualism, competence, effectiveness, and efficiency, where individual and personal interests take precedence over the interests of society.

This is in line with Fleming’s (2020) expressed as The Dark Academia, which revealed that the transformation resulting from neoliberal currents had changed universities to become more corporative, more commercial, and universities such as Edu Factory, which produce mass and make students as consumers who need to be satisfied and served, while lecturers become factors of production and isolated from the ideal world. Where the lecturer profession is a lifestyle, not everyone can enter it. Academics are highly trained specialists who have dedicated themselves and time to the grueling study of their chosen discipline. No one in the organization, including the university’s line manager, is more knowledgeable about their teaching and research fields. A simple top-down hierarchy does not work in this setting and becomes a barrier. Unlike manual workers, who have to produce a certain amount that can be quantified, academic work is abstract and cannot be driven by performance incentives like factories, but academics carry out the profession in this sector wholeheartedly.

The government is closely associated with neoliberalism in its role as a regulatory authority. This ideology seeks to address inefficiencies in the public sector by implementing corporate practice. The aim is to make universities more efficient, productive, customer-oriented, and accountable ( Ajayan & Balasubramanian, 2020). The World Bank, UNESCO, and OECD endorse the evolving perspective that education may be treated as a tradable asset with the potential to generate lucrative revenue ( Lynch, 2015). Universities worldwide face the challenge of adapting to the growing number of “business-like” Higher Education institutions. This necessitates a shift towards a more entrepreneurial approach, focusing on achieving greater efficiency and improving overall quality ( Robertson, 2010). In addition, the rise of managerialism/new Public Management (NPM) in the higher education sector is motivated by the need to showcase academic standards (quality assurance/QA) and research output to secure government and industry funding, predominantly contingent on performance. Additionally, there is a need to enhance an institution’s reputation to attract both local and international students ( Ajayan & Balasubramanian, 2020).

Various phenomena that arise due to the adoption of the ideology of neoliberalism also seem to cause other corrosive effects, especially pressure from various stakeholders in higher education; the primary sources of pressure on universities are students, the government, the business world, and local communities. This has resulted in universities having to seriously examine their management and governance. Carbone et al. (2019) found that higher education that nurtures the value of collegiality tends to be more successful in managing change by maintaining the quality of the education. However, the study involved only one institution of higher education and the findings may not be generalizable to other contexts. On the other hand, Brown and Edmunds (2020) showed that neoliberalism often encourages higher education to sacrifice collegiality for efficiency and competition. This can lead to tension between lecturers and university management, which may affect the quality of the education.

Furthermore, in Europe and the United States, research indicates that these changes have led to a decline in academic collegiality, where relationships among academics have become more competitive and less collaborative ( Lawless & Chen, 2016). In Indonesia, a similar phenomenon is observed at Gadjah Mada University and the University of Indonesia, where studies show that the adoption of neoliberal principles has diminished the spirit of collegiality among academics ( Sahoo, 2023). This reflects a global trend in which universities are transitioning from public missions to market-oriented entities, potentially undermining academic integrity and collaboration ( Tyson et al., 2020).

These changes also impact the quality of governance in higher education institutions. A study in Saudi Arabia revealed that less than one-third of the surveyed faculty members received training in corporate governance practices, indicating a lack of preparedness to meet the demands of neoliberalism in education ( Omar et al., 2022). In Indonesia, this is evident in how higher education policies are increasingly influenced by market logic, leading to a reduction in support for academic collaboration and an increased focus on measurable outcomes ( Kabir, 2013). Thus, the adoption of neoliberalism not only alters the management of universities but also transforms the social and professional relationships within them, which in turn affects the quality of education provided.

Thus, previous governance models based on collegiality may not be fully sustained considering customer pressure regarding business-like expectation responses in dynamic settings ( Davies, Hides, & Casey, 2001). While seminal works such as Slaughter and Rhoades (2004), Bauer, Bleiklie, Kogan, and Henkel (2006), Sörlin (2007), and Deem (2011) have thoroughly examined neoliberalism and new managerialism in higher education, most of these studies have taken qualitative or conceptual approaches to explore institutional and academic change. However, there remains a methodological gap in understanding how these concepts have evolved and interacted over time across global higher education contexts. Therefore, this study extends previous research by employing a systematic literature review using the PRISMA framework, aiming to map publication trends, conceptual relationships, and thematic developments on collegiality, change management, and neoliberalism in higher education. This approach provides a comprehensive, data-driven understanding that complements the theoretical insights of earlier works.

This research provides three research questions as follows:

How does neoliberalism erode collegiality in higher education? This question examines the specific mechanisms through which market-oriented approaches undermine traditional collegial relationships and decision-making processes.

How does the ideology of neoliberalism establish patterns of change in higher education? This question investigates the structural and procedural transformations that neoliberal approaches introduce into university governance.

What management and governance models can enhance university competitiveness while addressing neoliberal challenges? This question explores adaptive strategies that balance market imperatives with academic values.

An important foundational contribution to this field is the work of Burton R. Clark (1998b), who introduced the concept of the entrepreneurial university as an organizational pathway of transformation. Clark demonstrated that universities evolve through structural diversification, strengthened steering cores, and closer interaction with their external environments. His framework provides a critical lens for understanding how higher education institutions adapt to neoliberal pressures by integrating market-oriented practices while seeking to maintain academic values. Building on this tradition, the present study extends Clark’s ideas by systematically examining global research trends and thematic developments related to collegiality, change management, and neoliberalism in higher education.

 Literature review

Change management in higher education

Change management provides the theoretical foundation for understanding transformations in higher education institutions. Lewin’s (1947) seminal three-stage model—unfreezing, changing, and refreezing—offers a structured framework for analyzing how universities respond to neoliberal pressures. This model, recognized as the theoretical basis for modern change approaches ( Aldulaimi & Abdeldayem, 2020; Vlachopoulos, 2021), describes change as a process beginning with awareness of need (unfreezing), followed by implementation of new approaches (changing), and culminating in stabilization of new practices (refreezing).

Organizational change is necessary when organizations are no longer in harmony with their outward setting and existence is vulnerable ( Price & Chahal, 2006; Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis, 2011). However, organizations continually encounter fierce struggles under pressure that require them to adjust their strategies, technologies, and other processes to survive ( Almanei et al., 2018). Change is a steady, continuous process, and not just a situation that occurs once ( Almanei et al., 2018). Change management is a discipline that provides the transition among individuals, teams, or entire managed organizations to lead and guide the process to the desired state by solving various types of resistance ( Almanei et al., 2018).

Based on several theories about change management that have been explained by Lewin’s theory ( Lewin, 1947) is the most critical concept of change methods development ( Aldulaimi & Abdeldayem, 2020) and is the theoretical basis for modern change models ( Vlachopoulos, 2021) which are built from the first three stages of change, unfreezing, which is the process of awareness about the need or need to change. Second, changing/moving is a step action to strengthen driving forces or reduce resistance, and third, refreezing is bringing the organization back to a new equilibrium, better known as a new dynamic equilibrium, and researchers make this theory a grand theory of change management in this study.

Neoliberalism and Its Manifestations in Higher Education

Neoliberalism in higher education manifests primarily through three interconnected mechanisms: corporatization, marketization, and managerialism. Corporatization involves adopting business practices in university operations, emphasizing efficiency and measurable outcomes ( Gaus & Tang, 2023). Marketization positions education as a commodity within a competitive marketplace where students become consumers and universities become service providers ( Lynch, 2015). Managerialism introduces performance metrics, quality assurance mechanisms, and hierarchical decision-making structures that prioritize administrative control over collegial governance ( Ajayan & Balasubramanian, 2020).

The tension between collegiality and neoliberal governance

Collegiality—characterized by shared governance, collaborative decision-making, and peer-based quality assurance—represents traditional academic culture ( Yokoyama, 2006). This approach emphasizes professional autonomy, disciplinary expertise, and collective responsibility for institutional direction. Neoliberal governance models, conversely, emphasize hierarchical authority, standardized performance metrics, and market responsiveness ( Christopher, 2012a).

The tension between these models creates significant challenges for university leadership. Research indicates that institutions maintaining collegial values tend to manage change more effectively while preserving educational quality ( Carbone et al., 2019). However, market pressures often incentivize efficiency over collaboration, creating governance dilemmas ( Brown & Edmunds, 2020).

Universities have undergone significant changes in governance and management. This has been well-documented in various studies ( Bolden, Petrov, & Gosling, 2009; Clegg & McAuley, 2005; Enders, De Boer, & Leisyte, 2008; Hamlin & Patel, 2017; Smith, 2005; Vuori, 2015). Traditionally, the College is governed by policies that administrative leaders manage. However, changes driven by various stakeholders make today’s universities manage business management ( Davies et al., 2001; Gaus et al., 2020; Gaus & Tang, 2023). These changes have led to academic field transformation in universities into business units run by management, focusing on targets such as companies that work under tight budget limits ( Fleming, 2020; Waring, 2017). Based on the literature, a comprehensive analysis of the central changes that occur in universities is presented as a concept map of changes in universities as shown in Figure 1.

Concept Map of Changes in Universities ( <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref64">Lewin, 1951</xref>). Methods The design of the study

This research employs a systematic literature review methodology guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Checklist to ensure comprehensive and transparent reporting ( Marlia et al., 2024). The systematic approach allows for rigorous examination of how neoliberalism influences collegiality and change management in higher education institutions through a structured evaluation of existing literature.

We utilize bibliometric analysis as our primary analytical approach, implemented through Biblioshiny software version 4.0. This method was selected because bibliometric studies effectively identify trends within research fields, assess productivity of journals and authors, and integrate mathematical and statistical models to provide comprehensive analysis ( Gumus et al., 2018).

The systematic review process included several quality assurance mechanisms. We employed the PRISMA Checklist to guide our search strategy, screening process, and data extraction. Additionally, we conducted risk of bias assessment for individual studies to evaluate methodological quality and reliability of findings. This assessment helped identify potential sources of heterogeneity related to study design and reporting quality, allowing us to appropriately weight studies in our synthesis based on methodological rigor.

This method allows researchers to examine abstracts, keywords, and references to specific field studies to reveal their authors, countries, journals, and institutions and can generate scientific collaboration between researchers worldwide. Despite the increase in bibliometric interest in various academic fields, studies using this method are still interesting to explore further in the field of study of each researcher.

 Data collection and analysis

We selected all retrieved sources based on the keywords and analyzed all the documents we obtained. This study obtained data from Scopus retrieved on October 27, 2023, using the following keywords: (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“collegiality”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“change management”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“neolibelism”)) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“higher education”). After that, 416 sources were retrieved in Scopus Database within 1971 to 2023 publication year, then 662 documents were obtained ( Marlia et al., 2024). In the primary information as shown in Figure 2 and Table 1, it can be seen that there are 662 documents consists of 198 documents that only have single authors with the number of authors consisting of 1401 authors. Of the 1401 authors, approximately 13.14% were listed as international writers; each author wrote an average of 234 articles.

Primary information. Primary information.
Description Results
Data on primary information
Timespan 1971:2023
Sources (Journals, Books, etc.) 416
Documents 662
Annual growth rate % 7,93
Document average age 8,67
Average citations per doc 15,98
References 25413
Contents
Keywords plus (ID) 1021
Author’s keywords (DE) 1729
Authors
Authors 1401
Authors of single-authored docs 198
Collaboration
Single-authored docs 213
Co-Authors per doc 2,34
International co-authorships % 13,14
Types
article 446
book 22
book chapter 68
conference paper 85
conference review 2
editorial 2
note 4
review 33

Table 1 shows that, based on document type, most (446 documents) are articles, and the rest are books, book chapters, conference papers, editorials, notes, and reviews.

We visually display the results of individual studies and syntheses. Tabular presentation of data from individual studies, including author names, publication years, affiliations, and key findings related to collegiality, change management, and neoliberalism in higher education. Comparative tables to highlight differences or similarities between studies in terms of methodologies, results, and implications. Visualization of keyword networks to show relationships between key concepts such as higher education, change management, collegiality, and neoliberalism. Visual representation of the frequency of words or keywords related to collegiality, change management, and neoliberalism in higher education, with the size of each word indicating its occurrence in the articles. Displaying the top 100 words based on the word cloud found in articles, with the size of each word representing the number of occurrences in the article titles. Visual representation of changes in universities influenced by neoliberalism, based on Lewin’s model ( Lewin, 1951). By utilizing these methods for tabulating and visually displaying results, we could present a comprehensive overview of the individual studies and syntheses related to collegiality, change management, and neoliberalism in higher education, facilitating a better understanding of the complex dynamics within this academic domain.

Based on Lewin’s model of change in universities, concept mapping was used to illustrate the transformation processes influenced by neoliberalism in higher education. This method provides a structured framework for understanding the changes occurring in educational organizations and the adoption of new practices. Bibliometric analysis was used to analyze the productivity of authors, journals, and institutions in collegiality, change management, and neoliberalism in higher education. This method helps identify trends, collaborations, and impact within the academic community, providing quantitative insights into research output. We also assessed the quality of individual studies through tools like the PRISMA Checklist ( Marlia et al., 2024) or risk of bias assessment can help identify sources of heterogeneity related to study design, methodology, or reporting. By evaluating study quality, we can determine the reliability and validity of results and assess the impact of study quality on overall findings.

 Ethical considerations

We also involved two fresh professors for data interpretation review. They confirmed our data regarding the Scopus sources and our data interpretation to Biblioshiny output. This study is conducted under ethical approval from Institutional Review Board of Andalas University through ethical approval number: 314/UN16.05/S3.M/2023 on October 2 nd, 2023.

 Results

The findings of this research are structured to directly address the established research questions. First, the discussion focuses on how neoliberalism erodes collegiality within universities, presenting supporting data for each finding through relevant visualizations. Subsequently, the patterns of change identified in response to neoliberal pressures are explained. Finally, the emerging management and governance strategies derived from the data are outlined as responses to the challenges posed by neoliberalism.

Data analysis with bibliometrics on the trend of research development is presented in this study through several visualizations, such as publication productivity from year to year, from publication in 1971 to 2023, and the results of analysis from the world cloud and Tree Map as a whole present trends in researchers’ discussions about the relationships between collegiality, change management, and neoliberalism in higher education. Researchers in this case also criticize the field of study, which is mostly discussed based on the results of this study. Researchers expect to make significant contributions to the literature. We believe that university leaders must prioritize some issues related to the impact of neoliberal ideology that must be executed with change management in universities without obscuring the initial philosophy or nature of higher education. The following are the results and visualizations of the data analysis using bibliometrics:

Publication productivity

Annual Scientific Production monitors the growth of scientific work production over time. In Figure 3, it can be seen that there was an increase in articles from year to year, with a significant spike occurring from 2017 to 2018. This means that there has been an increase in productivity related to studies that discuss the relationships between collegiality, change management, and neoliberalism in higher education. This productivity is also supported by the high average number of citations per year, which has also increased. This is illustrated in Figure 4.

Annual scientific production. Average article citation per year.

This study searched for articles that discussed the relationship between collegiality, change management, and neoliberalism in higher education. Ten sources are the most relevant in Figure 5:

15 documents in International Journal of Educational Management

11 documents in Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management

10 documents in Tertiary Education and Management

9 documents in Higher Education

9 documents in Innovations in Education and Teaching International

9 documents in Journal of Organizational Change Management

8 documents in Higher Education Research and Development

8 documents in Studies in Higher Education

8 documents in Sustainability (Switzerland)

7 documents in International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education

Most relevant sources.

These sources are also supported by the sources’ local impact according to the H-index ( Figure 6), which shows that most relevant sources also have a high H-index. This indicates that journals in higher education dominate collegiality, change management, and neoliberalism. This could mean that those affected more by neoliberalism are nonprofit organizations in the education sector, especially in higher education. The researchers with the most relevance can be seen in Figure 7, namely those with articles published and indexed by Scopus until October 27, 2023. In Figure 7, it can be seen that researchers have relevance related to the relationship between collegiality, change management, and neoliberalism in higher education, which has the most significant relevance, namely Lazano R. and Tapper T. (6 documents), Amaral A., Carvalho T., and Palfreyman D. (5 documents), Angehrn AA and Maxwell K. (4 documents), Ameen K, Awais S., and Blackmore J. (three documents). Most relevant authors are also supported by authors’ production over time ( Figure 8), whereas researchers in most relevant authors are also authors’ production over time.

Sources’ local impact by H-Index. Most relevant authors. Authors’ production over time. Most relevant affiliations and countries

This section provides information about the affiliations that are most actively publishing scientific articles until 2023 related to the relationship among collegiality, change management, and neoliberalism in higher education according to Figure 9: Monash University (27 documents), University of The Sunshine Coast (18 documents), University of Massachusetts (10 documents), Curtin University (9 documents), Edinburgh Napier University (9 documents), Kennesaw State University (8 documents), University of Oulu (8 documents), Macquarie University (7 documents), National University of Science and Technology (Misis) (7 documents), and Texas A And M University (7 documents). The majority of affiliations related to relationships between collegiality, change management, and neoliberalism in higher education are still dominated by institutions from Australia and America while based on countries whose authors as correspondence are dominated by the United Kingdom, USA, Australia, Malaysia, South Africa, India, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Canada, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Netherlands, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates ( Figure 10).

Most relevant affiliations. Corresponding author’s countries.

The analysis of this author’s affiliation was intended to determine the affiliation that has resulted in many scientific publications on collegiality, change management, and neoliberalism in higher education. The results of this analysis can be used as a reference for future researchers to be used as a reference source for writing advanced articles and collaboration between authors, institutions, journal publication targets, and others.

 Co-occurrence network

Figure 11 shows a visualization of the keyword network, color, circle size, and font size. Meanwhile, the thickness of the connecting lines indicates the strength of the relationship between the keywords. The keywords in the image are displayed in the same color and are interconnected. For example, higher education and humans have larger font sizes than others, but have different colors. The line between higher education and change management in human beings shows a close relationship, and researchers have discussed much of the link between these two themes. Figure 10 shows that collegiality, change management, and neoliberalism in higher education are related to humans/humans, organizational innovation, learning, curriculum, organization, and management.

Co-occurrence Network. Word Cloud and Treemap

Figures 12 and 13 show the top 100 words based on the word cloud found in all articles on collegiality, change management, and neoliberalism in higher education, obtained as of October 2023. The size of each word represents the number of occurrences in the article’s title. The words shown in Figure 12 are title words trending toward collegiality, change management, and neoliberalism in higher education research that are integrated with other variables. The largest color indicates the most popular research title, whereas the same color indicates a connection. In Figure 12, the World Cloud appears irregular, but the dominant word in scientific publications is placed at the center to make it more visible with the maximum font.

Word cloud. Tree map.

Interconnected keywords are shown in the same color. For example, change management and education have color similarities of different sizes to show a close relationship. From Figure 13, it can also be seen that collegiality, change management, and neoliberalism in higher education are related to organization and management, leadership, curriculum, organizational innovation, organizational change, decision making, and humans. This can be interpreted as the relationship between collegiality, change management, and neoliberalism in higher education is related to leadership, organizational change, management, and humans.

This is supported by Croucher and Lacy (2022), which states that, in many changes that occur in higher education, a central role played by the holder of positions of authority and the culture of neoliberalism can be implemented through policies set by university leaders through budgeting mechanisms and internal organizational policies related to university governance. This opinion is in line with that of Osseo-Asare, Longbottom, and Murphy (2005), who conducted studies at Australian universities and stated that the ideology of neoliberalism has crossed the space of traditional liberalism. The institutional form of universities with a line management chain model that better maintains the philosophy of collegiality by maintaining a more collegial structure or democracy in a flatter structure has changed to a hierarchical model of authority that emphasizes more hierarchical market forces based on management dictated over the performance of work in the principal-agent chain of command. As the power of neoliberalism and corporate culture intensifies in universities, there are some things that can be seen as directly changing from the human side, such as changing the language used to present and evaluate human behavior and actions ( Giroux, 2002).

A shift in college management has occurred in many countries worldwide, with varying positive and negative outcomes ( Hamlin & Patel, 2017). Mercer (2009) and Ajayan and Balasubramanian (2020) in their research said that there are four things related to the ideology of neoliberalism in the form of managerialism in universities: 1) increasing internal and external accountability of organizations, where universities have to control the quality of research and teaching based on output, especially graduation rates, publications, and performance indicators; 2) related to the marketization of universities, where universities are becoming more customer-oriented and stimulated academic competition for students, such as getting published in reputable journals; 3) increased emphasis on efficiency where there are restrictions on government and universities funding are required to be able to provide maximum services by reducing service costs; and 4) managerialism promotes entrepreneurial activities by building solid relationships with various stakeholders, collaborating with industry, and finding various alternative short-term and long-term revenue mechanisms to generate revenue. However, this may come at the expense of academic freedom and collegiality ( Nickson, 2014). Following some of these assumptions, we can understand that implementing neoliberal ideology in the form of NPM/ managerialism has shifted the identity of higher education collegiality towards governance that prioritizes corporatization management.

An exciting thing that researchers want to criticize here after seeing the results of the bibliometric analysis is the idea of thinking of world scholars. If universities prioritize market forces, what about collegiality in higher education? The theoretical foundation of corporate culture and its role in corporate governance are principally derived from agency theory ( Ballantine, Berle, & Means, 1932; Christopher, 2012b). This theory is certainly more in favor of the interests of principals (shareholders), while university management is certainly very different. Therefore, the impact of changes resulting from the implementation of neoliberalism on collegiality in universities must be balanced, lest the values that universities should carry in creating community welfare through the development of science and social justice for the entire community is eroded by the corrosive effect created by market culture that prioritizes business agendas in universities ( Croucher & Lacy, 2022; Gaus & Tang, 2023). Do not allow the common goal of establishing universities to create community welfare further away from the original goal. Therefore, each university must realize that this change is inevitable, but must be able to immediately adapt to all the consequences of adapting to the new environment created by the ideology of neoliberalism, which presents some significant challenges for change and increasing the competitiveness of universities.

 Discussion

Globalization has been a major driving force behind the transformations discussed in the higher education literature, shaping institutional reforms and academic practices that this review analyzes. Changes in higher education have several dimensions. One of the dimensions of globalization is neoliberalism, which implements market forces in higher education. This paradigm shift presents several consequences in higher education, not only on the education side but also on the governance of universities. The results of the bibliometric analysis of the articles used in this study presented a clear and broad view. In this article, we also want to provide a view in accordance with what the researcher captured from a review of research results from previous researchers with a tendency to focus on research in the last five years. Although not in their entirety, the selected articles are featured in this review.

As discussed earlier, the implementation of the ideology of neoliberalism has been widely studied and has attracted the attention of several researchers ( Fleming, 2020; Gaus & Tang, 2023; Gaus et al., 2019). The term neoliberalism is more familiar with the terms corporatization, managerialism/new public management (NPM), and accountability, which explicitly reduce government interference and replace it with the market, assuming that the market is considered the most effective allocator of resources, can encourage innovation and the ability to be entrepreneurial. Universities affected by neoliberalism tend to become more market-oriented , considering technology/digitalization in universities, such as the emergence of many virtual universities, and it is increasingly important for universities to collaborate with strategic alliances and partners to form networking for universities ( Dopson et al., 2019).

Neoliberalism in higher education has become an increasingly significant topic in academic discourse, particularly concerning its impact on collegiality and academic freedom. Research conducted in various countries, including Sweden and Australia, indicates that the growing market orientation within universities has altered academic structures and cultures. For instance, Macfarlane (2019) illustrate how academic norms have shifted in an era of high performativity, where academics feel compelled to compete and produce measurable outputs.

In Australia, government-led higher education reforms, as described by Bay (2011), have created an environment where universities operate more as corporate entities than as public institutions. These reforms emphasize the importance of accountability and performance measurement, which, in turn, diminishes the space for collegiality and free academic discourse. This trend is also evident in the study by Olssen and Peters (2005), which demonstrates that neoliberalism has transformed higher education into an arena of intense competition, where knowledge is treated as a commodity.

Our findings also reflect previous research in Southeast Asia, where the influence of neoliberalism is evident in changes to university governance. Hwami (2013) indicates that in Zimbabwe, neoliberal policies have led to the privatization and commercialization of higher education, creating inequities and enriching elites. This suggests that, despite differing local contexts, similar patterns can be observed across various countries, including Southeast Asia, where universities are also adapting to more corporatized governance models.

By expanding this context, we can better understand how similar or divergent findings emerge in both local and global contexts. Phillips (2017) emphasizes that the presence of neoliberalism in Australian higher education has transformed the university research environment, impacting the employability of graduate students. This indicates that the effects of neoliberalism are not confined to educational policies but also permeate daily practices within universities, influencing how academics and students interact and collaborate.

This study summarizes some of the changes in higher education as an influence of adopting neoliberalism, addressing eight central issues related to autonomy, quality assurance (QA), internationalization, market orientation, managerialism, entrepreneurialism, digitalization, collaboration, and leadership. Researchers expect these eight issues to contribute to leaders in higher education making strategic decisions to institute changes in their universities. As input material on the pattern of changes in the orientation of higher education governance, we also complete this research from several points of view, including the differences between educational and business organizations (see Table 2).

Differences between business organizations and educational organizations.
Viewpoint Business organization Educational organization
Policy Market-oriented Speak knowledge
Organizational focus Efficiency of operations through achieving maximum profit at minimum cost for survival and growth in the face of competition Provide professional services where well-being is considered to be the primary concern of the organization’s services
Institutional role A business is a provider/producer Universities are service providers, regulators, and standards makers
Control In a heteronomous organization, the presence and absence of resources controlled by managers Professional workers carry out autonomous organizations and the presence and absence of control over resources.
Decentralization Decentralized to improve adaptability to flexible markets ( Kreysing, 2002) A decentralized organizational structure might bring strong particularistic interest
Leadership

Traditional. Business leadership is based on the concept that leaders are central to task performance and maintenance of human resource output, emphasizing individual performance equality

Contemporary. Business leadership is to promote adaptive change by developing a vision of the future and a change strategy

Traditional. Academic leadership is characterized by personal academic achievements such as publications in accredited journals, international conferences, and responsibility for academic development

Contemporary. Academic leadership focuses on leadership qualities, effective and efficient administrative mechanisms, and nuances of interpersonal relationships and empathy

Leader role The role of the leader is to overcome crisis (financial) The role of the leader as an ideology of heroism is not only in times of crisis
Prosecutor central The Central Actor is the manager The central actors are the central leadership and faculty
Decision Hierarchical levels in the organizational structure are used as the basis for decision-making In collegial relationships, decision-making is seen as a process; competence is more important than ranking in organizations
Central issues Customer satisfaction is a central issue Intellectual freedom is at the core of the goal of truth-seeking and knowledge creation
Customer Customers are at the core of quality Graduate and Student Users
Quality indicators Customer Satisfaction is a key indicator of quality More than satisfying customers, but to shape the behavior of stakeholders
Administrator roles Administrator roles protect the interests of institutions and customers Education completion services
Academic Academics are viewed as employees by institutions, as members of the communities they support, and also as contributors to ministry causes Academics have freedom, which is veto power over every decision made by the institution
Performance Relying on remuneration Rely on moral engagement and expressive performance
Performance measurement Performance measurement is a straightforward and considerable technical procedure (customer satisfaction) Performance evaluation is complex and not only dominated by customer satisfaction
Accountability vs. moral conviction As an important fact, managers carry out an ethics of accountability or consider the possible consequences pragmatically Academics are grounded in core ethical values and moral convictions
Price vs. value Price is everything Value is everything
Knowledge Knowledge is a commodity Knowledge is adventure
Output Output can be easily measured Output is much more difficult to measure, and measurements are rarely made

( Ajayan & Balasubramanian, 2020; Fahmi, 2009; Fugazzotto, 2012; Prysor & Henley, 2018).

The acceleration of change in each university will differ depending on how much the organization is ready to respond to challenges and the urgency to adapt to change quickly. The transformation process of change comprehensively considers changes in higher education. We present a framework of thought adapted to Lewin’s (change management and aspects related to various perspectives of change to face the environment of neoliberalism in higher education. The Lewin’s Change model was used in this study to identify changes occurring in educational organizations and the adoption of what should be re-institutionalized from a change process ( Figure 14).

Comprehensive change patterns. Autonomy (Self-government)

Some countries have focused on developing the concept of autonomy as part of transforming higher education governance into autonomy or self-governance. This is a result of the emergence of the concept of New Public Management (NPM), which began to shift government control into market power ( Nasution, Prasojo, Jannah, & Yumitro, 2020). Influencing forces include various stakeholders and the dynamics of the relationships (agreements) between stakeholders and university governance. Christopher (2012b) details five factors that have influenced the paradigm of higher education governance: 1) Central Government, 2) Local Government, 3) global competition, 4) collegial governance, and 5) internal management.

Granting autonomy to universities is expected to bring about broad changes to the governance and management of institutions. Autonomy refers to “the power and authority of an institution to run its affairs without undue influence or direction from the government” ( Taib & Abdullah, 2015). Autonomy can be divided into two types: 1) substantive autonomy and 2) procedural autonomy. Substantive autonomy includes academic and research fields, particularly autonomy related to curriculum design, research policy, degree awarding, and so on. In comparison, procedural autonomy covers non-academic fields that have much to do with financial issues such as borrowing funds, spending budgets, and managing salaries.

Granting autonomy to public universities entails bestowing autonomy in four domains: The first aspect is organizational or institutional autonomy, which entails bestowing universities with the power and authority to establish policies, devise procedures, and make choices to fulfill higher education objectives and purposes through effective governance and accountability frameworks. Financial autonomy refers to the granting of power and authority to Public Universities to create policies, establish procedures, and make decisions regarding financial and revenue management. This is accompanied by a requirement for accountability, transparency, integration, and implementation of effective and efficient management practices ( Abdullah & Osman, 2015). Human resource autonomy refers to the level of authority granted to Public Universities to formulate policies and establish processes for organizational development, remuneration, and employee development. This autonomy enables universities to attract, nurture, and retain highly skilled professionals and talented individuals. Furthermore, autonomy in the academic sphere entails endowing state universities with the power and authority to formulate policies in areas such as the establishment and discontinuation of study programs as well as the advancement, execution, and assurance of academic excellence, research and development, innovation, and knowledge dissemination ( Taib & Abdullah, 2015). Therefore, granting autonomy helps universities improve their quality through quality assurance.

 Quality assurance (QA)

The second primary concern revolves around quality assurance in higher education, which refers to the public’s duty to exhibit commendable levels of performance. This matter has garnered significant attention and sparked extensive debate, making it a crucial strategic issue in education systems worldwide in recent years ( Fahmi, 2009). Ensuring quality and obtaining certification are essential responsibilities and priorities for institutions. Universities can accomplish their objectives of meeting the requirements of students, communities, and stakeholders regarding high-quality education, training, and research by engaging in quality assurance activities, thereby enhancing their standing. Quality assurance standards and accreditation are the most effective ways to assess the degree of quality of educational services. Quality assurance aids in identifying issues and constraints that need to be rectified and resolved before implementation. Implementing quality assurance and accreditation is a crucial factor contributing to the success of most higher education institutions globally ( Seyfried & Pohlenz, 2018).

Quality assurance is a contemporary principle within the Total Quality Management (TQM) framework. This serves as a means for firms to identify strategies to enhance and advance overall workforce performance. Total quality (TQ) is a component of Total Quality Management (TQM) in education. The TQ, or Total Quality, is a collection of standards and procedures for enhancing educational products. It encompasses technical requirements, the desired attributes of educational products and processes, and the necessary procedures to meet these specifications. Quality assurance encompasses all activities for evaluating and enhancing the value of one or more standards during implementation. The organization guarantees that the products or services adhere to the established quality standards. Total Quality (TQ) is an essential component of quality management that aims to assure individuals and communities by ensuring that quality criteria are met ( Hanh, 2020).

The contemporary notion of Total Quality Management (TQM) in educational institutions has demonstrated that quality assurance in higher education is an ongoing and systematic procedure for evaluating quality based on predetermined criteria and standards. Hanh (2020) mentioned several indicators of higher education quality assurance, including

Strategic management: This metric assesses a university’s development and implementation of its long-term plans and objectives. Strategic leaders are responsible for assessing the current state of higher education institutions, evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, and developing strategic plans that encompass the organization’s vision, mission, and educational objectives. These plans guide an institution’s short- and long-term actions.

Quality management methods: This metric evaluates the capacity of educational institutions to deliver services that align with the expectations of society, employees, students, job market, and other stakeholders.

The marketing and customer service indicators identify societal needs, labor market trends, and learners to offer successful and suitable training and educational services.

Human resource development: This metric encompasses the ongoing training of personnel to enhance their ability to efficiently perform tasks and achieve optimal productivity.

The equal opportunity indicator ensures that educational institutions and the job market provide equal opportunity. This leads to higher employee and unit satisfaction, and improves labor productivity and quality.

Health and safety: Maintaining a healthy and safe environment for employees, students, and beneficiaries is a crucial measure of an educational institution’s performance.

Contact management: This metric requires educational institutions to fulfill the requirements of both students and employees and effectively disseminate information across all levels of the organization.

Consulting services: This indicator pertains to activities related to organizational governance that aim to identify the requirements of diverse learners (including psychological, academic, and social needs) and devise strategies to fulfill them.

Program design and implementation: Learning programs should be developed according to the requirements of the job market and student demands.

Certificate of rank: This indicator verifies that students receive qualifications that align with their capabilities.

By incorporating the above criteria and indicators, developing a set of key performance indicators is a systematic approach for ensuring quality in higher education. The ultimate objective is to produce superior outcomes that align with societal and labor market demands while also ensuring customer satisfaction in the long run. Colleges frequently establish their reputations by obtaining accreditation certificates that validate their commitment to ensuring the quality of their graduates when they enter the job market. Various educational theorists have proposed numerous views of accreditation. However, they unanimously concur that accreditation is a systematic process within an organization that seeks to advance and enhance educational institutions and their programs ( Seyfried & Pohlenz, 2018). Accreditation is an indicator of the quality of education management in higher education as a whole, and international ranking agencies require international accreditation to measure higher education performance. Therefore, a change leader must realize the importance of maintaining the quality of education to increase competitiveness at his university.

 Internationalization

Promoting internationalization as a crucial policy for education reform can enhance the potential and competitive advantage of higher education institutes to compete nationally and internationally. Internationalization is frequently incorporated as a strategic approach in colleges, representing a robust endeavor by university administrators to enhance their standing in the global market. The primary determinant of this pattern is the worldwide assessment of educational establishments facing global rivalry ( Engwall, 2016). Internationalization is an ongoing effort with an evolutionary quality or the development of concepts ( Knight, 2008).

By the mid-1990s, Knight (1994) introduced an organizational process or approach to internationalization at the institutional level had been introduced by Knight (1994), defining internationalization as “the process of integrating international and intercultural dimensions into teaching, research, and institutional service functions.” This definition has been widely used to describe internationalization ( Guo & Guo, 2017; Ota, 2018). However, this definition is limited to the institutional dimension. Knight (2008) proposes a new definition, which states that internationalization at the national, sector, and institutional levels integrates intercultural or global dimensions into the purposeful functioning of higher education. In addition, Hudzik (2014) provides a more comprehensive definition of internationalization, defining it as deliberate institutional commitments and actions to embed and integrate international, global, and comparative content and perspectives across higher education teaching, research, and service missions. Beyond the basic functions of such institutions, Hudzik argues that a comprehensive approach is the desire to integrate internationalization into the ethos, values, and institutional mission of higher education ( Hudzik, 2014). Furthermore, Hudzik emphasized that for “comprehensive Internationalization, it is important to understand by leaders of universities, government, faculty, students, and all academics, as well as other support service units ( Hudzik, 2011).

According to Knight and Hudzik’s definition, internationalization is a complex and diverse process that incorporates international, intercultural, and global elements into the functions and goals of higher education institutions. Its purpose is to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff, while making significant contributions to society ( Guo & Guo, 2017). Therefore, the internationalization program must be designed to be compatible with the internal structure or existing educational and research activities to improve the international image of the university externally without fundamentally changing its substance, because internationalization is not a stand-alone goal or objective, but aims at the reform of universities for quality improvement from a global point of view through internationalization is the way and process to realize competitive advantage during global competition ( Ota, 2018). A leader of change who wants to compete on an international scale cannot ignore the internationalization factor.

 Market orientation

Rivals are crucial in determining a market’s focus and approach ( Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; O’Dwyer & Gilmore, 2017; Sukoco et al., 2021). Organizations with the capacity to discern opportunities and dangers from external entities can predict development and establish strategies to adjust to change ( Slater, Mohr, & Sengupta, 2014). It is imperative to embrace a market orientation within an organization as the initial step towards a transformative process ( Lafferty & Tomas M. Hult, 2001; Narver, Slater, & Tietje, 1998; Sukoco et al., 2021). Klarner et al. (2007) contend that companies should possess the capacity to be highly responsive in order to adjust to changes, particularly in the market effectively. Adaptability can be assessed by a heightened capacity to obtain information regarding present and forthcoming market circumstances ( Najafi-Tavani, Sharifi, & Najafi-Tavani, 2016). Market demand fluctuations prompt enterprises to prioritize data acquisition for evolving customer demands, interests, and behavior. This enables them to deliver exceptional customer value by leveraging diverse information sources ( Narver & Slater, 1990). Engaging in activities to acquire and analyze market information will facilitate the cultivation of a culture of learning inside firms ( Deshpandé, Farley, & Webster, 1993; Deshpande & Webster, 1989).

Leaders who embrace market orientation actively solicit prompt consumer input and provide unrestricted access to extensive information for all organization members ( Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Pinho, Rodrigues, & Dibb, 2014). The unrestricted availability of information within the organization enables personnel to acquire and embrace new knowledge about the market, thereby improving and refreshing their skills and understanding throughout the organization. This empowers them to consistently make proper decisions and take necessary action ( Minucci, 2016). This subsequently generates additional value for customers ( Liu et al., 2002) and optimizes the service delivery process more effectively and efficiently ( Siggelkow & Terwiesch, 2019).

Moreover, leaders in companies must devise methods to establish a collective understanding ( Gebhardt, Carpenter, & Sherry, 2006) and enhance cohesion to establish a mechanism for collective transformation ( Liu & Atuahene-Gima, 2018). Market orientation in non-profit organizations aligns the organization’s attention towards external factors such as stakeholders, thereby consolidating the organization’s emphasis on crucial external elements ( Modi, 2012) and internal constituencies. In addition, universities involve numerous stakeholders who can shape organizational policies ( Mainardes, Alves, & Raposo, 2012). The institution prioritizes customer orientation towards students and the community, who are recognized as stakeholders. Students immediately utilize and benefit from the products and services offered by the university ( Akonkwa, 2009); higher education is widely seen by society as an institution that safeguards and perpetuates sources of knowledge ( Lu & Etzkowitz, 2008), the organization is anticipated to play an active part in the process of transforming knowledge into commercial products and services within the innovation value chain ( Urbano & Guerrero, 2013).

Consequently, institutions should be attentive and adaptable to the desires of students and society, offering the options that they seek ( Nixon, Scullion, & Molesworth, 2010). Colleges prioritizing customer satisfaction can oversee service operations, distribute essential information to all stakeholders, and actively strive to meet their demands ( Hammond, Webster, & Harmon, 2006). This method establishes an environment favorable for colleges that prioritizes market-oriented approaches ( Nagy & Berács, 2012). Universities that possess the ability to offer genuine and groundbreaking services while being cognizant of the requirements of their consumers, including students and the community, can collaboratively design new service formats and foster a culture that prioritizes customer satisfaction ( Dollinger & Lodge, 2020; Dollinger & Vanderlelie, 2021; Sukoco et al., 2021).

Organizations that effectively adapt to the accelerating pace of change must consider customer preferences and competitive actions ( De Luca & Atuahene-Gima, 2007). To achieve a comprehensive implementation of change and strategy across the entire organization, it is necessary to disseminate them sequentially ( Klarner et al., 2007). Organizations with robust interfunctional coordination exhibit efficient communication and collaboration among several departments ( Marsh & Stock, 2003). To foster a unified culture that maximizes the use of market intelligence for institutional progress ( Gebhardt et al., 2006). Leaders in higher education who can capitalize on opportunities in the commercial aspects of higher education are expected to produce revenue from non-academic activities. The perception of higher education as an institution has shifted, recognizing it as a crucial catalyst for economic growth and development ( Taib & Abdullah, 2015).

 Entrepreneurialism

Since the outset, it has been universally acknowledged that universities’ primary function is to serve as a facilitative instrument to foster economic growth and development. Nevertheless, modern colleges are embracing a more business-oriented approach to foster and facilitate economic growth. With the emergence of a new paradigm, universities have transformed into entrepreneurial institutions, actively engaging in the commercialization of research and adopting a proactive stance towards the role of academic research in the marketplace. This paradigm emphasizes that the environmental forces of a hypercompetitive global environment have transformed the university’s mission of research, teaching, and service. The increasing number of “business-like” higher education institutions worldwide puts pressure on universities to become more entrepreneurial and achieve higher efficiency in improving quality ( Ajayan & Balasubramanian, 2020). Recent developments in financial autonomy granted by the government to several universities for financial management flexibility, especially to state universities, have several consequences, such as reducing government subsidy funds, which means that autonomous universities must generate some alternative income independently ( Amran & Muhammad, 2014). This is in line with managerial, which requires universities to be more entrepreneurial and find alternative income mechanisms in universities ( Ajayan & Balasubramanian, 2020).

Some researchers have determined that universities can adapt to and become entrepreneurial universities ( Clark, 1998a; Sporn, 2001). Clark (2000) argued that many universities should become more proactive and entrepreneurial. The primary emphasis of the university’s entrepreneurship center lies in exploring innovative approaches to earn revenue and is seamlessly incorporated into the strategic planning framework of collaborating institutions. The primary responsibility of the entrepreneurship center is to execute strategic initiatives about fundraising and engage external specialists to transform concepts, typically originating from students and research endeavors, into commercially viable goods. Hence, entrepreneurship has the potential to stimulate trade and business collaboration and facilitate the provision of research and consulting services from partner universities to both public and private entities ( Fahmi, 2009).

Another assumption that universities are increasingly entrepreneurial is the consequence of granting autonomy to the government, which results in a reduction in public funds by the government by removing subsidies and giving total confidence that universities have been able to be independent regardless of government control ( Gaus, 2019a). Therefore, universities cannot only rely on income from the primary sector, namely academic income, but must also develop a pattern of partnership/collaboration to obtain funding from the non-academic business sector. The ability of a change leader to optimize all additional business potential from non-academic pathways greatly determines the sustainability of the university he leads. Each university’s adaptability in adjusting to technological developments/digitalization in education provision cannot be ruled out.

 Digitalization

Digitalization concerns using technology to renew, simplify, and increase processes, tasks, and products ( Tomte, Fossland, Aamodt, & Degn, 2019). In the last decade, all aspects of life and business operations have been significantly transformed by digital technology. An organization’s digital transformation principally concerns the adoption of technology portfolios such as the Internet of Things (IoT), digital platforms, social media, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Big Data, and Machine Learning (ML) ( Antonopoulou, Halkiopoulos, Barlou, & Beligiannis, 2021; Foerster-Metz, Marquardt, Golowko, Kompalla, & Hell, 2018; Khalid et al., 2018; Matalamäki & Joensuu-Salo, 2021). On a broad scale, the shift to modern technology has brought about new competitive mechanisms, structures, work systems, and interactions. On a smaller scale, digitalization impacts the dynamics, processes, skills, and competencies required by all members of the organization, regardless of their position ( Cascio & Montealegre, 2016; Rienties, Brouwer, & Lygo-Baker, 2013).

The process of digitalization in education encompasses a wide range of factors that contribute to its quality, including organizational matters, technology infrastructure, and pedagogical methods ( Cascio & Montealegre, 2016; Selwyn, 2011), and it influences internationalization by offering more flexible online education programs ( Conole, 2014). In addition, digitalization provides conveniences such as administrative solutions, data security systems, systems to detect fraud and plagiarism, research data storage, library services, and various learning resources as well as opportunities for better collaboration across campuses ( Khalid et al., 2018).

Digitalization has significantly changed higher education due to technological developments and globalization. Universities’ ability to rapidly increase digitalization will affect their ability to survive global competition, especially in internationalization, student mobility, funding, and world ranking positions ( Khalid et al., 2018). This is in line with previous research ( Wu, Yeniyurt, Kim, & Cavusgil, 2006) showing that Information Technology (IT) can contribute to network collaboration and strengthen an organization’s competitive capabilities. College leaders must recognize the need to evolve and reshape structures, processes, pedagogic practices, curricula, and innovation. Meanwhile, there is no innovation without collaboration. This is in line with Luthans (1988), who states that the success of a leader depends on his ability to build networking.

 Networking and collaboration

The resulting innovation performance excellence in collaboration depends on the ability to manage networking ( Ter Wal et al., 2020). Networking is a set of relationships connecting people inside and outside an organization that can be relied upon to succeed in work ( Altbach, 2011). Collaboration with strategic partners is urgently required to address the challenges of neoliberalism. Social capital theory states that networks are a power source for individuals and organizations ( Timberlake, 2012). Networking can potentially increase career success for individuals, such as raises, promotions, career satisfaction, employment opportunities, job performance, social support, resources, and professional support ( Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001). In addition, Luthans (1988) asserts that managers’ ability to build networks is the strongest predictor of managerial success that benefits both individuals and organizations. McGuire (2000) states that formal networks are public, official, and have clear boundaries, whereas informal networks are private, voluntary, and characterized by fluid boundaries. Employers usually formally recognize formal work networks, focus on achieving the goals of members and social organizations, and tend to have identifiable membership and network structures ( McGuire 2000). By contrast, participation in informal networks is not formally regulated, and the purpose of such networks may be work-related, personal, or social ( Ibarra, 1992). The formation of networks by university leaders is expected to increase the internationalization activities of higher education by easily obtaining various information and other resources from outside the organization.

This generation of leadership encourages universities to compete globally ( Angreani & Vijaya, 2017). Indicators of success in achieving competitive universities are reflected in the achievement of positions in international rankings/ World Class Universities ( Polyakov et al., 2020). The importance of leadership towards the WCU in a university setting is reflected in the expectations of national and international accreditation bodies. Each includes criteria and policies related to leadership ( Burns & Mooney, 2018). Therefore, WCU leaders must have global networking, in which they work in a complex, fast-changing, and often ambiguous international environment. WCU leaders engage in foreign markets, strategize internationally, and manage and motivate teams to compete globally ( Hassan et al., 2011).

 Leadership style

Higher education leaders in the era of neoliberalism not only play academic leaders but also have two roles simultaneously, namely as academic leaders and chief executive officers at the universities they lead ( Ekman, Lindgren, & Packendorff, 2018; Nizam, 2022). Leadership plays an important role in determining the success of higher education ( Osseo-Asare et al., 2005). This is reflected in the expectations of Accreditation Bodies (National and International), including the criteria and policies related to effective leadership in higher education ( Mooney, Burns, & Chadwick, 2012).

The success of a change depends on the leader’s leadership style ( Baesu & Bejinaru, 2014). Leadership style has been recognized as an important aspect of influencing innovation because leaders effectively have an important role in producing ideas, goal setting, and creating organizational culture ( Elrehail, Emeagwali, Alsaad, &; Alzghoul, 2018). In addition, leadership and behavior can build a climate of trust that encourages innovation throughout the organization ( Al-Husseini & Elbeltagi, 2014). To manage these changes, leaders must understand the change management process and demonstrate an appropriate leadership style ( Akinbode &; Shuhumi, 2018; Mansaray, 2019; McRoy & Gibb, 2009). Transformational leadership is believed to be a key element of change-oriented leadership ( Akinbode &; Shuhumi, 2018; Appelbaum et al., 2015), and to understand higher education governance in a period of transformation into the priority of a change leader ( Aldulaimi &; Abdeldayem, 2020).

 Conclusions

After conducting a bibliometric analysis of 662 documents, we discovered that most documents (446) were articles, with the remainder comprising books, book chapters, conference papers, editorials, notes, and reviews. The journals that made the most significant contributions to the development of collegiality, change management, and neoliberalism in higher education include the International Journal of Educational Management, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, and Tertiary Education and Management. Publication trends show a steady increase over time, with notable growth after 2017, reflecting the rising academic attention toward managerial reforms, governance transformation, and marketization in universities. The analysis also indicates that research in this field is dominated by institutions from Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, highlighting a Western-centric discourse in the global understanding of neoliberalism in higher education. Keyword and thematic mapping reveal that the intersection of collegiality, change management, and neoliberalism is strongly associated with leadership, governance, organizational change, and human capital development.

Beyond describing publication trends, this study contributes new empirical insights by quantitatively mapping how discussions of collegiality and neoliberalism have evolved in global higher education over five decades. By integrating bibliometric analysis with a systematic review under the PRISMA framework, this research identifies eight emerging thematic areas autonomy, quality assurance, internationalization, market orientation, entrepreneurialism, digitalization, collaboration, and leadership that together form a comprehensive model of change in universities. These findings extend existing theories of institutional transformation by demonstrating how Lewin’s stages of change unfreezing, moving, and refreezing, manifest in contemporary higher education contexts shaped by neoliberal ideologies. In doing so, the study bridges classical change theory with current empirical realities, offering a data-driven understanding of how higher education institutions balance academic values with market imperatives. This synthesis not only reinforces the applicability of Lewin’s framework but also advances it by identifying the structural and cultural dimensions through which neoliberalism redefines collegiality, governance, and leadership in universities.

Limitations and future research directions

This study is limited to case studies and critical analyses of literature. There may be a risk of publication bias because the study only included published articles indexed in Scopus, potentially overlooking non-indexed or seminal works that have historically shaped the discussion on neoliberalism and governance in higher education. As a result, some earlier foundational perspectives might not be fully captured within the dataset.

Further research is necessary to test the robustness of these findings under different conditions, such as excluding studies at high risk of bias or adjusting for publication bias, to better assess the reliability and validity of the synthesized results. Future research could also expand the database scope to include earlier influential publications and complementary sources, allowing for a more comprehensive longitudinal understanding of the topic.

In addition, subsequent studies may empirically examine the factors that significantly influence change in universities under neoliberal pressures and evaluate how institutional leaders perceive and manage these dynamics to enhance competitiveness. Although this study identifies eight central issues in higher education change management, there remain other potential factors beyond those reported here that warrant further exploration. Future research could also apply the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the strength of evidence and the consistency of recommendations in systematic reviews. Similarly, analyzing effect measures related to performance metrics could help determine how neoliberal reforms align with stakeholder expectations before and after their implementation. Such efforts would deepen understanding of how neoliberalism shapes collegiality, governance, management, and quality assurance within higher education institutions.

 Data availability Underlying data

Zenodo: Explicating collegiality and change management in neoliberalism during the dynamics of higher education institutions. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10730018 ( Marlia et al., 2024).

This project contains the following underlying data:

Scopus.csv

Scopus.ris

Extended data

Zenodo: Explicating collegiality and change management in neoliberalism during the dynamics of higher education institutions. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10730018 ( Marlia et al., 2024).

This project contains the following extended data:

Figure 1-Concept Map of Changes in Universities.png

Figure 2-Primary Information.png

Figure 3-Annual Scientific Production.png

Figure 4-Average Article Citation per Year.png

Figure 5-Most relevant sources.png

Figure 6-Sources’ local impact by H-index.png

Figure 7-Most relevant authors.png

Figure 8-Authors’ production over time.png

Figure 9-Most relevant affiliations.png

Figure 10-Corresponding author’s countries.png

Figure 11-Co-occurance network.png

Figure 12-Word cloud.png

Figure 13-Tree map.png

Figure 14-Comprehensive change patterns.png

Reporting guidelines

PRISMA Checklist for ‘Explicating collegiality and change management in neoliberalism during the dynamics of higher education institutions’ https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10730018 ( Marlia et al., 2024).

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

 Acknowledgements

We thank two anonymous Professors as invited reviewers for their comments, suggestions and data interpretation. The support helps us reporting this research with further development and improvement.

 References Abdullah MNLY Osman S : Malaysian public university development, autonomy and accountability. Yaakub CS , editor. Governance reforms in public universities of Malaysia. Malaysia: University Sains Malaysia Press;2015; (pp.17–36). Ajayan S Balasubramanian S : "New managerialism" in higher education: the case of United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development. 2020;22(2):147–168. 10.1108/IJCED-11-2019-0054 Akinbode AI Shuhumi SRA Al : Change Management Process and Leadership Styles. International Journal of Social Sciences. 2018;4(2):609–618. 10.20319/pijss.2018.42.609618 Akonkwa DBM : Is market orientation a relevant strategy for higher education institutions?: Context analysis and research agenda. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences. 2009;1(3):311–333. 10.1108/17566690911004230 Al-Husseini S Elbeltagi I : Transformational leadership and innovation: a comparison study between Iraq’s public and private higher education. Studies in Higher Education. 2014;41(1):159–181. 10.1080/03075079.2014.927848 Aldulaimi SH Abdeldayem MM : A thematic analysis of leadership behaviours and change management in higher education to boost sustainability. International Journal of Higher Education and Sustainability. 2020;3(1):34. 10.1504/ijhes.2020.108623 Almanei M Salonitis K Tsinopoulos C : A conceptual lean implementation framework based on change management theory. Procedia CIRP. 2018;72:1160–1165. 10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.141 Altbach PG : Leadership for world-class universities: Challenges for developing countries. Leadership for World-Class Universities: Challenges for Developing Countries. 2011. 10.4324/9780203842171 Amran A Muhammad J : Changes and challenges in financial authonomy. Fauziah T Abdullah MNLY , editors. Governance reforms in public universities of Malaysia. Malaysia: University Sains Malaysia Press;2014; (pp.59–95). Angreani LS Vijaya A : Designing an Effective Collaboration using Information Technology Towards World Class University. Procedia Computer Science. 2017;124:577–584. 10.1016/j.procs.2017.12.192 Antonopoulou H Halkiopoulos C Barlou O : Transformational leadership and digital skills in higher education institutes: During the covid-19 pandemic. Emerging Science Journal. 2021;5(1):1–15. 10.28991/esj-2021-01252 Appelbaum SH Degbe MC MacDonald O : Organizational outcomes of leadership style and resistance to change (Part One). Industrial and Commercial Training. 2015;47(2):73–80. 10.1108/ict-07-2013-0044 Baesu C Bejinaru R : Leadership approaches regarding the organizational change. The USV Annals of Economics and Public Administration. 2014;13(2 (18)):146–152. Ballantine HW Berle AA Means GC : The Modern Corporation and Private Property. California Law Review. 1932;21(1):78. 10.2307/3475545 Bauer M Bleiklie I Kogan M : Change and continuity: Some conclusions.In Transforming Higher Education: A Comparative Study. 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands;2006; pp.163–175. 10.1007/978-1-4020-4657-5_8 Bay U : Unpacking neo-liberal technologies of government in Australian higher education social work departments. Journal of Social Work. 2011;11(2):222–236. 10.1177/1468017310386696 Bolden R Petrov G Gosling J : Distributed leadership in higher education: Rhetoric and reality. Educational Management Administration and Leadership. 2009;37(2):257–277. 10.1177/1741143208100301 Brown G Edmunds S : 7 Changes of academic identities in UK universities. Professional Identity in the Caring Professions: Meaning, Measurement and Mastery. 2020. 10.4324/9781003025610-7 Burns DJ Mooney D : Transcollegial leadership: a new paradigm for leadership. International Journal of Educational Management. 2018;32(1):57–70. 10.1108/ijem-05-2016-0114 Carbone A Drew S Ross B : A collegial quality development process for identifying and addressing barriers to improving teaching. Higher Education Research & Development. 2019;38(7):1356–1370. 10.1080/07294360.2019.1645644 Cascio WF Montealegre R : How Technology Is Changing Work and Organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 2016;3:349–375. 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062352 Christopher J : Governance Paradigms of Public Universities: An international comparative study. Tertiary Education and Management. 2012a;18(4):335–351. 10.1080/13583883.2012.724705 Christopher J : Tension between the corporate and collegial cultures of Australian public universities: The current status. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. 2012b;23(7-8):556–571. 10.1016/j.cpa.2012.06.001 Clark BR : Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Issues in Higher Education. 1998a;12. Clark TN : Old and New Paradigms for Urban Research. Urban Affairs Review. 2000;36(1):3–45. 10.1177/10780870022184732 Clark BR : The entrepreneurial university: Demand and response. Tertiary Education and Management. 1998b;4:5–16. Clegg S McAuley J : Conceptualising middle management in higher education: A multifaceted discourse. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2005;27(1):19–34. 10.1080/13600800500045786 Conole G : A new classification schema for MOOCs. The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning. 2014;3:65–77. Reference Source Croucher G Lacy WB : The emergence of academic capitalism and university neoliberalism: perspectives of Australian higher education leadership. Higher Education. 2022;83(2):279–295. 10.1007/s10734-020-00655-7 Davies J Hides MT Casey S : Leadership in higher education. Total Quality Management. 2001;12(7):1025–1030. 10.1080/09544120120096197 Deem R : Leadership, Leadership Development and Markets in UK Ublicly Funded Higher Education Organisations - Global, National or European?In: Teixeira PN Dill DD , editors. Public Vices, Private Virtues? Issues in Higher Education. Vol.2. Sense Publishers;2011. 10.1007/978-94-6091-466-9_8 De Luca LM Atuahene-Gima K : Market knowledge dimensions and cross-functional collaboration: Examining the different routes to product innovation performance. Journal of Marketing. 2007;71(1):95–112. 10.1509/jmkg.71.1.95 Deshpandé R Farley JU Webster FE : Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation, and Innovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad Analysis. Journal of Marketing. 1993;57(1):23–37. 10.1177/002224299305700102 Deshpande R Webster FE : Organizational Culture and Marketing: Defining the Research Agenda. Journal of Marketing. 1989;53(1):3–15. 10.1177/002224298905300102 Dollinger M Lodge J : Student-staff co-creation in higher education: an evidence-informed model to support future design and implementation. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2020;42(5):532–546. 10.1080/1360080X.2019.1663681 Dollinger M Vanderlelie J : Closing the loop: co-designing with students for greater market orientation. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education. 2021;31(1):41–57. 10.1080/08841241.2020.1757557 Dopson S Ferlie E McGivern G : Leadership development in Higher Education: A literature review and implications for programme redesign. Higher Education Quarterly. 2019;73(2):218–234. 10.1111/hequ.12194 Ekman M Lindgren M Packendorff J : Universities need leadership, academics need management: discursive tensions and voids in the deregulation of Swedish higher education legislation. Higher Education. 2018;75(2):299–321. 10.1007/s10734-017-0140-2 Elrehail H Emeagwali OL Alsaad A : The impact of Transformational and Authentic leadership on innovation in higher education: The contingent role of knowledge sharing. Telematics and Informatics 2018;35(1):55–67. 10.1016/j.tele.2017.09.018 Enders J De Boer H Leisyte L : On Striking The Right Notes: Shifts In Governance And The Organisational Transformation Of Universities. 2008. 10.1007/978-1-4020-8994-7_9 Engwall L : The Internationalisation of Higher Education. European Review. 2016;24(2):221–231. 10.1017/S1062798715000575 Fahmi R : Performance Appraisal for Academic staff A Case study of multiple attitudes and perceptions from stakeholders perspective in Indonesia. Saarbrucken. Saarbrucken. Lambert Academic Publishing. Saarbrucken: Lambert Academic Publishing;2009. Fleming P : Dark Academia: Despair in the Neoliberal Business School. Journal of Management Studies. 2020;57(6):1305–1311. Portico. 10.1111/joms.12521 Foerster-Metz US Marquardt K Golowko N : Digital Transformation and its Implications on Organizational Behavior. Journal of EU Research in Business. 2018;2018:1–14. 10.5171/2018.340873 Foucault M : The Subject and Power. 1982;8(4):777–795. Fugazzotto SJ : The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out. Tertiary Education and Management. 2012;18(2):193–197. 10.1080/13583883.2011.646297 Gaus N : Philosophy and politics in higher education: What are the roles of intellectual academics in Indonesian higher education? Qualitative Research Journal. 2019a;19(3):294–306. 10.1108/QRJ-12-2018-0008 Gaus N : Regulating and manipulating the corporeal functions of women academics through political rationality: Women academics’ perceptions. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. 2019b;11(4):698–718. 10.1108/JARHE-11-2018-0238 Gaus N Basri M Thamrin H : Understanding the nature and practice of leadership in higher education: a phenomenological approach. International Journal of Leadership in Education. 2020;25:685–703. 10.1080/13603124.2020.1737241 Gaus N Hall D : Neoliberal governance in Indonesian universities: the impact upon academic identity. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. 2015;35:666–682. 10.1108/IJSSP-12-2014-0120 Gaus N Hall D : Performance Indicators in Indonesian Universities: The Perception of Academics. Higher Education Quarterly. 2016;70(2):127–144. 10.1111/hequ.12085 Gaus N Tang M : Changing Knowledge Production in Indonesian Higher Education: Is It a Bare Pedagogy? Education in the Asia-Pacific Region. 2023;70:99–114. 10.1007/978-981-99-1878-2_6 Gaus N Tang M Akil M : Organisational culture in higher education: mapping the way to understanding cultural research. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 2019;43(6):848–860. 10.1080/0309877X.2017.1410530 Gebhardt GF Carpenter GS Sherry JF : Building organizational capabilities for managing economic crisis: …. Journal of Marketing. 2006;70(4):37–55. 10.1509/jmkg.70.4.37 Giroux HA : Neoliberalism, corporate culture, and the promise of higher education: The university as a democratic public sphere. Harvard Educational Review. 2002;72:425–464. 10.17763/haer.72.4.0515nr62324n71p1 Gumus S Bellibas MS Esen M : A systematic review of studies on leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2018;46(1):25–48. 10.1177/1741143216659296 Guo Y Guo S : Internationalization of Canadian higher education: discrepancies between policies and international student experiences. Studies in Higher Education. 2017;42(5):851–868. 10.1080/03075079.2017.1293874 Haake U : Doing leadership in higher education: The gendering process of leader identity development. Tertiary Education and Management. 2009;15(4):291–304. 10.1080/13583880903335498 Hamlin RG Patel T : Perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness within higher education in France. Studies in Higher Education. 2017;42(2):292–314. 10.1080/03075079.2015.1045480 Hammond KL Webster RL Harmon HA : Market orientation, top management emphasis, and performance within university schools of business: Implications for universities. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. 2006;14(1):69–85. 10.2753/MTP1069-6679140105 Hanh ND : A review of issues of quality assurance and quality accreditation for higher education institutions and the situation in Vietnam. Accreditation and Quality Assurance. 2020;25(4):273–279. 10.1007/s00769-020-01439-3 Hassan Z Silong AD Ismail IA : Developing new generation of educational leaders for world class university. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2011;15:812–817. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.190 Hossan C : Applicability of Lewin’s Change Management Theory in Australian Local Government. International Journal of Business and Management. 2015;10(6). 10.5539/ijbm.v10n6p53 Hudzik JK : Comprehensive Internationalization: From concept to action. NAFSA e-Publications;2011. Hudzik JK : Comprehensive Internationalization: Institutional pathways to success. 2014. 10.4324/9781315771885 Hwami M : The “nativist turn” and the crisis in university education in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Education. 2013;5(4):122. 10.5296/ije.v5i4.4480 Ibarra H : Homophily and Differential Returns: Sex Differences in Network Structure and Access in an Advertising Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1992;37(3):422. 10.2307/2393451 Jaworski BJ Kohli AK : Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Marketing. 1993;57(3):53–70. 10.1177/002224299305700304 Kabir A : Neoliberalism, policy reforms and higher education in bangladesh. Policy Futures in Education. 2013;11(2):154–166. 10.2304/pfie.2013.11.2.154 Kalfa S Taksa L : Employability, managerialism, and performativity in higher education: a relational perspective. Higher Education. 2016;74(4):687–699. 10.1007/s10734-016-0072-2 Khalid J Ram BR Soliman M : Promising digital university: A pivotal need for higher education transformation. International Journal of Management in Education. 2018;12(3):264–275. 10.1504/IJMIE.2018.092868 Klarner P Probst G Soparnot R : From change to the management of Organizational Change Capacity: a conceptual approach. Cahier de Recherches - Université de Genève. 2007;1(1). Knight J : Higher Education in Turmoil. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers;2008. Knight J : Internationalization: Elements and Checkpoints. CBIE Research No. 7. Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE)/Bureau Canadien de l’éducation Internationale (BCEI), 7. 1994. Kohli AK Jaworski BJ : Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions Managerial Implications. Journal of Marketing. 1990;54(2):1–18. Kreysing M : Autonomy, accountability, and organizational complexity in higher education: The goettingen model of university reform. Journal of Educational Administration. 2002;40(6):552–560. 10.1108/09578230210446036 Lafferty BA Hult GTM : A synthesis of contemporary market orientation perspectives. European Journal of Marketing. 2001;35(1/2):92–109. 10.1108/03090560110363364 Lawless B Chen Y : Multicultural neoliberalism and academic labor: experiences of female immigrant faculty in the U.S. academy. Culture Studies Critical Methodologies. 2016;17(3):236–243. 10.1177/1532708616672688 Lewin K : Frontiers in Group Dynamics. Human Relations. 1947;1(2):143–153. 10.1177/001872674700100201 Lewin K : Field Theory and Social Science. New York: Harpers;1951. Liu SS Luo X Shi YZ : Integrating customer orientation, corporate entrepreneurship, and learning orientation in organizations-in-transition: An empirical study. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 2002;19(4):367–382. 10.1016/S0167-8116(02)00098-8 Liu W Atuahene-Gima K : Enhancing product innovation performance in a dysfunctional competitive environment: The roles of competitive strategies and market-based assets. Industrial Marketing Management. 2018;73:7–20. 10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.01.006 Lu L Etzkowitz H : Strategic challenges for creating knowledge-based innovation in China. Journal of Technology Management in China. 2008;3(1):5–11. 10.1108/17468770810851476 Luthans F : Successful and effective real managers.pdf. Academy of Management Perspectives. 1988;2:127–132. 10.5465/ame.1988.4275524 Lynch K : Control by numbers: new managerialism and ranking in higher education. Critical Studies in Education. 2015;56(2):190–207. 10.1080/17508487.2014.949811 Macfarlane B : The neoliberal academic: illustrating shifting academic norms in an age of hyper-performativity. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2019;53(5):459–468. 10.1080/00131857.2019.1684262 Mainardes EW Alves H Raposo M : A model for stakeholder classification and stakeholder relationships. Management Decision. 2012;50(10):1861–1879. 10.1108/00251741211279648 Mansaray EH : The Role of Leadership Style in Organisational Change Management: A Literature Review. Journal of Human Resource Management. 2019;7(1):18. 10.11648/j.jhrm.20190701.13 Marlia MA Fahmy R Lukito H : Explicating collegiality and change management in neoliberalism during the dynamics of higher education institutions. Zenodo. 2024. 10.5281/zenodo.10730018 Marsh SJ Stock GN : Building dynamic capabilities in new product development through intertemporal integration. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2003;20(2):136–148. 10.1111/1540-5885.2002006 Martin-Sardesai A Guthrie J Tooley S : History of research performance measurement systems in the Australian higher education sector. Account History. 2019;24(1):40–61. 10.1177/1032373218768559 Matalamäki MJ Joensuu-Salo S : Digitalization and strategic flexibility – a recipe for business growth. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. 2021;29:380–401. 10.1108/JSBED-10-2020-0384 Mcguire GM : Gender, Race, Ethnicity, and Networks: The Factors Affecting the Status of Employees’ Network Members. Work and Occupations. 2000;27(4):501–524. 10.1177/0730888400027004004 McRoy I Gibbs P : Leading Change in Higher Education. Educational Management Administration and Leadership. 2009;37(5):687–704. 10.1177/1741143209339655 Mercer J : Junior, Academic Manager in Higher Education: An Untold Story. The International Journal of Educational Management. 2009;23(4):348–359. 10.1108/09513540910957444 Middlehurst R : Changing internal governance: A discussion of leadership roles and management structures in uk universities. Higher Education Quarterly. 2004;58(4):258–279. 10.1111/j.1468-2273.2004.00273.x Minucci G : Assessing adaptive capacity of water management organizations. The case study of the municipality of Tomave (Bolivia). Journal of Risk Research. 2016;19(7):847–872. 10.1080/13669877.2016.1200650 Modi P : Measuring market orientation in nonprofit organizations. Journal of Strategic Marketing. 2012;20(5):447–460. 10.1080/0965254X.2012.689991 Mok KH : The Cost of Managerialism: the implications for the ‘McDonaldisation’ of higher education in Hong Kong 1. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 1999;21(1):117–127. 10.1080/1360080990210109 Mooney D Burns D Chadwick S : Collegial Leadership: Deepening Collaborative Processes to Advance Mission and Outcomes. A Collection of Papers on Self-Study and Institutional Improvement. 2012. Nagy G Berács J : Antecedents to the export market orientation of Hungarian higher education institutions, and their export performance consequences. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education. 2012;22(2):231–256. 10.1080/08841241.2012.738716 Najafi-Tavani S Sharifi H Najafi-Tavani Z : Market orientation, marketing capability, and new product performance: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Research. 2016;69(11):5059–5064. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.080 Narver JC Slater SF : The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability. Journal of Marketing. 1990;54(4):20–35. 10.1177/002224299005400403 Narver JC Slater SF Tietje B : Creating a market orientation. Journal of Market- Focused Management. 1998;2(3):241–255. 10.1023/A:1009703717144 Nasution VIA Prasojo E Jannah LM : Governance of Autonomous Higher Education Institution toward World-Class University: A Case Study at the Universitas Indonesia. Journal of Critical Reviews. 2020;7(10). Nickson A : A Qualitative Case Study Exploring the Nature of New Managerialism in UK Higher Education and Its Impact on Individual Academics’ Experience of Doing Research. Journal of Research Administration. 2014;45(1). Nixon E Scullion R Molesworth M : How choice in higher education can create conservative learners. The Marketisation of Higher Education and the Student as Consumer. 2010. Nizam : Nakhoda menuju universitas kelas dunia. Jakarta: UI Publishing;2022. O’Dwyer M Gilmore A : Competitor orientation in successful SMEs: an exploration of the impact on innovation. Journal of Strategic Marketing. 2017;27:21–37. 10.1080/0965254X.2017.1384040 Olssen M Peters M : Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: from the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy. 2005;20(3):313–345. 10.1080/02680930500108718 Omar A Altohami W Afzaal M : Assessment of the governance quality of the departments of english in saudi universities: implications for sustainable development. World Journal of English Language. 2022;12(8):443. 10.5430/wjel.v12n8p443 Oreg S Vakola M Armenakis A : Change Recipients’ Reactions to Organizational Change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 2011;47(4):461–524. 10.1177/0021886310396550 Osborne D Gaebler T : Reinventing Government. New York, NY: Penguin Press;1992. Osseo-Asare AE Longbottom D Murphy WD : Leadership best practices for sustaining quality in UK higher education from the perspective of the EFQM excellence model. Quality Assurance in Education. 2005;13(2):148–170. 10.1108/09684880510594391 Ota H : Internationalization of Higher Education: Global Trends and Japan’s Challenges. Educational Studies in Japan. 2018;12:91–105. 10.7571/esjkyoiku.12.91 Phillips D : The impact of neoliberalism on designing and developing postgraduate education in Australian universities. 2017:1–11. 10.1007/978-981-10-0468-1_9-1 Pinho JC Rodrigues AP Dibb S : The role of corporate culture, market orientation and organisational commitment in organisational performance: The case of non-profit organisations. Journal of Management Development. 2014;33(4):374–398. 10.1108/JMD-03-2013-0036 Polyakov M Bilozubenko V Korneyev M : Analysis of key university leadership factors based on their international rankings (QS World University Rankings and Times Higher Education). Problems and Perspectives in Management. 2020;18(4):142–152. 10.21511/ppm.18(4).2020.13 Price ADF Chahal K : A strategic framework for change management. Construction Management and Economics. 2006;24(3):237–251. 10.1080/01446190500227011 Prysor D Henley A : Boundary spanning in higher education leadership: identifying boundaries and practices in a British university. Studies in Higher Education. 2018;43(12):2210–2225. 10.1080/03075079.2017.1318364 Rienties B Brouwer N Lygo-Baker S : The effects of online professional development on higher education teachers’ beliefs and intentions towards learning facilitation and technology. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2013;29(1):122–131. 10.1016/j.tate.2012.09.002 Robertson SL : Corporatisation, competitiveness, commercialisation: New logics in the globalising of UK higher education. Globalisation, Societies and Education. 2010;8(2):191–203. 10.1080/14767721003776320 Sahoo R : Neoliberalism and the changing notion of indian higher education. European Journal of Education Studies. 2023;10(10). 10.46827/ejes.v10i10.4986 Seibert SE Kraimer ML Liden RC : A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal. 2001;44(2):219–237. 10.2307/3069452 Selwyn N : Education and Technology: Key Issues and Debates. Neurological sciences: official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology. 2011. Seyfried M Pohlenz P : Assessing quality assurance in higher education: quality managers’ perceptions of effectiveness. European Journal of Higher Education. 2018;8(3):258–271. 10.1080/21568235.2018.1474777 Siggelkow N Terwiesch C : The Age of Continuous Connection. (cover story). Harvard Business Review. 2019;97(3). Slater SF Mohr JJ Sengupta S : Radical product innovation capability: Literature review, synthesis, and illustrative research propositions. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2014;31(3):552–566. 10.1111/jpim.12113 Slaughter S Rhoades G : Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Jhu Press;2004. Smith R : Departmental Leadership and Management in Chartered and Statutory Universities: A Case of Diversity. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2005;33(4):449–464. 10.1177/1741143205056305 Sörlin S : Funding Diversity: Performance-based Funding Regimes as Drivers of Differentiation in Higher Education Systems. Higher Education Policy. 2007;20:413–440. 10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300165 Sporn B : Building adaptive universities: Emerging organisational forms based on experiences of european and us universities. Tertiary Education and Management. 2001;7(2):121–134. 10.1080/13583883.2001.9967046 Sukoco BM Choirunnisa Z Mudzakkir MF : Market orientation and capacity for change in higher education performance in Indonesia. Journal of Asia Business Studies. 2021;16:80–100. 10.1108/JABS-01-2020-0021 Taib FM Abdullah MNLY : Governance Reforms in Public University of Malaysia. Malaysia: Universiti Sains Malaysia Press;2015. Ter Wal ALJ Criscuolo P McEvily B : Dual Networking: How Collaborators Network in Their Quest for Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly. 2020;65(4):887–930. 10.1177/0001839219893691 Timberlake S : Social capital and gender in the workplace. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 2012;24:34–44. 10.1108/02621710510572335 Tomte CE Fossland T Aamodt PO : Digitalisation in higher education: mapping institutional approaches for teaching and learning. Quality in Higher Education. 2019;25(1):98–114. 10.1080/13538322.2019.1603611 Tyson M Orphan C Kiyama J : Leveraging higher education departments to promote institutional change for equity and the public good. Journal for the Study of Postsecondary and Tertiary Education. 2020;5:039–055. 10.28945/4511 Urbano D Guerrero M : Entrepreneurial Universities: Socioeconomic Impacts of Academic Entrepreneurship in a European Region. Gender & Society. 2013;27(1):40–55. 10.1177/0891242412471973 Vlachopoulos D : Organizational change management in higher education through the lens of executive coaches. Education Sciences. 2021;11(6). 10.3390/educsci11060269 Vuori J : Enacting the common script: Management ideas at Finnish universities of applied sciences. Educational Management Administration and Leadership. 2015;43(4):646–660. 10.1177/1741143214523016 Waring M : Management and leadership in UK universities: exploring the possibilities of change. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2017;39(5):540–558. 10.1080/1360080X.2017.1354754 Wu F Yeniyurt S Kim D : The impact of information technology on supply chain capabilities and firm performance: A resource-based view. Industrial Marketing Management. 2006;35(4):493–504. 10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.05.003 Yokoyama K : The effect of the research assessment exercise on organisational culture in English universities: Collegiality versus managerialism. Tertiary Education and Management. 2006;12(4):311–322. 10.1007/s11233-006-9007-2 10.5256/f1000research.191474.r442448 Reviewer response for version 5 Gioti Labrina 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1120-057X Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 9 1 2026 Copyright: © 2026 Gioti L 2026 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation approve

The revisions of the article are sufficient and covered all the parts and comments of reviewing. It can be indexed as it is.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

Yes

Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

NA

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

 10.5256/f1000research.191474.r442443 Reviewer response for version 5 Magalhães António M 2 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2979-2358 Veiga Amélia 1 Co-referee Education Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal, Portugal University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 18 12 2025 Copyright: © 2025 Veiga A and Magalhães AM 2025 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation approve

The authors made, indeed, a visible effort to respond to the issues raised in our review.

No further comments.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Partly

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

Not applicable

Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

No

Reviewer Expertise:

Higher Education Studies

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

 10.5256/f1000research.180902.r419131 Reviewer response for version 4 Magalhães António M 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2979-2358 University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 14 10 2025 Copyright: © 2025 Magalhães AM 2025 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation reject

Based on the assumption that new managerialism in higher education has transformed collegiality and university governance, the paper aims at identifying and analyzing these changes and their impact on universities and academia. It also aims to analyze how institutional governance and leadership are evolving and adapting to this context.

The theoretical framework underlying the undertaken systematic review suits the purposes of the study. However, one may wonder if the statement on page 5 on the research gap, “The rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge is to address the gap in understanding how neoliberalism influences collegiality and change management in higher education institutions”, develops as if there is an actual gap. Indeed, many studies and publications have been addressing, since the 1990s, the effects of NPM and neoliberalism on universities and their actors [e.g., the book by Slaughter & Rhoades, (2004), the book M. Kogan, M. Bauer, I. Bleiklie, M. Henkel (eds.) (2006), the book edited by Catherine Paradeise, Emanuela Reale, Ivar Bleiklie, Ewan Ferlie (2009), or the article by Bleiklie, I., Laredo, P. & Sörlin, S. (2007) or the article by Rosemary Deem (2011)]. The authors must clarify this and its implications on the workings of the systematic review they undertook. The authors recognize the choice for Scopus Database as a limitation of their study. Even though the systematic review focused on articles the paper cannot ignore seminal works and research on the development of the topic in academic literature.

The reviewers strongly advice to convene seminal authors and publications on the topic, as they did with regard to Burton Clark 1999 work on “Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: organizational pathways of transformation” that directly relate to the study the paper presents.

The paper needs English editing and a careful text revision. To give an example, the sentence on page 15, “The forces of globalization have driven the literature review” it is far from clear. Does it refer to the authors system literature review?

The Lewin’s theoretical framework appears as adequate to identify patterns of change. However, the conclusions of the study undertaken do not add to what is already studied, researched and known.

António Magalhães and Amélia Veiga

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Partly

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

Not applicable

Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

No

Reviewer Expertise:

Higher Education Studies

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

Ani Marlia Makna Management, Universitas Andalas, Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 13 11 2025

Dear Prof. António M Magalhães

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to you and the reviewers for the valuable time and thoughtful feedback provided on our manuscript. The comments have been extremely helpful in improving the clarity, depth, and overall quality of our paper.

In this revised version, we have carefully addressed each comment and made corresponding revisions throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer

1. Based on the assumption that new managerialism in higher education has transformed collegiality and university governance, the paper aims at identifying and analyzing these changes and their impact on universities and academia. It also aims to analyze how institutional governance and leadership are evolving and adapting to this context.

Our response:

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. We truly appreciate the time and attention you have given to reviewing our paper. Your insightful comments have been invaluable in helping us strengthen the clarity and depth of our analysis.

----

2. The theoretical framework underlying the undertaken systematic review suits the purposes of the study. However, one may wonder if the statement on page 5 on the research gap, “The rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge is to address the gap in understanding how neoliberalism influences collegiality and change management in higher education institutions”, develops as if there is an actual gap. Indeed, many studies and publications have been addressing, since the 1990s, the effects of NPM and neoliberalism on universities and their actors [e.g., the book by Slaughter & Rhoades, (2004), the book M. Kogan, M. Bauer, I. Bleiklie, M. Henkel (eds.) (2006), the book edited by Catherine Paradeise, Emanuela Reale, Ivar Bleiklie, Ewan Ferlie (2009), or the article by Bleiklie, I., Laredo, P. & Sörlin, S. (2007) or the article by Rosemary Deem (2011)]. The authors must clarify this and its implications on the workings of the systematic review they undertook. The authors recognize the choice for Scopus Database as a limitation of their study. Even though the systematic review focused on articles the paper cannot ignore seminal works and research on the development of the topic in academic literature.

Our response:

Thank you for your valuable comment. We have revised the paragraph on page 5 to acknowledge earlier seminal works and clarify that the study addresses a methodological, rather than theoretical, gap through a systematic and bibliometric approach. Additionally, we have updated the Limitations and future research directions section (page 36) to explicitly note the exclusion of non-indexed or seminal works and to suggest expanding future research to include them.

----

3. The reviewers strongly advice to convene seminal authors and publications on the topic, as they did with regard to Burton Clark 1999 work on “Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: organizational pathways of transformation” that directly relate to the study the paper presents.

Our response:

Thank you for the constructive suggestion. We have added a new paragraph on page 5 acknowledging Burton R. Clark’s (1998) seminal work Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. This addition highlights Clark’s contribution to understanding how universities transform into entrepreneurial institutions under neoliberal pressures. We also clarified how our study builds upon this foundation by extending his conceptual insights through a systematic and bibliometric review of global research trends.

----

4. The paper needs English editing and a careful text revision. To give an example, the sentence on page 15, “The forces of globalization have driven the literature review” it is far from clear. Does it refer to the authors system literature review?

Our response:

Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised (page 15) to clarify that globalization refers to the external forces driving transformation in higher education, not the process of conducting the systematic review.

----

5. The Lewin’s theoretical framework appears as adequate to identify patterns of change. However, the conclusions of the study undertaken do not add to what is already studied, researched and known.

Our response:

Thank you for this valuable feedback. We have revised the Conclusions section to clearly highlight the study’s original contribution beyond previous literature. The updated version emphasizes how the integration of bibliometric and systematic review methods provides new empirical insights into the evolution of collegiality, change management, and neoliberalism in higher education. It also clarifies that the study extends Lewin’s change management framework by demonstrating how its stages, unfreezing, moving, and refreezing manifest within contemporary university contexts influenced by neoliberal ideology. This revision strengthens the theoretical and practical significance of the findings.

 10.5256/f1000research.180902.r388833 Reviewer response for version 4 Dinis Maria Alzira Pimenta 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2198-6740 Universidade Fernando Pessoa, Porto, Portugal

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 3 6 2025 Copyright: © 2025 Dinis MAP 2025 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation reject

It is unclear in the title the specific context, if worldwide or focusing in a specific reality.

Unclear content needs to be revised: “We selected all retrieved sources based on the keywords and analyzed all the documents we obtained.”

This study did this, this study did that, needs revision.

General, I would say:

“The findings show that organizational management, leadership, education, technology, curriculum, innovation, organizational change, decision-making, and human beings are significant trajectories of neoliberalism in higher education.”

“This study offers other constructs for accelerating leadership success in higher education. This relates to how change leadership can navigate changes resulting from neoliberal ideology.”

Avoid abbreviations in keywords:

“Keywords change management, collegiality, neoliberalism, NPM, managerialism, higher education”

The manuscript need to be revised in terms of flow, interconnecting paragraphs, and removing older references unless absolutely necessary. Language needs overall refinement, as such terminology is perfectly unclear: “lamented”. What government, all governments...?, unclear arguments... “The government”. Which are? “Various phenomena” So, this type of unclear discourse becomes dangerous.

Low quality DPI figures, not sure if adapted and unclear caption.

“Figure 1. Concept Map of Changes in Universities (Lewin, 1951).”

All captions need revision to be made self-explanatory.

We cannot have duplicated captions:

“Figure 2. Primary information. Table 1. Primary information.”

I also do not understand terms such as results in Table 1 or commas in the values.

Every abbreviation/parameters needs definition under tables, in notes.

After having checked the manuscript, it would say it needs global formal check, language check, entire streamlining, the text is broken into pieces. Terminology such as “documents” need revision. Why not publications? Then grouped figures require subcaption per letter, after a main caption. The number of Figures is excessive, they should be rearranged or even grouped... I would suggest to avoid “we”

I am unsure in terms of separating the discussion from results, why not merge? Again, old references and a scattered discourse is a problem. The conclusions section needs to start with a clear context, methods, findings, implications, limitations, further prospects.

I hope that authors are able to improve the article, accordingly.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Partly

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly

If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

No

Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Sustainability

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

Ani Marlia Makna Management, Universitas Andalas, Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 13 6 2025

Dear Prof. Dinis

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for their constructive and insightful feedback. We greatly appreciate the time and effort taken to review our manuscript. Regarding the concerns raised about the title, it is acknowledged that it may not have been sufficiently clear in terms of the specific context it addresses. Clarification will be made to ensure the title reflects whether the study is focused globally or on a specific reality.

In response to the comment on the methodology section, it is understood that the phrase "We selected all retrieved sources based on the keywords and analyzed all the documents we obtained" may lack clarity. A more accurate and transparent description of the method employed will be provided. Additionally, the suggestion to avoid using phrases such as "This study did this, this study did that" is appreciated, and adjustments will be made to improve the academic tone and clarity of the writing.

We appreciate the feedback on the phrasing of the findings, particularly the sentence: “The findings show that organizational management, leadership, education, technology, curriculum, innovation, organizational change, decision-making, and human beings are significant trajectories of neoliberalism in higher education.” This statement, along with other findings, will be presented more clearly and concisely.

Regarding the use of abbreviations in the keywords, the suggestion to avoid them is noted, and the keywords will be adjusted for greater clarity and consistency. The feedback on the term "lamented" is also acknowledged, and more precise language will be used to convey the concern raised in the manuscript.

The feedback on the figures and captions is appreciated, particularly regarding their clarity and quality. The concern about duplicated captions between Figure 2 and Table 1 has been noted, and improvements will be made to ensure that all figures are clear and self-explanatory.

In terms of the manuscript's structure, the suggestion to merge the Results and Discussion sections to enhance the flow is understood. The findings will be presented in a more cohesive manner, with clear connections to each research question in the discussion.

Finally, the review of older references and the overall flow of the manuscript is acknowledged. Efforts will be made to streamline the references, and improvements to the language will be implemented to enhance clarity and precision.

Once again, we thank the reviewer for their thoughtful comments and suggestions, which have significantly contributed to the improvement of our manuscript. We hope the changes made address the concerns raised and enhance the clarity and rigor of our work.

Regards,

Makna Ani Marlia

 10.5256/f1000research.180902.r386027 Reviewer response for version 4 Waluyo Budi 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1919-2068 Walailak University, Thai Buri, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 28 5 2025 Copyright: © 2025 Waluyo B 2025 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation approve

Dear Author(s), 

I have seen significant improvements in the quality of the manuscript. I think I approve this version. If possible, please proofread the article and ensure the alignment of the references with the journal's guidelines.

Best,

Reviewer

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Partly

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

No

Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Education

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

 10.5256/f1000research.178003.r374030 Reviewer response for version 3 Gioti Labrina 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1120-057X Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 26 4 2025 Copyright: © 2025 Gioti L 2025 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation approve-with-reservations

Although the article presents interesting research results, the overall development and documentation is deficient. It seems that the text is written more as an essay than a paper. Adjustments need to be made in order to have a more coherent, synthetic and robust text that is more in line with the format of a paper. Based on the reviewers' comments, some important changes have been made, but the overall impression is that the article lacks coherent and consistent linkage and documentation between theory, research questions and discussion of results.

Specifically, the introduction is lengthy and descriptive. It does not provide sufficiently the problematic and the state of the art of the research purpose until the end of the section. Data from different countries and institutions are not interrelated and commented. I think it is necessary the writers to state how the three research questions are interconnected and related theoretically. The arguments need a more thorough and concise documentation and critique.  Nor it is clear what theoretical background will inform the research. In the section of "Literature review" the change management aspects  and theories are not connected and/or commented upon with the ideology of neoliberalism and the restructurings of the NPM in higher education institutions. 

In both sections introduction and literature review, as well as in discussion section, the bibliographical references that substantiate the arguments are presented in successive serialized references and not synthetically, while they are often repeated in the text without a clear and organic integration and connection with the main research questions. 

In the "Methods" section it would be useful for the authors to mention the tools they used, such as Prisma and bias assessment in the design subsection where they mention the method selection.

The "Results" are well presented while the figures and the visualisations facilitate reader and illustrate sufficiently the research findings.

The discussion section is well developed and documented. Nevertheless, the findings are not directly related to the first and third research questions. In the section of "Conclusions"  a general summary is given, but the authors' position and critical stance on the subject is missing.

Finally, a language check is needed for spelling, syntax and punctuation errors (eg "Lewis Change instead of Lewin's", double parentesis as in (( Nasution, Prasojo, Jannah, & Yumitro, 2020)).

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

Yes

Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Adult and Higher Education

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Ani Marlia Makna Management, Universitas Andalas, Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 16 5 2025

Dear Prof. Labrina Gioti,

We sincerely thank you for your thorough and constructive feedback on our manuscript "Explicating collegiality and change management in neoliberalism during the dynamics of higher education institutions: A Systematic Literature Review using PRISMA Checklist." Your insights have provided valuable guidance for improving the quality and rigor of our paper. We acknowledge the limitations you have identified and are committed to addressing each point comprehensively in our revision.

Structure and Academic Format

We appreciate your observation that the manuscript reads more like an essay than a research paper. We will restructure the entire document to better align with standard academic paper conventions, ensuring a more coherent, synthetic, and robust presentation of our research.

Theoretical Framework and Research Questions

 We acknowledge the need to establish clearer theoretical interconnections between our three research questions. The revised introduction will provide a more focused articulation of the research problem and state of the art earlier in the text. We will explicitly demonstrate how the research questions are theoretically interconnected and establish a more robust theoretical foundation that informs our research approach.

Integration of Literature

 We recognize the issue of presenting references in serial listings rather than synthetic integration. Our revised literature review will organize sources thematically and demonstrate critical engagement with the literature. We will ensure that change management theories are explicitly connected to neoliberalism and New Public Management in higher education contexts, creating more organic linkages to our research questions.

Methods Documentation

 We will enhance the Methods section by incorporating details about our use of the PRISMA Checklist and bias assessment tools in the design subsection, with clearer explanations of their implementation. This will provide greater transparency about our methodological approach and facilitate replication by other researchers.

Discussion and Conclusions

 We acknowledge that our findings are not adequately connected to the first and third research questions. The revised discussion section will explicitly address all three research questions, ensuring more direct connections between our results and research objectives. Our conclusion will be strengthened to include our critical stance on the subject and more thoroughly demonstrate how our conclusions are supported by the research findings.

Technical Issues

 We will conduct a comprehensive language review to address spelling, syntax, and citation formatting issues throughout the manuscript, including correcting errors such as "Lewis Change" to "Lewin's Change" and fixing double parentheses in citations.

Implementation Plan

 We are preparing a comprehensive revision that addresses all the points raised in your review. The revised manuscript will feature:

A more concise, focused introduction that clearly establishes the research problem and theoretical framework

A restructured literature review with thematic organization and clearer connections between change management theories, neoliberalism, and higher education governance

Enhanced methodological documentation

A more cohesive results and discussion section that directly addresses our research questions

A strengthened conclusion that presents our critical stance and implications

Thoroughly edited language for clarity and correctness

 We believe these revisions will significantly strengthen our manuscript and address the valuable feedback you have provided. We are grateful for your insights, which will help us develop a more rigorous and valuable contribution to the literature on higher education governance in the context of neoliberalism.

Sincerely,

Makna Ani Marlia

 10.5256/f1000research.178003.r369956 Reviewer response for version 3 Waluyo Budi 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1919-2068 Walailak University, Thai Buri, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 18 3 2025 Copyright: © 2025 Waluyo B 2025 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation approve

Dear Author(s), 

Thank you for revising the manuscript. I only have a minor revision to request:

In the abstract (Methods), you should mention the number of the reviewed articles and where you took them from (databases). You should not include the search keywords. 

Thank you.

Reviewer

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Partly

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

No

Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Education

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

 10.5256/f1000research.174074.r343718 Reviewer response for version 2 Waluyo Budi 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1919-2068 Walailak University, Thai Buri, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 13 12 2024 Copyright: © 2024 Waluyo B 2024 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation reject

Dear Author(s),

Thank you for submitting the revised manuscript. Overall, the quality has improved significantly. However, I have some additional comments to further enhance your manuscript.

First, I recommend revising the background section in the abstract. You should avoid using "THIS" repeatedly throughout the three sentences. Please revise the three sentences and combine them into two, directly stating the research gaps and the contribution of your study.

Second, in the introduction, could you add some contextual details from the studies you mentioned? For example, you could include information on the countries where the studies were conducted, the participants involved, and the universities or institutions included. This additional context will help scaffold knowledge in readers' minds and emphasize the critical need for your study.

Third, the first sentence of your literature review ("Change is identified as a shift in organizational behavior from one form to another") is unclear and needs further clarification. Also, you should provide references for this statement. The first paragraph of the literature review lacks coherence and critical engagement. Please revise it accordingly. Furthermore, I suggest adding more references to this section. Reflect on the key terms in your research questions and ensure that these terms are elaborated upon in your literature review, as they will serve as the theoretical or conceptual foundations of your study.

Fourth, the methods section is adequate, and I am satisfied with it.

Fifth, the results section appears interesting, and the visualizations are helpful. Nonetheless, I recommend presenting the results in the order of the research questions. Using the research questions as a guide will make the results easier to follow and understand.

Sixth, the discussion section is adequate; however, as I mentioned earlier, you need to provide more contextual details. You could mention the countries, participants, types of higher education, etc., examined in the prior research you cited. Expanding on the context in the discussion will help broaden the interpretation of your findings.

Thank you for your hard work on this revision. I look forward to seeing the updated manuscript.

Best regards,

Reviewer

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Partly

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

No

Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Education

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

Ani Marlia Makna Management, Universitas Andalas, Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 6 2 2025

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your constructive feedback and for acknowledging the improvements made to our manuscript. We appreciate your detailed suggestions and have addressed each point to further enhance the quality of our work. Below, we outline how we have revised the manuscript in response to your comments.

Response to Comment 1: Revision of the Background Section in the Abstract We have revised the abstract to avoid repetitive use of "THIS" and combined the sentences to succinctly state the research gaps and contributions of our study.

Response to Comment 2: Contextual Details in the Introduction We have incorporated detailed contextual information from the studies mentioned in the introduction. This includes the countries where the studies were conducted, the participants involved, and the specific universities or institutions examined. This enhancement not only enriches the background but also emphasizes the global relevance and critical need for our investigation.

Response to Comment 3: Clarification in Literature Review We have clarified the first sentence of the literature review and provided additional references to support our statements.

Response to Comment 4: Methods Section We are pleased to hear that the methods section meets your expectations, and no further revisions have been made here.

Response to Comment 5: Structure of the Results Section In response to your suggestion, we have added explain in first paragraph.

Response to Comment 6: Expanding Contextual Details in the Discussion We have expanded the discussion section

We hope these revisions adequately address your concerns and enhance the manuscript's contribution to the literature on higher education under neoliberal influence. We look forward to your feedback and are optimistic about the suitability of our manuscript for publication.

Thank you once again for your valuable input.

 10.5256/f1000research.160080.r307169 Reviewer response for version 1 Pourkarimi Javad 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4599-9087 University of Tehran, Tehran, Tehran Province, Iran

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 26 8 2024 Copyright: © 2024 Pourkarimi J 2024 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation reject

Thanks to the scientific efforts of the authors;

It seems that the researcher should pay attention to more details both in the aspect of problem analysis and in the aspect of methodology, which I will raise two points below:

The researcher should clearly show what was the existing problem based on which he designed the research. Examine and display the relevant evidence carefully and design it as a scientific research to be able to present the argument well.

To conduct a systematic study, the researcher must show that enough research has been done in the desired field and the researcher intends to systematically review those studies; Provide a different and creative representation. In addition, there are various types of systematic review that the researcher can refer to the following address- [1]

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Partly

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly

If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

No

Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

No

Reviewer Expertise:

Educational Management

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

References : A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J .2009;26(2) : 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x 91-108 19490148 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x Ani Marlia Makna Management, Universitas Andalas, Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 27 10 2024

We selected PRISMA for our systematic literature review because systematic reviews can report methods and results in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. We changed the title of this paper.

 Ani Marlia Makna Management, Universitas Andalas, Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 23 4 2025

Dear Prof Javad Pourkarimi.

Thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback. We appreciate your thoughtful review and valuable insights. In response to your feedback:

Clarification of Research Problem: We have explicitly clarified the research problem in the introduction, detailing the issues of neoliberalism and its impact on collegiality and change management in higher education. We also carefully examined and presented the relevant evidence supporting the study's design.

Systematic Study Design: We have refined the methodology section to clearly outline that we conducted a systematic review based on comprehensive research in the field. The PRISMA methodology is now fully described, and we have included more details on the selection criteria and data analysis process.

Methodology Transparency: We have provided a more explicit description of the PRISMA approach and the process by which the studies were selected for review. We also clarified the statistical analysis, emphasizing its appropriateness and relevance to the research objectives.

Living Systematic Review: Since our study is not a Living Systematic Review, we removed any references to this method in the revised manuscript.

Conclusion Support: We revised the conclusions to ensure they are adequately supported by the results presented in the review. The implications for both theory and practice are now more clearly stated.

We hope these revisions meet your expectations and improve the clarity and robustness of the manuscript.

Thank you for your constructive feedback. We look forward to your final approval.

 10.5256/f1000research.160080.r281536 Reviewer response for version 1 Said-Hung Elias 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0594-5906 International University of La Rioja, Logroño, La Rioja, Spain

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 18 6 2024 Copyright: © 2024 Said-Hung E 2024 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation reject

It is an interesting work, but it lacks adjustments that could help improve its exposition.

First of all, I consider that the abstract of the work needs to be reviewed and better structured. The methodology, objectives, results, and relevant conclusions should be more precise.

Secondly, the work's title should be reviewed, making it clear that it is a literature review.

Thirdly, the location of the research question should be reviewed. I find it strange that it is stated between the introduction and the literature review. It makes more sense for it to be part of the final paragraph of the introduction section.

Fourthly, the study should review its general objective to make it more straightforward regarding the type of research carried out. The paper focuses on describing the changes in universities owing to the ideology of neoliberalism through the systematic review, but the results aim to better understand how, from where, and in what academic spaces this topic has been addressed. Something that is not the same. The specific objectives of the study would also need to be made clear so that the presentation of the data has a more coherent narrative, which helps to achieve the general objective finally proposed. Thus, it is better to understand the impact of showing the h-index of the journals where these works are published, for example. Honestly, I consider that the objective of this work focuses more on understanding the frontiers of knowledge reached around the proposed topic than what is proposed as a general objective. Something that can be useful to identify dominant conceptual and methodological approaches better and identify strengths and weaknesses within the academic debate around the topic raised, which helps the development of new works.

Fifthly, the methodological framework should be better reviewed. The type of methodology considered for the final sample analysis selection should be made clear. In addition to better understanding the selection criteria taken. I understand that a Prisma or similar methodology was applied, but it is something that is not clear. The lack of clarity of specific objectives contributes to the methodology not being transparent about the central categories considered and the convenience of the data described in the results section.

Sixth, the discussion should be reviewed, considering all the recommendations given. The conclusion section is missing. The discussion and conclusions should clarify the data's implications in light of the theoretical framework, practical applications, limitations, and future lines of work.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Partly

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly

If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

Yes

Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

My research areas are in the sociology of education, sociology of communication, hate speech, disinformation content, and polarization. Most of my research is based on quantity analysis and systematic reviews, amongst others.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

Ani Marlia Makna Management, Universitas Andalas, Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 27 10 2024

The abstract's structure is based on the author’s guidelines.  Thanks for correcting our title; we revised the title. The position of the research questions is placed in the last paragraph of the Introduction. The study's specific objective is to explore and clarify the role of collegiality and change management within the context of neoliberalism in higher education institutions. This objective is achieved through a systematic literature review that examines how these institutions navigate and adapt to dynamic environments influenced by neoliberal policies. We added implications in the light of theoretical framework and practical application at the end of the conclusion section. We made the limitations and future research direction stand-alone after the conclusion section.

 Ani Marlia Makna Management, Universitas Andalas, Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 23 4 2025

Dear Prof. Elias Said-Hung

Thank you for your thoughtful suggestions. We have addressed your comments as follows:

Abstract Structure: We have restructured the abstract to better present the methodology, objectives, results, and conclusions, making it more concise and focused.

Title Revision: The title has been revised to clearly indicate that this is a literature review, in line with your suggestion.

Positioning of Research Questions: As suggested, we moved the research questions to the last paragraph of the introduction for better flow and clarity.

General Objective and Specific Objectives: We have revised the general objective to align more clearly with the systematic review conducted. The specific objectives are now clearly stated, ensuring coherence throughout the manuscript. We also clarified the role of collegiality and change management within the context of neoliberalism in higher education.

Methodological Framework: We clarified the methodology section, including the PRISMA framework and the criteria for selecting the studies reviewed. We also ensured that the sampling and analysis methods are transparent and replicable.

Discussion and Conclusion: We have expanded the discussion section, incorporating the context and implications of our findings. The conclusion now addresses the theoretical framework, practical applications, limitations, and directions for future research as separate sections.

We believe these revisions enhance the manuscript's clarity and coherence, and we appreciate your guidance throughout this process.

We are grateful for the detailed feedback and believe that these revisions significantly strengthen the manuscript. We look forward to your continued feedback and hope the revised manuscript meets your expectations for publication.