AI Managerialism in Higher Education: Algorithmic Governance, Shared Authority, and the Ethics of Institutional Control

Authors

  • Sun Tianzi Mariano Marcos State University, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte, 2900 Philippines
  • Mark Joseph D. Pastor Mariano Marcos State University, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte, 2900 Philippines

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54536/ajet.v5i3.8025

Keywords:

Academic Governance, AI Managerialism, Algorithmic Decision-Support, Generative AI, Institutional Accountability

Abstract

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into higher education is transforming how universities are governed, managed, and held accountable. While existing scholarship has focused primarily on the pedagogical applications of AI and the ethical implications of algorithmic technologies, less attention has been devoted to how AI reshapes institutional governance and decision-making processes. Addressing this gap, this paper advances the concept of AI managerialism to explain the growing influence of algorithmic systems on university governance and organizational control.The study employs a critical narrative review and conceptual policy analysis, synthesizing scholarship on AI governance, managerialism, and higher education administration. It further examines three purposively selected cases representing key domains of algorithmic governance: the Ofqual algorithm controversy in the United Kingdom, Purdue University’s Course Signals learning analytics system, and the University of Sydney’s response to generative AI. Through cross-case thematic analysis, the study identifies recurring governance issues related to accountability, transparency, participation, and institutional autonomy.Findings suggest that AI-enabled systems can improve administrative efficiency, predictive capacity, and evidence-informed decision-making while simultaneously generating risks associated with opacity, surveillance, stakeholder exclusion, and the centralization of managerial authority. In response, the paper proposes an Ethical AI Governance Framework for Higher Education built on five principles: mission alignment, transparency and explainability, participatory governance, equity auditing, and bounded scope. Extending existing AI ethics frameworks, the model explicitly incorporates institutional mission, shared governance, and organizational accountability into AI oversight processes. The framework provides practical guidance for university leaders and policymakers seeking to balance technological innovation with academic values and democratic governance. The paper concludes that effective AI governance requires institutionally grounded arrangements that ensure AI supports, rather than undermines, the educational mission of higher education.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Arnold, K. E., & Pistilli, M. D. (2012). Course signals at Purdue: Using learning analytics to increase student success. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, 267–270. https://doi.org/10.1145/2330601.2330666

Baer, L., & Campbell, J. (2012). From metrics to analytics, reporting to action: Analytics’ role in changing the learning environment. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Game changers: Education and information technologies (pp. 53–65). EDUCAUSE.

Deem, R. (1998). New managerialism and higher education: The management of performances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8(1), 47–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/0962021980020014

Ekowo, M., & Palmer, I. (2016). The promise and peril of predictive analytics in higher education. New America.

European Commission High-Level Expert Group on AI. (2019). Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. Publications Office of the European Union.

Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707.

Hartong, S. (2016). Between assessments, digital technologies and big data: The growing influence of ‘hidden’ data mediators in education. European Educational Research Journal, 15(5), 523–536. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116648966

Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a

Hillman, N. (2019). Why rich colleges get richer and poor colleges get poorer. Third Way.

Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications. Center for Curriculum Redesign.

Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x

MacLure, M. (2005). Clarity bordering on stupidity: Where’s the quality in systematic review? Journal of Education Policy, 20(4), 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500116566

Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university. Cambridge University Press.

Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679

Moore, S., Neylon, C., Eve, M. P., Paul, K., & O’Donnell, D. P. (2017). Excellence R Us: University research and the fetishisation of excellence. Palgrave Communications, 3, Article 16105. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.105

Muller, J. Z. (2018). The tyranny of metrics. Princeton University Press.

O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction. Crown.

Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society. Harvard University Press.

Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Tierney, W. G., & Minor, J. T. (2003). Challenges for governance. USC Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis.

UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. UNESCO.

Williamson, B. (2019). Policy networks, performance metrics and platform markets. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 2794–2809. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12849

Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.

Downloads

Published

2026-08-25

How to Cite

Tianzi, S. ., & Pastor, M. J. D. . (2026). AI Managerialism in Higher Education: Algorithmic Governance, Shared Authority, and the Ethics of Institutional Control. American Journal of Education and Technology, 5(3), 131-136. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajet.v5i3.8025

Similar Articles

11-20 of 140

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.