Introduction

Governance is prominent in stakeholders' agendas worldwide (Affandi et al., 2023). Its concept is vast, and its implementation varies by sector and management type based on the economic activity (D. J. Santos & Souza, 2022). Leal Filho et al. (2023) argue that only some studies have integrally examined governance in higher education (HE). Pflüger and Mojescik (2023) contend that governance becomes more ambiguous and fragmented when introduced into accredited public higher education institutions (APHEIs). However, there is a trend in the literature characterizing corporate governance (CG) models for official higher education institutions (HEIs) that range between planning and control (Resende & Oliveira, 2020). Consequently, to fill this knowledge gap, this study aims to structure a comprehensive CG model, as Ramirez and Calderón (2024) suggested, to address the scope of this construct in APHEIs.

The dimensions included in HE governance models are diverse, reflecting the variety of proposed concepts (Daniri et al., 2023). Pflüger and Mojescik (2023) argue that a new governance regime has been established globally in HEIs in line with New Public Management (NPM). Under the logic of CG, three dimensions are recurrently included: management, institutional autonomy, and accountability (Elken, 2023a). In this regard, Scott et al. (2023) also present other CG dimensions attributed to significant efficiency and improvements in responsiveness, extending new institutionalism to management. These include constructs such as the administrative process and stakeholders. Peng et al. (2023) found that CG intersects with new institutionalism and strategic management. Therefore, according to Hsieh (2023), governance in APHEIs should be structured with a mixed intervention scheme (public-private) whose dimensions address economic, social, and environmental problems, considering the challenge of sustainability (Bayhantopcu & Aymerich Ojea, 2024). Thus, according to Hoque (2023), it is inferred that NPM and private sector management styles have laid the foundation for a hybrid transformation that has reconfigured governance in APHEIs.

Overall, it is evident that CG is a broad topic, and some authors suggest future studies should include comprehensive explanations of the different observed dimensions of CG and the reciprocal interactions of its elements (Hsieh, 2023). This includes the relevance of CG in universities (Omar et al., 2022), the inclusion of organizational characteristics, management strategies, and organizational culture (Kienast, 2023), the influence of autonomy as a regulatory factor of CG (Fatma et al., 2021), the analysis of CG and quality in HE through alternative data processing methods (Pedraja & Rodríguez, 2022), mapping the main demands of HEI stakeholders (Gesser et al., 2022), and accountability as an integral indicator of organizational performance (Pilon & Brouard, 2023). All these aspects aim to characterize the dimensions among different governance mechanisms for constructing a relevant CG model for APHEIs (Jiang & Xue, 2022).

In the Latin American context, it is suggested that new models and flexible possibilities of CG be explored, implementing management theories to structure a model suitable for the realities of each country (Khan et al., 2021). In some South American countries, governance reforms in public higher education are recommended to align with NPM to ensure quality assurance (Alarcon & Brunner, 2023). For Colombia, Restrepo et al. (2018) argue that a solid governance system is needed to enable HEIs to function effectively and fulfil their responsibilities regarding transparency and accountability. Da Cunha and Lucarelli (2022) state that countries like Colombia should consider CG as the strategic trajectory of any university worldwide. Therefore, it is evident that there is conceptual dispersion regarding the dimensions that should constitute the CG model for APHEIs management, which, in any case, must be disruptive and focused on quality assurance (Liang, 2022).

Thus, considering the existing research gap related to the absence of a CG model in high-quality public higher education, the question arises: What are the dimensions of a governance model for accredited public higher education institutions? Therefore, based on the previous discussions, this study aims to propose a CG model with corresponding dimensions that allow APHEIs to organize and function internally, from the perspective of their governance, management, and relationships with stakeholders, to achieve HE objectives with quality criteria. With this research, the authors hope to propose a comprehensive CG model and significantly enhance the understanding of CG dimensions still being constructed in APHEIs, thereby contributing to advancing knowledge in this field.

This research followed a sequential mixed-method design, using qualitative and quantitative approaches, structured in three stages. In the first stage, a literature review on the characterization of CG in APHEIs was conducted, constituting the first comprehension model (1.0), Figure 2. The second stage involved a content analysis, from which four categories and 12 subcategories emerged, leading to the comprehension model (2.0), Figure 3. Finally, the third stage proposed the CG model in APHEIs (3.0), Figure 7, developed as a synthesis of the exploratory (Elken, 2023a) and interdisciplinary (Alrwaihi et al., 2017) analysis, with academic experts from the Quality Assurance System (QAS) who have participated in public policy construction for HE in Colombia.

Theoretical Framework

Resende and Oliveira (2020) argue that governance applied to the public sector can be approached from three levels: macro, focused on the entire state sector; meso, limited to a specific sector; and micro, connected to corporate-level management. This research addresses the latter level regarding management, regulation, interaction of strategic actors, and decision-making to achieve institutional objectives efficiently, effectively, and transparently (Aversano et al., 2023).

According to Hsieh (2023), governance in public HEIs follows an eclectic approach, representing a continuous process characterized by complex interactions between global movements and local interests based on new institutionalism. Paredes et al. (2022) find that the NPM paradigm is relevant for characterizing CG as it contains generally accepted theoretical guidelines by the interested scientific community. Dwesini (2023) highlights the relevance of underpinning CG with administrative theories.

Regarding NPM, Hoque (2023) categorizes it as the integrative element of the dimensions that constitute CG in state HE and the transition from traditional public management to efficiency- and effectiveness-oriented management. Muyters et al. (2022) explain that NPM is an alternative to enhance public organizations' resources and capabilities, which can be articulated with governance mechanisms and structures in complex organizational environments. According to Van Berckel (2023), NPM aligns with the new standard for public governance, utilizing concepts developed or inspired by the private sector to transform state organizations. Scott et al. (2023) argue that NPM and CG unite to provide answers to managing complex organizational environments. Therefore, it is possible to establish that NPM's theoretical guidelines complement the scope of CG dimensions in public HEIs, creating value for stakeholders demanding inclusive quality education as part of a new social contract (Flipse et al., 2024).

Continuing with the correlation between public HEIs and NPM governance, Muyters et al. (2022) assert that the literature presents different CG models meeting official HE demands. They specify that two different positions have been taken over the years. The first position includes alternative models replacing the NPM concept, leading to governance in transition (Hsieh, 2023), involving complex interactions and agreements among internal and external stakeholders sharing postulates of different logics and management systems from various sectors (Marchisott et al., 2021). The second position argues that emerging theories are simply adaptations of NPM rather than their replacement (Muhammad et al., 2022; Muyters, Broucker, Witte, et al., 2022). Although these positions contain conceptually opposing elements, they share several CG elements and others that are complementary (Resende & Oliveira, 2020). They follow the logic of hologrammatic governance as an alternative to the reductionist and instrumental trend prevalent in most educational systems worldwide (Muyters, Broucker, Witte, et al., 2022). Under these premises, Paredes et al. (2022) assert that CG in the NPM perspective should focus on efficiently managing public resources in HEIs to ensure HE quality and thus contribute to achieving the SDGs proposed in the 2030 agenda (Leal Filho et al., 2021).

Concerning administrative theories, the most recurrent ones within the CG framework are (i) New Institutionalism Theory (NIT), which, according to March and Olsen (1984), is about decision-making, rule-based action and socially constructed from a performance perspective. It is considered relevant for organizational analysis. Following this line, Dimmagio and Powell (1991) argue that it is a determining alternative for public policy studies, including HE. Indeed, Hasanefendic and Donina (2023) associate institutional theory premises with strategy formulation. (ii) Resource-Based View (RBV) Theory, given the need to explain the harmonious interaction of management capacity and resources with institutional changes (Barney, 2001). RBV is fundamental for understanding the alignment of the competitive advantage concept with sustainability (Bhat et al., 2024); it also emerges as a dominant framework in strategy fields as a theoretical response to study changes occurring in the institutional environment (Patnaik et al., 2022). (iii) Stakeholder Theory (ST) complements other theories; according to Freeman et al. (2004), the ST complements the other theories because it shows a set of actors within organizations and in the environment who are interrelated for a common cause. In this sense, Daniri et al. (2023) state that ST orientations support university transformation. Moreover, it underpins the analysis of the impact of decision-making as a prerogative of institutional self-determination (Wang et al., 2022).

In the realm of NPM and related administrative theories, the following definitions are crucial for this research's purpose, viewed through the lens of CG in APHEIs: (i) for Rajasekharanm et al. (2021), this construct is conceptualized based on strategic management guidelines, with shared objectives among stakeholders to ensure quality; (ii) Ramirez and Calderón (2024) explain governance as an association between power, social interactions, and the type of organizational structure, comprising four axes: control, collegial bodies, self-regulation, and agreement; (iii) Daniri et al. (2023) define it as a structure comprising strategic management, autonomy, stakeholders, and accountability to improve the university's performance in fulfilling its mission; (iv) Gesser et al. (2022) argue that it is a leadership, strategy, and control mechanism to guide management performance aimed at leading public policies and providing services of interest to society; (v) Al Sawafi et al. (2023) declare that it is a mechanism that facilitates decision-making, maximizes overall organizational performance, and contributes to sustainability for stakeholders' benefit; (vi) Handayani et al. (2023) affirm that it is a mechanism that includes integrity, ethics, transparency, accountability, and culture to achieve long-term objectives.

As observed, various authors include guidelines from administrative theories that expand the understanding of CG in APHEIs. For example, Han et al. (2024) assert that these theories play a crucial role in understanding organizational management. Dneprovskaya and Shevtsova, (2023) argue that they allow the analysis of environmental changes and strategic formulation. Kienast (2023) shows they help explain organizational characteristics, management strategies, and organizational culture. Table 1 shows how each theory could contribute to governance in accredited public HEIs.

Table 1

Theories supporting the concept of governance in accredited public universities.

Source: Authors' elaboration

Materials and Methods of Analysis

The research on CG in APHEIs followed a sequential mixed-method design (Gutierrez-Rivera et al., 2023). Data processing included three stages: (i) bibliometric analysis, (ii) content analysis, and (iii) exploratory analysis (text mining).

The first stage of our research, a quantitative approach, involved a bibliometric analysis using the VOS viewer software, version 1.6.20. This software, as highlighted by Leal Filho et al. (2023), is of significant importance as it maps in a network graph the keywords (occurrence) and the connections between them, measuring co-occurrence. The diameter of the node presents the frequency of occurrence of the term and the proximity between them, indicating the level of associativity and, therefore, belonging to a thematic group according to such co-occurrence. Keywords with a high correlation are placed in the same group, as noted by Kwon (2022). The distance between the two keywords indicates the strength of association calculated by the ratio between the observed and expected number of co-occurrences, as Trevisan et al. (2024) argued.

The research criteria used SCOPUS and Web of Science databases to follow the citation pearl growing technique (Avenali et al., 2023; Cooper et al., 2018). The following formula was implemented (("Higher education governance" OR "Governance approach universities" OR "Corporate Governance higher education" OR" Education corporate governance" OR "corporate governance" OR "govern*" OR "polic*") AND ("public academi*" OR "public universit*" OR "public higher education institut*" OR "public HEI*" OR "official higher education")).

The second stage of this research used a qualitative approach. It consisted of a content analysis that enabled systematizing and describing CG in APHEIs through concepts and categories. A total of 220 studies were examined in depth, and following Vale et al. (2022), the reference items for publishing systemic review protocols and meta-analysis (PRISMA) methodology were used. These were initially proposed by Liberati et al. (2009) and updated in 2020 by Page et al. (2021).

In the third stage, an exploratory analysis was carried out using text mining with a quantitative approach (Sakthi Vel, 2021). At this stage, 22 Ministry of National Education advisors were interviewed, and a governance model for accredited public HEIs was constructed, Figure 7 (Model 3.0). The participants were chosen to meet the following criteria: members of the QAS, experts in higher education public policy, and belonging to disciplinary fields related to management sciences, law, political sciences, social sciences, and educational sciences.

Results of the Analysis

In the first stage of the analysis, the characteristics of CG in the APHEIs are introduced based on a bibliometric analysis. In the second stage, the constructs resulting from the reading are interpreted, and the dimensions are prioritized. Finally, in the third stage, the QAS experts use text mining to carry out the triangulation process.

Results of the First Phase of the Quantitative Analysis

Results of the Bibliometric Analysis

The data export technique enabled the most relevant relationships and clusters to be obtained. Eight groups emerged based on the co-occurring terms; however, three groups appeared to overlap, and by methodological determination, three were merged. This led to the definition of four final groups, similar to the result presented by Leal Filho et al. (2023). Figure 1 shows the knowledge map for CG in the APHEIs with the occurrence and co-occurrence of terms extracted from the selected databases and related to the object of study.

Figure 1
Corporate governance knowledge map for APHEIs.
Source: Authors' elaboration using VOS Viewer 1.1.20 software.

The first group, the broadest, includes terms related to strategic management (green, yellow, light blue). It includes topics such as corporate governance, e-governance, governance approach, institutionalism, strategic management, strategic planning, management information, knowledge management, performance management, performance evaluation, higher education management, public administration, strategic approach, public policy, efficiency, innovation, intellectual capital, investment, technology policy, technology transfer, academic performance, academic research, environmental management, revenue and competition. The second group, institutional autonomy (red), includes terms such as academic freedom, accreditation, agency theory, evaluation, diversity, educational policy, equity, gender equity, higher education financing, human capital, inclusive education, internationalization, leadership, lifelong learning, privatization, quality assurance, university autonomy and university management. The third group (dark blue, brown and orange) refers to stakeholders, such as faculty, students, graduates, faculties, sustainable development, diversity, sustainability financing, ethnic groups, privatization, income diversification and media. Finally, the fourth group (purple) is associated with accountability, where terms such as transparency, comprehensiveness, responsibility, commitment, culture, gender, graduation, institutional autonomy, hierarchy, student retention, educational media, participation and social responsibility stand out.

The first knowledge compression, model 1.0, is presented based on the above-emerging categories. Figure 2 shows the thematic contexts of academic discussions on CG in the APHEIs, segmented into four groups.

Figure 2
Corporate governance for APHEIs. Model 1.0.
Source: Authors' elaboration.

Results of the content analysis

The first group is closely related to strategic management, which is presented as a category integrated by the functions of the administrative process: planning, organization, direction and control (Chan, 2024; Lillo et al., 2023). Planning includes the strategic objectives and policies that lead HEIs toward their vision of the future (Yahya & Khu, 2021). The organisation converges the structure, the allocation of functions, resources and the definition of author ity and responsibility (Van Berckel, 2023). Management relates the disposition of human talent from the academic and administrative subsystems (Mrzygtocka-Chojnacka & Ryñca, 2023); also included are motivation, communication and leadership aligned toward a common purpose (Haftel & Lenz, 2022). Finally, control includes quality standards, performance evaluation and the analysis of deviations from the plans (Idil et al., 2022). Consequently, this construct refers to the intervention of the governing bodies of public HEIs in the decision-making process to continuously improve performance with a predominance of managerialism (Kienast, 2023).

The second group is the concept of institutional autonomy (Shin et al., 2022; Juiz et al., 2022). This category comprises organizational, financial and academic autonomy (Górska et al., 2022). Organizational autonomy is the fundamental basis of the entire administrative process (Quyet et al., 2023). According to the NPM, financial autonomy implies applying the principles of austerity, efficiency and effectiveness (Tuan & Trang, 2024). It includes deciding independently on the distribution of funds for academic and administrative operations (Górska et al., 2022; Mai et al., 2020). Academic autonomy is linked to freedom of teaching, learning, assessment and research (Trivedi, 2024). Along with promoting critical thinking through academic freedom (Wen & Marginson, 2023). Therefore, institutional autonomy represents the strategic scope for determining the organizational structure, empowering human talent and monitoring management to deliver results to stakeholders in the short, medium and long term (Shin et al., 2022). In other words, it ensures that public HEIs can carry out their objectives and responsibilities by their overall planning and development strategy (Wang et al., 2022).

The third group focuses on internal and external stakeholders, which are actors that can affect or be affected by strategic management decision-making (Daniri et al., 2023). Internal stakeholders comprise the university community of students, managers, and academic and administrative staff (Hernández-Diaz et al., 2021). External stakeholders comprise public or private organizations that are part of the economic, social and environmental surroundings (Gesser et al., 2022). Consequently, stakeholders are a relevant category in CG in the APHEIs because it allows more significant interaction (participation and representation) in management (Conejero, 2021).

The fourth group is related to accountability. This category comprises transparency, responsibility and accountability mechanisms (Handayani et al., 2023; Marchisott et al., 2021). Transparency is the axis of university social responsibility that seeks continuous improvement with ethical standards (Sasaki & Horng, 2023). Responsibility refers to the capacity of the HEI to perform self-regulation and continuous improvement (Khan et al., 2021). It implies that IESPAs are responsible to their stakeholders for ensuring quality through shared governance (Borch et al., 2024). Finally, accountability mechanisms allow stakeholders to obtain information on management and its results (Song & Lai, 2022). It is primarily implemented through auditing, annual reports and other quality assurance mechanisms (Shin et al., 2022).

Thus, accountability as a construct is an instrument of the NPM that ensures the ethical performance of the public servant and eliminates arbitrariness (Ishihara, 2022).. It indicates a permanent process that safeguards the rights of stakeholders with spaces for public dialogue (Machado et al., 2024). Therefore, it gives visibility to information associated with university sustainability through its values, principles and objectives (Leal Filho et al., 2024).

The model of CG in APHEIs in Figure 2. shows schematically the understanding of the four categories analysed. At this stage, they are studied separately, but in the practice of NPM, the four categories interact harmoniously and are concordant, sequential and complementary (Alkaraan et al., 2024). In this model, it can be observed that strategic management is a highly influential construct concerning the other three and denotes a marked relationship with accountability (Ruan et al., 2023). In the same way, a similar link, albeit with less intensity, is observed between institutional autonomy and stakeholders (Górska et al., 2022). A relatively medium influence is visualized among the remaining categories, accountability to stakeholders and institutional autonomy (Maldonado et al., 2019).

Figure 3
Corporate Governance model in APHEIs. Model 2.0.
Source: To structure the dimensions of this governance model, the authors followed: a. Chan (2024) and Lillo et al. (2023); b. Shin et al. (2022) and Juiz et al. (2022); c. Daniri et al. (2023); d. Handayani et al. (2023) and Marchisott et al. (2021).

Model 2.0 results from the analysis of other research that has tried to explain the dimensions of CG in HE. The studies found structures that include some of the categories contained in this model. The most recurrent categories in the different conceptual governance models correspond to three aspects: the first group's management, stakeholders and accountability (Lo, 2023). The second includes management, institutional autonomy and accountability (Elken, 2023b). The third contains management, institutional autonomy and stakeholders (Ruan et al., 2023). However, as in this research, they must integrate them simultaneously and holistically. In the NPM line, governance in HEIs functions as a transversal axis of a dynamic system (Singh & Slack, 2022; C. Machado & Davim, 2023). The results show that the control mechanisms implemented by the state influence universities and shape differences in the models of governance exercised (Pusser, 2003). Governance plays a key role because it establishes the institutional arrangements that define how a university operates and consists of formal and informal rules that allocate decision-making power and co-responsibilities of stakeholders (Hsieh, 2023).

In summary, Model 2.0 shows that governance in public HE is how universities make decisions, distribute authority, build consensus, resolve conflicts, and gain legitimacy through the results of their management (Antonowicz et al., 2024). Standards of transparency through accountability, autonomy, and stakeholder participation are included to protect the public interest and achieve the vision and mission of APHEIs to provide high-quality education (Khairy et al., 2022). This model coincides with shared and participatory governance, where decision-making involves internal and external stakeholders to meet the sustainability challenge (Leal Filho et al., 2024; Leal Filho, Abubakar et al., 2023).

Results of the exploratory analysis with experts of the Quality Assurance System (QAS).

For the third stage, a prior knowledge base on university governance was available Jiang and Xue, (2022) using content analysis from the four key categories (Strategic Management, Institutional Autonomy, Stakeholders and Accountability) extracted from the co-occurrence analysis of Model 1.0. Subsequently, along the lines of Gutierrez-Rivera et al. (2023), a list of questions was developed to guide the semi-structured interview (Allen et al., 2019) and achieve in-depth answers derived from the QAS experts' governance knowledge. The questions implemented in the semi-structured interview are presented in Table 2.

This phase adopts the four-stage approach of Myatt and Johnson (2009) for the initial exploratory analysis, comprising the definition of the problem, data preparation, analysis and deployment of the results. For this, the Python programming language was used with its libraries and packages, taking advantage of the capabilities of natural language processing to extract information through the study and classification of respondents' opinions (Axelborn & Berggren, 2023).. This process has calculation and data visualization functionalities to analyse different points of view (Rivas Rodriguez & Castillo Rodríguez, 2022).

Table 2

Guidelines for Interviewing Higher Education QAS Experts

Source. Authors' elaboration.

Definition of the Problem

The problem of this research is characterising the dimensions of the governance model in accredited public higher education institutions.

Data Presentation

Twenty-two academic experts were interviewed in the following fields of knowledge: management sciences (41%), law and political science (36%), social sciences (14%), and educational sciences (9%). The experts are part of the Colombian Quality Assurance System in Higher Education in the National Intersectoral Commission for Quality Assurance in Higher Education and the Colombian Vice-Ministry of Higher Education's management and legal advisory bodies. The experts have participated in the formulation and implementation of public policy on higher education. In general, they have advised the Ministry of National Education for 5 to10 years and, depending on the case, they are chosen through a merit-based competition. The interviews were conducted in an average of 60 minutes between August and September 2023 through the Teams platform. Figure 4 shows the interdisciplinary scope and level of training of the experts.

Figure 4
Profile of Experts by Field and Level of Training.
Source: Authors' elaboration.

Automatic data mining was performed using Python to analyse the dispersed information, make sense of it, and turn it into knowledge (Gollapalli et al., 2023). The questions were triangulated from the theoretical elements analysed and synthesized in the content analysis, with the responses of the academic experts, and processed using a text-mining approach.

In the first instance, pre-processing and cleaning operations were performed to identify and eliminate unwanted elements, redundancies and inconsistencies, special characters, numbers and the suppression of empty words. Then, the text was converted into a structured format to extract relevant, authentic, timely information and, thus, perform a trend-helpful analysis to find connections (Sakthi Vel, 2021).

Text mining analysis phase

During this exploratory analysis phase, graphs, tables and statistics were used to uncover patterns and distinctions in the data. This process allowed an in-depth understanding of the behaviours of the data and facilitated meaningful inferences with greater precision about their underlying links within the text (Takaki & Dutra, 2023). The main objective was to capture and analyse all possible meanings embedded in the text to decode natural language data and ensure the results' accuracy and significance (Benchimol et al., 2022).

Length of responses

Like the box-and-whisker plot, the violin plot ultimately represents the data distribution. It illustrates the average tweet response length and shape instead of individual data points (Tanious & Manolov, 2022). Figure 5 reflects the results of the 15 questions that addressed the topic of CG in APHEIs.

Figure 5
Distribution of the length of the responses per question.
Source: Authors' elaboration using Python software.

This graph shows that question 1, on CG in APHEIs, is a confusing term for which several definitions have been proposed (Condette, 2023; Hsieh, 2023). Hence, there is a high level of variability and a high number of words answered. However, questions 2 and 3, with a low level of variability in the data and a reduced level of words, allow us to determine that there is an orientation towards consensus on the dimensions that make up the proposed CG model. This indicates that beyond the plurality of concepts, the experts believe that CG in the APHEIs involves the structures and procedures for making decisions on issues that affect stakeholders with functional leadership and autonomy to ensure quality education for all (Leal Filho, Abubakar, et al., 2023). Likewise, with questions 4 and 5, it is possible to establish that in the CG structure, management articulated to the administrative process is a category that does not generate dissent (Leal Filho et al., 2021). The number of characters in question 6 and their dispersion are associated with significant elements that gravitate around the administrative process (Elle, 2022; Wise et al., 2020). As for questions 7 and 8 (institutional autonomy), 10 and 11 (stakeholders), and 13 and 14 (accountability), it shows that relevant and sufficient elements are included in these dimensions. In general, questions 1, 6, 9, 12, and 15, which include the constructs of the CG model in the APHEIs identified in the content analysis (strategic management, institutional autonomy, stakeholders, and accountability), receive the most significant number of responses. This shows the experts' relevance to these dimensions and their capacity to argue about them.

Word cloud

The study uses a combination of text (word cloud) analytical approaches to transform textual data into valuable knowledge about CG and its dimensions in APHEIs (Raghupathi et al., 2020). The word cloud revolves around the categories the interviewees have been asked to analyse. The visual representation shows the weight of each of the main words within the text; that is, they appear in proportional size according to their co-occurrence (Benchimol et al., 2022). As findings, the concept of quality associated with accreditation and continuous improvement underlies. The administrative process variables and the relevance of university autonomy also become evident. Stakeholders are maximized with participation and representation. Finally, the accountability system is highlighted, where transparency stands out.

Figure 6 summarizes the key elements extracted from the text data corpus (words with the highest co-occurrence) according to the consolidated responses of the QAS experts.

Figure 6
Word cloud from interviews with QAS academic experts in Colombia.
Source: Authors' elaboration using Python software.

Deployment of Results through the CG Model in APHEIs

Based on the bibliometric analysis, Model 1.0 (Figure 2) was developed, which contains the founding characteristics of CG in APHEIs. Based on the above information, Model 2.0 (Figure 3) was constructed after content analysis and composed of four dimensions: strategic management, institutional autonomy, stakeholders, and accountability. From the perspective of these two models, a triangulation was carried out with the QAS experts, which made it possible to structure Model 3.0. Figure 7. This model is an interrelated set of four dimensions of high motricity and dependence on each other: administrative process, university autonomy, stakeholders and the accountability system (Heaton & Teece, 2022; Luo et al., 2022). These dimensions constitute a mechanism of integration and circularity for the mission's development and the vision's scope to manage the quality optimums of this type of organization (Hieu & Niem, 2024).

Figure 7
Governance in accredited public HEIs. Model (3.0).
Source: To structure the dimensions of this governance model, the authors followed: a. Peng et al. (2023); b. Peng et al. (2023)Suharto et al. (2022); c. Sahin et al. (2024); d. Hoque (2023); e. Morin, (2014).

In this model, there are some changes in the names of the CG dimensions. The administrative process construct (in the 2.0 model, it is called strategic management) is a modification that should be read in the context of the NPM since it calls for efficient management of public resources (Muhammad et al., 2022). The functions of planning, organizing, directing, and controlling are listed as catalysts for a higher level of strategic thinking to develop a purposeful public administration (Suharto et al., 2022). Therefore, the change in the naming of the construct is explained by the fact that the administrative process is a management tool and should not be considered as the end but as the means of governance (Kienast, 2023).

The construct of university autonomy (in Model 2.0, called institutional autonomy) is a change given for paradigmatic reasons (Peng et al., 2023). In Model 3.0, university autonomy is based on constructivism with ontological and teleological guidelines consistent with the holistic concept of university (Bayhantopcu & Aymerich Ojea, 2024). Institutional autonomy, on the other hand, focuses on the corporate sphere with a reductionist managerial perspective (Lo, 2023) and with a positivist bias that focuses on performance (Trivedi, 2024; Hieu & Niem, 2024). Within these differences, university autonomy in public HEIs concentrates on missional functions as a fundamental value of deploying critical thinking to produce and transmit knowledge (Quyet et al., 2023). Consequently, Model 3.0 shows that the scope of university autonomy is the cornerstone of CG in public HEIs, and that of institutional autonomy (Model 2.0) is one of the means to develop it ( Nao et al., 2023).

The construct related to stakeholders in Model 2.0 is ratified in Model 3.0. It includes as subcategories the participation and representation of individuals or groups with legitimate interests in the actions of public HEIs as organizations (Freire et al., 2021). A particular feature of this dimension is the vindication of the principles of participation, representation and inclusion of stakeholders in governance structures (Conejero, 2021). In other words, in Model 3.0, stakeholders are strategic actors in the balance of power distribution (Daniri et al., 2023). Likewise, they share responsibility for self-regulation and continuous quality improvement in higher education, thus interacting with responsibilities and rights in the accountability system (Sahin et al., 2024).

Finally, it should be noted that the accountability construct of Model 2.0 changes in Model 3.0 to an accountability system. First, it is presented as the mechanism through which HEIs, as a subject of public administration, report the results of institutional management to internal and external stakeholders through the promotion of dialogue (Hoque, 2023). The second is shown as a set of interrelated elements through which public HEIs demonstrate to the different stakeholders the results of the exercise of university autonomy: academic, organizational and financial (Paredes et al., 2022).Thus, the Model 3.0 accountability system shows the interaction of transparency, responsibility and accountability mechanisms (Marchisott et al., 2021). The above are three determining elements for quality assurance (Shin et al., 2022) due to the following aspects: it legitimizes decision-making; it makes it possible to determine deviations between what was planned and what was executed; and it facilitates the formulation of emerging strategies for self-regulation and continuous improvement (Sahin et al., 2024; Agyemang, 2024).

Discussion

This section comprises three subsections. The first discusses the concept of CG in the PAHEIs. The second is the dimensions that make up governance. In the third, the theoretical guidelines based on which CG in the HEIs should be analysed. The discussion was carried out by cross-referencing the results presented as contributions and added values derived from this study with the suggested future work previously reviewed in the introduction and the findings of other authors included in the analysis results.

The Concept of Governance in Accredited Public HEIs

The proposed concept of CG in PAHEIs includes some critical elements of the administrative theory enunciated by Leal Filho et al. (2024). Thus, CG in HEIs is defined as the exercise of the inclusive administrative process, through which university autonomy is managed to develop a quality education service for all, with mechanisms for stakeholder participation, self-regulation and continuous improvement, monitored through an adequate accountability system. The novelty in the literature is the systemic, hologrammatic, dialogic and recursive interaction (Morin, 2014) of the dimensions that make up CG (administrative process, university autonomy, stakeholders and accountability system), which allows the elements that make CG tend from foresight (planning), appropriation and implementation (Godet, 2007). The characterization of CG follows the suggestion of Affandi et al. (2023) in the sense of being based on a transformation paradigm. It agrees with con Hoque (2023) that NPM and private sector management styles should be included as the basis for a hybrid transformation reconfiguring APHEIs governance.

The dimensions of governance in accredited public HEIs

The results of this study validate the conclusions found in several studies, such as Gesser et al. (2022) and Sziegat (2022), which corroborate that governance in higher education is not a single concept since it has been defined in multiple ways. Likewise, they are aligned with the findings, among others, of Santos and Filner (2023) and Brunner and Alarcón (2023) in that the dimensions of CG found in the literature have not satisfactorily covered a concept that substantively explains the complex scenario of the APHEIs. Therefore, another contribution of this study, in correspondence with the conclusion of Biondi and Russo, (2022), is to structure a model of CG in the APHEIs endowed with strategic tools capable of supporting decision-making processes through a systemic circular relationship made up of the administrative process (Chan, 2024;Dimitrijevska-Markoski et al., 2021); university autonomy (Flipse et al., 2024); stakeholders (Daniri et al., 2023; Pilon & Brouard, 2023); and the accountability system (Machado et al., 2024; Purwanti et al., 2024). In addition, the concordance with the study of Hieu and Niem (2024) is highlighted since the dimensions proposed are oriented to quality assurance of academic and administrative processes, maximizing the transparency of administrative actions through accountability. Finally, in agreement with Kennedy and Pek, (2023), the results show that the dimensions of governance of Model 3.0 have as a major driving factor the construct of university autonomy as recommended by (Fatma et al., 2021); in addition, the literature shows that university autonomy is the cornerstone of good governance (Trivedi, 2024).

Theories underpinning the concept of governance in accredited public HEIs

In the general discourse on university governance, most authors explain governance from the theory of institutionalism and stakeholders (Sasaki & Horng, 2023; Gesser et al., 2022). However, this research identifies a stream in which the new institutionalism theory and the resource-based view theory (Peng et al., 2023) complement the understanding of the systemic circular relationship of the dimensions that make up CG in APHEIs (Muyters, Broucker, & De Witte, 2022). The NGP is presented transversally as a theoretical paradigm to assess the governance changes in official HEIs towards quality optimums (Muhammad et al., 2022). In all the above theoretical guidelines, strategic thinking appears as a principle of university governance in APHIEs (Pérez & Rodríguez, 2021). Finally, it proposes including organizational characteristics, management strategies and organizational culture (Kienast, 2023) in the field of state HE merge with the guidelines of public management, thus filling another research gap.

Conclusion

This study aimed to propose the dimensions of CG in the APHEIs. In terms of conceptualization, a novel model was proposed as a contribution that includes, through a systemic circular path, four mutually inclusive dimensions with high relative importance in other models in which they are present: administrative process, university autonomy, stakeholders, and accountability system. The proposed framework for CG in APHEIs merges different approaches that add depth and breadth to its characterization while remaining consistent with established theoretical perspectives. Consequently, the constructs integrated to define CG in the APHEIs incorporate elements beyond institutionalism and are susceptible to abstraction from diverse currents or lines of thought. In addition, the analytical framework that was implemented allows presenting it as the aggregate composition of multifaceted dimensions that can fill the gap in the literature related to the object of study.

Another contribution that represents the originality and value of this research is to understand the implementation of CG in the APHEIs based on some principles of complexity: systemic, hologrammatic, dialogic, and recursiveness (loop). The systemic principle allows configuring CG as a whole, which is more significant than the sum of its dimensions (parts). The hologrammatic allows us to abstract that each dimension is in the CG and that the CG is potentially in each dimension (the whole in the parts and the parts in the whole). The dialogic model accepts the association of antagonistic and complementary dimensions in the same model while maintaining the differences to approach CG as a single phenomenon (including contrary conceptual perspectives that can be complementary). That of recursiveness, inferring that one dimension (cause) acts directly on another (effect) and vice versa so that the dimensions of CG generate self-regulating processes that break with linear causality. From these perspectives, the results confirm that governance is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon in constant evolution that touches on various institutional aspects, transcending the reductionism limited to the parts and the holism that focuses overall.

This work also adds another academic value by including university autonomy as an equalizing dimension and a dynamic centre of CG in the APHEIs. This is because it is presented as the route to enhance the capacity for academic self-regulation and administrative self-determination. In addition, this construct is proposed to express the independence of the APHEIs without ignoring the links with other rights and the limitations exercised by any State. Likewise, the model suggests university autonomy to facilitate the interaction of strategic actors through a participatory democracy governed by the normative framework, the general interest and the common good because the interested parties can intervene in the decisions that affect them. This implies that university autonomy is the factor of change of solid influence and dependence on sustainable quality assurance; in fact, it is proposed as an exercise of collective reflection of the stakeholders and for the stakeholders because the model privileges the principles of participation, representation and inclusion.

This study also proposes as a novelty an eclectic approach to understanding the scope of the APHEIs corporate governance, which broadens the theoretical lenses, which, according to the specialized literature, are limited, in most cases, to the theory of institutionalism and stakeholder theory. The results show that the foundation of this construct is found in the roots of the new institutionalism, together with the resource-based vision theory and the stakeholder theory, including discursive referents of the NGP, since its object of study is state organizations, thus broadening the scope of analysis in the field, even more so when the interaction of the proposed dimensions is argued from the perspective of complexity.

The dimensions of CG defined inductively and presented in this work provide an idea of how its implementation could contribute to optimizing management and, therefore, quality assurance in the APHEIs. This is because a CG model was constructed that could be adapted to any educational system. However, it should be clarified that this work provides an option that should be analysed in context from the scope of complexity since it depends on the strategic actors, the types of structure, strategy, culture, and economic, social, and environmental dynamics.

This document has some limitations. The first is that there are elements of CG that must be analysed according to institutional typology, identity, and mission because CG models are far from uniform. Therefore, the results are not generalizable, and the dynamics of the en vironment, especially the legal framework, are different in the global landscape. Second, the surveyed state needs to be more comprehensive in considering all the governance initiatives implemented in other education systems globally. Nevertheless, despite these limitations, the study contributes to filling the knowledge gap identified in the literature by providing helpful information on the concept of CG in APHEIs.

Concerning future research, it is recommended that a study be conducted to validate an instrument to measure CG in the APHEIs empirically. This measurement scale could help to better understand the Model 3.0's governance dimensions. Quantitative research is also needed to understand the causal relationships between CG and sustainability in the APHEIs.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Universidad del Tolima and the Universidad de Medellin for their support in the realization of this article.

References

Affandi, N., Hidayat, S., Eryanto, H., & Hidayat, D. R. (2023). Higher Education Governance and Lecturer Performance: The Role of Leadership, Commitment, and Culture. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 23(6), 185-195. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v23i6.5966

Agyemang, G. (2024). Let's have a relook at accountability. British Accounting Review56, (1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2023.101262

Al Sawafi, A., Banneheka, B. M. S. G., Hashim, M. W., Valsala, S., & Noushad, B. (2023). Development and Validation of a University Governance Index for the Higher Educational Institutions in Oman. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Organizational Studies, 78(2), 65-92. https://doi.org/10.18848/2324-7649/CGP/v18i02/65-92

Alarcon, J., & Brunner, J. (2023). Changing higher education governance in Latin America.pdf.

Alkaraan, F., Elmarzouky, M., Hussainey, K., Venkatesh, V. G., Shi, Y., & Gulko, N. (2024). Reinforcing green business strategies with Industry 4.0 and governance towards sustainability: Natural-resource-based view and dynamic capability. Business Strategy and the Environment, December 2023, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3665

Allen, J., King, R., Goergen, S. K., Melder, A., Neeman, N., Hadley, A., & Hutchinson, A. M. (2019). Semistructured interviews regarding patients' perceptions of Choosing Wisely and shared decision-making: An Australian study. BMJ Open, 9(8). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031831

Alrwaihi, S., Kehyayan, V., & Johnson, J. M. (2017). Interdisciplinary shared governance: A literature review. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 8(4), 43. https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v8n4p43

Antonowicz, D., Donina, D., Hladchenko, M., & Budzanowska, A. (2024). Impact of university councils on the core academic values of Polish universities: limited but benign. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2024.2302062

Avenali, A., Daraio, C., Di Leo, S., Matteucci, G., & Nepomuceno, T. (2023). Systematic reviews as a metaknowledge tool: caveats and a review of available options. International Transactions in Operational Research, 30(6), 2761-2806. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.13309

Aversano, N., Nicolò, G., Ferullo, D., & Polcini, P. T. (2023). The effect of board gender diversity on financial and non-financial performance: evidence from Italian public universities. Public Money and Management, 43(7), 679688-. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2023.2243389

Axelborn, H., & Berggren, J. (2023). Topic Modeling for Customer Insights A Comparative Analysis of LDA and BERTopic in Categorizing Customer Calls.

Barney, J. B. (2001). Is the resource-based view a useful perpective for strategic management research? yes. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 41-56.

Bayhantopcu, E., & Aymerich Ojea, I. (2024). Integrated sustainability management and equality practices in universities: A case study of Jaume I University. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 25(3), 631-648. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-02-2023-0054

Benchimol, J., Kazinnik, S., & Saadon, Y. (2022). Text mining methodologies with R: An application to central bank texts. Machine Learning with Applications, 8(March 2021), 100286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mlwa.2022.100286

Bhat, A. A., Mir, A. A., Allie, A. H., Ahmad Lone, M., Al-Adwan, A. S., Jamali, D., & Riyaz, I. (2024). Unlocking corporate social responsibility and environmental performance: Mediating role of green strategy, innovation, and leadership. Innovation and Green Development, 3(2), 100112. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjgd.2023.100112

Biondi, L., & Russo, S. (2022). Integrating strategic planning and performance management in universities : a multiple case-study analysis. Journal of Management and Governance, 26, 417-448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-022-09628-7

Borch, I., Sandvoll, R., & Roxâ, T. (2024). Academic developers' roles and responsibilities in strengthening student evaluation of teaching for educational enhancement. Higher Education Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2315033

Brunner, J. J., & Alarcón, M. (2023). Evolución de la Educación Superior Chilena desde la Perspectiva del Ecualizador de Gobernanza. Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativa, 3/(120), 1-19.

Chan, K. N. (2024). Public administration in authoritarian regimes: propositions for comparative research. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2024.2306554

Condette, M. (2023). Lex imperfecta, governance and persuasion: the case of quality assurance in Roman Catholic ecclesiastical higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2023.2294907

Conejero, M. A. (2021). Salience, Influence and Participation of Stakeholders in the Governance Structures and Decision-Making Process of Public Higher Education Intitutions. 251-275.

Cooper, C., Booth, A., Varley-Campbell, J., Britten, N., & Garside, R. (2018). Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: A literature review of guidance and supporting studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 78(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0545-3

Da Cunha, M. I., & Lucarelli, E. (2022). Presentación Dossier Temático A: Calidad de la educación superior en América Latina y el Caribe. Revista Educación Superior y Sociedad (ESS), 34(1). https://doi.org/10.54674/ess.v34i1.648

Daniri, M. A., Wahyudi, S., Pangestuti, I. R. D., & Hersugondo. (2023). The Role of Good University Governance for Transformation Towards the Entrepreneurial University. Corporate and Business Strategy Review, 4(1), 167-181. https://doi.org/10.22495/cbsrv-1 4i1art15

Dimitrijevska-Markoski, T., Breen, J. D., Nukpezah, J. A., & Mobley, R. (2021). Strategic Planning and Management in Small Municipalities in Mississippi - Implementation, Perceived Benefits, and Determinants of Use. Public Organization Review, 2/(3), 437-452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-020-00499-w

Dimmagio, P., & Powell, W. (1991). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (p. 486). University of Chicago Press.

Dneprovskaya, N. V., & Shevtsova, I. V. (2023). A knowledge management system in the strategic development of universities. Business Informatics, 77(2), 20-40. https://doi.org/10.107323/2587-814X.2023.2.20.40

Dwesini, N. F. (2023). Challenges of the Implementation of the Divisional Governance and Management Model: a Comprehensive University Case Study. Journal of Governance and Regulation, 72(4)390-404. https://doi.org/10.22495/jgrv12i4siart19

Elken, M. (2023a). Collaborative design of governance instruments in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2258905

Elken, M. (2023b). Collaborative design of governance instruments in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2258905

Elle, S. M. (2022). The role of corporate governance in management of physical public infrastructures in some selected Sub-Saharan African countries. 6(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd.v6i1.1382

Fatma, T., Sulaiman, T., Ariff, Z., & Ghadas, A. (2021). Corporate Governance Models for Higher Educational Institutions : An Analysis. Social Sciences & Humanities, 29(2), 149168. https://doi.org/10.47896/pjssh.29.S2.11

Flipse, C., Van Berckel, F., & Huisman, J. (2024). Understanding organizational identity in universities: Unravelling autonomy, governance and leadership in the case of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Higher Education Quarterly, 78(1), 254-267. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12458

Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder theory and "The corporate objective revisited." Organization Science, 75(3). https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0066

Freire, B. D., Conejero, M. A., & Parente, T. C. (2021). Saliência, influência e participação dos stakeholders nas estruturas de governança e no processo de tomada de decisão de instituições públicas de ensino superior. Revista Gestão Universitária Na América Latina - GUAL, 251-275. https://doi.org/10.5007/1983-4535.2021.e80297

Gesser, G. A., de Oliveira, C. M., Roczanski, C. R. M., & de Melo, P. A. (2022). Governança Universitária e Relacionamento com os Stakeholders: A Visão dos Gestores Graziele. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 30. https://doi.org/10.14507/EPAA.30.7585

Godet, M. (2007). Manuel de Prospective Stratégique. Une Indiscipline Intellectuelle. Dunod. https://doi.org/Tome 1. 3^a edición

Gollapalli, M., Rahman, A., Alkharraa, M., Saraireh, L., AlKhulaifi, D., Salam, A. A., Krishnasamy, G., Alam Khan, M. A., Farooqui, M., Mahmud, M., & Hatab, R. (2023). SUNFIT: A Machine Learning-Based Sustainable University Field Training Framework for Higher Education. Sustainability (Switzerland), 75(10), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108057

Górska, A., Pikos, A., Dobija, D., & Grossi, G. (2022). Autonomy Without Accountability in Resource Allocation Reforms : Blending Old and New Logic in Universities 1. Central European Management Journal, 30(2), 43-82. https://doi.org/10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.75

Gutierrez-Rivera, E., Escobar-Sierra, M., & Polanco, J. A. (2023). Characterizing Organizational Sustainability in Catholic Schools: A Cross-National Study Applying Text Mining. SAGE Open, 73(4), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231199354

Haftel, Y. Z., & Lenz, T. (2022). Measuring institutional overlap in global governance. Review of International Organizations, 77(2), 323-347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-021-09415-3

Han, Y., Zhou, Y., Carr, S., & Jiang, J. (2024). Lifelong learning in the workplace: the knowledge management role of corporate universities in China. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 77(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02693-3

Handayani, E., Sholihin, M., Pratolo, S., & Rahmawati, A. (2023). Optimation Principles of Good Financial Governance to Increase Financial Sustainability. Quality - Access to Success, 24(196), 230-242. https://doi.org/10.47750/QAS/24.196.29

Hasanefendic, S., & Donina, D. (2023). A heuristic perspective on organizational strategizing in complex and coherent higher education fields. Tertiary Education and Management, 29(4), 391-409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-022-09091-x

Heaton, S., & Teece, D. (2022). Dynamic capabilities and governance : An empirical investigation of financial performance of the higher education sector. 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3444

Hernández-Diaz, P. M., Polanco, J. A., Escobar-Sierra, M., & Leal Filho, W. (2021). Holistic integration of sustainability at universities: Evidences from Colombia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 305, 127145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127145

Hieu, N. T., & Niem, L. D. (2024). Autonomy Acquisition and Performance within Higher Education in Vietnam-A Road to a Sustainable Future? Sustainability (Switzerland), 76(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031336

Hoque, Z. (2023). New development: New public management values and public sector accounting education in Australia-A 'reflection-in-action' perspective. Public Money and Management, 43(7), 750-754. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2023.2247574

Hsieh, C. C. (2023). Governance in transition : an analytical framework for hybridity and dynamics in higher education. Higher Education, 85(2), 379-397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00839-3

Idil, G., Bolatan, S., Golgeci, I., Arslan, A., & Tatoglu, E. (2022). Unlocking the relationships between strategic planning , leadership and technology transfer competence : the mediating role of strategic quality management. 26(11), 89-113. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-12-2020-0897

Ishihara, T. (2022). Public sector reform and public management theory -cases of Japan. Public Management Review, 24(11), 1653-1662. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.20 21.1893093

Jiang, H., & Xue, Y. (2022). Perceptions of Faculty Leadership in University Governance : A Case Study Perceptions of Faculty Leadership in University Governance : A Case Study. Chinese Education & Society, 54(5-6), 207-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611932.2021.1990626

Juiz, C., Duhamel, F., Guti, I., & Luna-reyes, L. F. (2022). IT Managers ' Framing of IT Governance Roles and Responsibilities in Ibero-American Higher Education Institutions.

Kennedy, J., & Pek, S. (2023). Mini-publics, student participation, and universities' deliberative capacity. Studies in Higher Education, 48(1), 63-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2111551

Khairy, T., Ibrahim, T., & Almatari, E. M. (2022). The Effect of Governance Rules Application Controls and the Accrual Basis Application Controls on Quality of Financial Reporting : Applying to Jouf University. Sustainability, 74, 2831. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052831

Khan, M. A., Dieck-Assad, A. J., Castillo-Villar, R. G., & Henderson-Torres, T. K. (2021). Governance models for latin american universities in the 21st century: Comparative analysis, global perspectives, and future propositions. In Governance Models for Latin American Universities in the 27st Century: Comparative Analysis, Global Perspectives, and Future Propositions. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83465-4

Kienast, S. R. (2023). How do universities' organizational characteristics, management strategies, and culture influence academic research collaboration? A literature review and research agenda. Tertiary Education and Management, 29(2), 139-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-022-09101-y

Kwon, O. J. (2022). Tracing two faces of extended visibility: a bibliometric analysis of transparency discussions in social sciences. Quality and Quantity, 56(6), 4711-4727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-022-01334-8

Leal Filho, W., Abubakar, I. R., Mifsud, M. C., Eustachio, J. H. P. P., Albrecht, C. F., Dinis, M. A. P., Borsari, B., Sharifi, A., Levesque, V. R., Ribeiro, P. C. C., LeVasseur, T. J., Pace, P., Trevisan, L. V., & Dibbern, T. A. (2023). Governance in the implementation of the UN sustainable development goals in higher education: global trends. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 0723456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03278-x

Leal Filho, W., Brandli, L. L., Dinis, M. A. P., Vidal, D. G., Paço, A., Levesque, V., Salvia, A. L., Kozlova, V., Ávila, L. V., Fritzen, B., Abubakar, I. R., & Pace, P. (2023). International trends on transformative learning for urban sustainability. Discover Sustainability, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-023-00145-7

Leal Filho, W., Dibbern, T. A., Dinis, M. A. P., Cristofoletti, E. C., Mbah, M., Mishra, A., Clarke, A., Samuel, N., Apraiz, J. C., Abubakar, I. R., & Aina, Y. A. (2024). The Added Value of Partnerships in Implementing the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 438,140794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140794

Leal Filho, W., Salvia, A., Frankenberger, F., Akib, N. ., Sen, S., Sivapalan, S., Novo-Corti, I., Venkatesan, M., & Emblen-Perry, K. (2021). Governance and sustainable development at higher education institutions. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(4), 6002-6020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00859-y

Liang, X. (2022). Exploring the Modernization Path of the Internal Governance System and Governance Capacity of Local Universities Under the Background of " Double First -class ". International Journal of Education and Humanities, 5(2).

Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., G0tzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Clinical Research Ed.,339. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700

Lillo, A. I. L. P., Saenz, C. F. L., Armijos, J. C., & Valencia, B. Y. (2023). Aspirations and commitment of the Peruvian universities. Perfiles Latinoamericanos, 37(61), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.18504/pl3161-008-2023

Lo, W. Y. W. (2023). Vulnerable autonomy: university governance in the context of student activism in Hong Kong. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 32(2), 293-312. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2021.2007504

Luo, L., Yang, Y., Zheng, J., & Xie, J. (2022). Measuring Project Governance of Mega Infrastructure in China : A Scale Development Study. Sustainability, 74(593). https://doi.org/10.3390su14020593

Machado, A., Terra, R., & Tannuri-Pianto, M. (2024). Higher education responses to accountability. Economics of Education Review, 98(April 2022), 102493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2023.102493

Mai, A. N., Do, H. T. H., Mai, C. N., & Nguyen, N. D. (2020). Models of university autonomy and their relevance to Vietnam. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 75(3), 394-410. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2020.1742412

Maldonado, B., Buenaño, J., & Benavides, K. (2019). Approximation to a model of governance in public Universities of the province of Pichincha of Ecuador. Visión de Futuro, 23, ( 2), 122-137. https://doi.org/10.36995/j.visiondefuturo.2019.23.02.006.en

March, J., & Olsen, J. (1984). The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life. The American Political Science Review, 78(3), 734-749.

Marchisott, G., Rodrigues Filho, S., França, S., Toledo, R., Castro, H., Alves, C., & Putnik, S. (2021). Hybrid Governance System Value Perception Model. International Journal for Quality Research, 76(1), 261-278. https://www.researchgate.net/publicat-tion/357882936_HYBRID_GOVERNANCE_SYSTEM_VALUE_PERCEPTION_MODEL

Morin, E. (2014). Complex Thinking for a Complex World.About Reductionism, Disjunction and Systemism. Systema, 2(1), 14-22.

Mrzygtocka-Chojnacka, J., & Ryñca, R. (2023). Using a Multi-Criteria Ranking Method to Assess Factors Influencing the Implementation of Sustainable Development at Higher Educational Institutions. Sustainability (Switzerland),75(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076256

Muhammad, T., Muhammad, N., & Khan, S. (2022). Assessing Governance and Regulatory Reforms: A Public Policy Analysis of Universities in KPK. Journal of Managerial Sciences,76(2), 16-29.

Muyters, G., Broucker, B., & De Witte, K. (2022). On Higher Education's Complexities and the Potential of Network Governance. A Case Study. International Journal of Public Administration, 45(2), 198-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.2003813

Muyters, G., Broucker, B., Witte, K. De, & Broucker, B. (2022). On Higher Education ' s Complexities and the Potential of Network Governance . A Case Study. International Journal of Public Administration , 45(2), 198-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.2003813

Myatt, G. J. ., & Johnson, W. P. (2009). MAKING SENSE OF DATA II. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken. https://www.booksfree.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Making-Sense-of-Data-II_-A-Practical-Guide-to-Data-Visualization-Advanced-Data-Mining-Methods-and-Applications.pdf

Omar, A., Altohami, W., & Afzaal, M. (2022). Assessment of the Governance Quality of the Departments of English in Saudi Universities: Implications for Sustainable Development. World Journal of English Language, 72(8), 443-449. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v12n8p443

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. The BMJ, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Paredes, H., Rosario, A. Del, Uriarte, S., Jhair, C., Becerra, L., Díaz Moron, P., Kevin, M., Salazar, M., Demetrio, F., & Villanueva, L. (2022). Public Management in University Higher Education: A Literature Review. 8(1), 2022. https://doi.org/10.5281/zeno-0do.5847479

Patnaik, S., Munjal, S., Varma, A., & Sinha, S. (2022). Extending the resource-based view through the lens of the institution-based view: A longitudinal case study of an Indian higher educational institution. Journal of Business Research, 747(March), 124-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.091

Pedraja, L., & Rodríguez, E. (2022). Gobernanza y Calidad en la Educación Superior : Una Descripción Bibliométrica. Journal of Social, Technological and Environmental Science,70(3), 252-265.

Peng, M. W., Wang, J. C., Kathuria, N., Shen, J., & Welbourne Eleazar, M. J. (2023). Toward an institution-based paradigm. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 40(2), 353-382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-022-09861-6

Pérez, A., & Rodríguez, A. (2021). Concepción del alineamiento estratégico como principio de la gobernanza universitaria. Hallazgos, 78(35), 233-257. https://doi.org/10.15332/2422409x.5689

Pflüger, J., & Mojescik, K. (2023). Governance of academic teaching: why universities introduce funding programs for teaching and why academic teachers participate. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(6), 1428-1445. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1900813

Pilon, M., & Brouard, F. (2023). Accountability Theory in Nonprofit Research: Using Governance Theories to Categorize Dichotomies. Voluntas, 34(3), 585-599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-022-00482-7

Pusser, B. (2003). Beyond baldridge: Extending the political model of higher education organization and governance. Educational Policy, 77(1), 121-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904802239289

Quyet, P. Van, Hoc, L. H., & Hai, P. T. T. (2023). Autonomy Governance Transformation in the Higher Education Institutions Towards the Typical Models in Vietnam. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 23(20), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v23i20.6685

Raghupathi, V., Ren, J., & Raghupathi, W. (2020). Identifying corporate sustainability issues by analyzing shareholder resolutions: A machine-learning text analytics approach. Sustainability (Switzerland), 72(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114753

Rajasekharanm, P., Sankaran, K., Ramnarayan, K., & Prabhu, N. (2021). Research in higher education governance : past performance and an agenda for the future. Educational Review, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1984214

Ramirez, A., & Calderón, G. (2024). Organizational coupling in higher education institutions: challenges for university governance. International Studies of Management and Organization, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2023.2301210

Resende, P., & Oliveira, N. (2020). Proposta de instrumento para avaliação da governança organizacional em uma instituição do setor público. Revista de Servicio Público, 77(2), 397-426. https://doi.org/10.21874/rsp.v71i2.3523

Restrepo, J. M., Bradford, H., Guzmán, A., & Trujillo, M. A. (2018). Una revisión propositiva a la política pública para el mejoramiento del gobierno en las IES en Colombia. Revista de Economía Del Rosario, 27(2), 219-246. https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/economia/a.7195

Rivas Rodriguez, J. G., & Castillo Rodríguez, S. (2022). Uso de Python para el análisis de datos aplicado en la investigación. Investigación y Ciencia Aplicada a La Ingeniería, 5(34), 33-40. http://ojs.incaing.com.mx/index.php/ediciones/article/view/188

Ruan, J., Cai, Y., & Stensaker, B. (2023). University managers or institutional leaders? An exploration of top-level leadership in Chinese universities. Higher Education, 87(3), 703-719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01031-x

Sahin, A., Imamoglu, G., Murat, M., & Ayyildiz, E. (2024). A holistic decision-making approach to assessing service quality in higher education institutions. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 92, 101812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2024.101812

Sakthi Vel, S. (2021). Pre-Processing techniques of Text Mining using Computational Linguistics and Python Libraries. Proceedings - International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Smart Systems ICAIS, 879-884. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAIS50930.2021.9395924

Santos, D. J., & Souza, K. R. (2022). Governance in Brazilian Public Higher Education Institutions. RIAEE, 77(3), 1533-1559.

Santos, J. L., & Filner, M. (2023). Shared governance in the public university A case study from the US Midwest. Learning and Teaching, 76(2), 75-99. https://doi.org/10.3167/latiss.2023.160205

Sasaki, T., & Horng, C. Y. (2023). Exploratory study about achievements and issues of university social responsibility - "USR" as a dynamic process. International Journal of Educational Development, 702(August). https://doi.org/10.1016/jjjedudev.2023.102869

Scott, R. J., Donadelli, F., & Merton, E. R. K. (2023). Administrative philosophies in the discourse and decisions of the New Zealand public service: is post-New Public Management still a myth? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 89(4), 941-957. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523221101727

Shin, J. C., Li, X., Nam, I., & Byun, B. (2022). Institutional Autonomy and Capacity of Higher Education Governance in South Asia : A Comparative Perspective. Higher Education Policy, 35(2), 414-438. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-020-00220-y

Singh, G., & Slack, N. J. (2022). New Public Management and Customer Perceptions of Service Quality-A Mixed-Methods Study. International Journal of Public Administration , 45(3), 242-256. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2020.1839494

Song, J., & Lai, M. (2022). Teaching by Conscience or Accountability? Academics' Perceptions and Responsibilities at two Universities in China. Higher Education Policy, 35(2), 277-296. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-020-00209-7

Suharto, R. B., Sutrisno, T. W., Setyadi, D., & Mintarti, S. (2022). Can Performance Be Achieved Through the Role of Normative Commitment as Mediation and Innovation as Moderator : Driven by Good Governance , Driving Human Resources Intrinsic and Motivation ? Quality Access to Success, 23(189), 348-358. https://doi.org/10.47750/QAS/23.189.40

Sziegat, H. (2022). Transforming Governance of German Higher Education Institutions. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, 7(3), 472-517. https://doi.org/10.30828/real.1164190

Takaki, P., & Dutra, M. L. (2023). Text mining applied to distance higher education: A systematic literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 0723456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12235-0

Tanious, R., & Manolov, R. (2022). Violin Plots as Visual Tools in the Meta-Analysis of Single-Case Experimental Designs. Methodology, 78(3), 221-238. https://doi.org/10.5964/meth.9209

Trevisan, L. V., Eustachio, J. H. P. P., Dias, B. G., Filho, W. L., & Pedrozo, E. Á. (2024). Digital transformation towards sustainability in higher education: state-of-the-art and future research insights. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(2), 2789-2810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02874-7

Trivedi, C. (2024). The Crisis of University Autonomy in India: A Critical Reflection on the Policy Framework. Journal of Asian and African Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/00219096241230478

Tuan, N. A., & Trang, N. N. (2024). Assessing Impacts of University Autonomy Policies on Universities' Competitiveness in Vietnam. Wseas Transactions on Business and Economics, 27, 957-966. https://doi.org/10.37394/23207.2024.21.80

Vale, J., Amaral, J., Abrantes, L., Leal, C., & Silva, R. (2022). Management Accounting and Control in Higher Education Institutions: A Systematic Literature Review. Administrative Sciences, 72(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12010014

Van Berckel, F. (2023). The rise of new public management at the institutional level: an analysis of a Dutch university and the role of administrators in initiating organizational change, 1980s to 2010s. Management and Organizational History, 78(3-4), 223-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449359.2023.2244462

Wang, Y., Liu, Q., & Chen, R. (2022). Comparative study on the internal governance models of Chinese and European universities. Asia Europe Journal, 20, 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-021-00636-0

Wen, W., & Marginson, S. (2023). Governance in Chinese Universities. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 86, 171-197. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20230000086008

Wise, G., Dickinson, C., Katan, T., & Gallegos, M. C. (2020). Inclusive higher education governance: managing stakeholders, strategy, structure and function. Studies in Higher Education, 45(2), 339-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1525698

Yahya, M., & Khu, M. (2021). The Impact of Strategic Planning in the University's Competitiveness According to NIAS. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 70(5), 83-101. https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2021-0125

Yang, W. (2023). Pro-growth urban policy implementation vs urban shrinkage: How do actors shift policy implementation in shrinking cities in China? Cities, 734, 104157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.104157

Notes

Author notes

CONTACT: Fabio Mejía Zambrano fmejiaz@ut.edu.co