Applying Michel Foucault's Power Theory in Higher Education Leadership

Annals of the University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication and Management, Volume 11, 2025 179 179 Volume 11, 2025, 179-185 h2ps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17849954 APPLYING MICHEL FOUCAULT'S POWER THEORY IN HIGHER EDUCATION LEADERSHIP Mmalefikane Sylvia Sepeng Victor J. Pitsoe * Department of Leadership and Management, College of EducaOon, University of South Africa Abstract Michel Foucault's ideas about power have profoundly influenced numerous academic disciplines, including educational leadership. Within higher education, traditional conceptions of power as something possessed or exercised hierarchically are routinely challenged and reconfigured through Foucauldian frameworks. This article examines six core themes—disciplinary power, surveillance, governmentality, knowledge and discourse, resistance, and subjectification—and interrogates their relevance in the context of higher education leadership. Drawing from a rich palette of global case studies and empirical reflections, the analysis unpacks how power relations saturate institutional structures, policy-making, and daily practices, shaping agency and constraints for leaders, faculty, and students alike. Throughout, the article foregrounds the dynamic and relational nature of power in universities, advocating for a more reflexive and ethically attuned leadership paradigm that resists simplistic binaries and promotes emancipatory possibilities. Keywords: Foucault, power, higher education leadership, disciplinary power, governmentality. 1. IntroducOon The landscape of higher educaOon leadership is subject to complex and nuanced negoOaOons of power that extend far beyond formal administraOve hierarchies. Over the past several decades, scholarships have increasingly recognized that leadership in universiOes cannot be reduced merely to chains of command, resource management, or external policy compliance (Ball, 2012; Blackmore, 2013). Rather, power in higher educaOon is diffuse, producOve, and relaOonal web of pracOces, discourses, and insOtuOonalized norms that shape subjecOviOes and organizaOonal realiOes (Foucault, 1977; Dean, 2010). Michel Foucault’s conceptualizaOon of power represents a radical departure from classical “sovereign” models, emphasizing that power is not something that certain individuals or groups “hold,” but is omnipresent, operaOng through various technologies, discourses, and insOtuOons (Foucault, 1980, 1991). This insight has profound implicaOons for understanding how authority and influence materialize in academia, from the structuring of curricula to the shaping of academic idenOOes and the governance of student populaOons (Leask, Rennie, & Watanabe, 2020). Higher educaOon insOtuOons are marked by ever-evolving regulatory environments, demands for accountability, and corporaOzing tendencies, which together mobilize new forms of power and governance (Marginson, 2006; Rhoads & Torres, 2006). Foucault’s analyses—especially those concerning disciplinary power, surveillance, and governmentality—offer sophisOcated conceptual tools for unraveling how universiOes manage bodies and knowledge, create compliant subjects, and reproduce or contest social inequaliOes (Besley & Peters, 2007; Olssen, 2016). This arOcle advances a criOcal analysis of higher educaOon leadership through the theoreOcal lens of Foucault’s power theory. It is structured around six interlinked themes: (1) Disciplinary Power in Academic InsOtuOons; (2) Surveillance and the PanopOcon: Mechanisms of Control; (3) Governmentality and University Governance; (4) Knowledge, Discourse, and the ConstrucOon of Truth; (5) Resistance and the PossibiliOes for Subversion; and (6) SubjecOficaOon: Shaping Academic IdenOOes. Employing a rigorous, evidence-based approach and drawing on a breadth of empirical and theoreOcal sources, each theme engages deeply with the intricacies and contradicOons inherent in contemporary academic leadership. The arOcle concludes by considering ethical and pracOcal implicaOons for more equitable, inclusive, and reflexive forms of leadership in the sector. Annals of the University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication and Management, Volume 11, 2025 180 180 2. Theme 1: Disciplinary Power in Academic InsOtuOons. Michel Foucault’s analysis of disciplinary power, especially as arOculated in "Discipline and Punish" (1977), is foundaOonal for understanding how universiOes operate as spaces of regulaOon and normalizaOon. In the context of higher educaOon, disciplinary power funcOons through intricate networks of assessment, surveillance, and insOtuOonalized rouOnes, producing "docile bodies" that conform to prevailing norms of academic performance and conduct (Foucault, 1977; Power, 1997). This process is evident in the pervasive use of standardized assessments, performance evaluaOons, and quality assurance mechanisms, all of which structure daily academic life while shaping both faculty and students’ subjecOviOes (Shore & Wright, 2015). University leadership, under the shadow of disciplinary power, is tasked with enforcing standards, maintaining order, and miOgaOng deviance through regulatory regimes. For example, codes of ethical conduct, plagiarism detecOon technologies, and workload allocaOon models all exemplify how disciplinary power is operaOonalized to produce compliant, efficient academic actors (Blackmore & Sachs, 2012). Leadership, in this sense, becomes inseparable from the apparatuses of surveillance and discipline, rendering invisible the more subtle forms of social control that extend well beyond overt policy direcOves (Gillies & O'Connor, 2010). Disciplinary power does not merely constrain but also produces: it generates norms, enables certain forms of agency, and demarcates the boundaries of what is valued in academic excellence (Hoskin, 2007). The emphasis on research producOvity, teaching evaluaOons, and “impact” metrics illustrates how academics are consOtuted as subjects through ongoing processes of self-monitoring and self-discipline (Ball, 2015; Davies & Bansel, 2007). Through these mechanisms, higher educaOon leadership enforces specific subjecOviOes, channeling professional pracOces and ambiOons towards alignment with insOtuOonal prioriOes (Kandiko, 2010). CriOcs argue that the proliferaOon of disciplinary power has contributed to growing managerialism within universiOes, potenOally sOfling intellectual autonomy and creaOvity (Lorenz, 2012; Deem et al., 2007). Yet, a Foucauldian perspecOve insists that power is not merely repressive but producOve, capable of engendering resistance and innovaOon within the cracks of insOtuOonal constraint (Simons & Masschelein, 2008). Understanding disciplinary power thus requires a nuanced appreciaOon of its ambivalent role in both sustaining academic governance and offering sites for contestaOon and transformaOon. 3. Theme 2: Surveillance and the PanopOcon: Mechanisms of Control. One of Foucault’s signature contribuOons to social theory is his conceptualizaOon of the PanopOcon—a metaphor that elucidates the workings of surveillance in modern insOtuOons, including universiOes (Foucault, 1977). The panopOc model of control does not rely solely on overt monitoring by authoriOes, but on the internalizaOon of surveillance by subjects themselves, culOvaOng self-discipline and regulaOon (Hope, 2015). In higher educaOon, this logic manifests through both physical architectures (such as open-plan offices and CCTV) and digital tools (for example, learning management systems, plagiarism detecOon sorware, and remote proctoring technologies) (Selwyn, 2020; Knox, 2017). Academic leaders are increasingly compelled to deploy surveillance technologies, not only to manage student conduct but also to monitor the performance of academic staff (Lupton & Williamson, 2017). The quanOficaOon of academic work—measuring teaching quality, research output, and even online acOvity—exemplifies how panopOc mechanisms have permeated every layer of academic life (Williamson, 2017). Faculty and students internalize these norms, engaging in conOnuous self-surveillance and comparison with insOtuOonal metrics and benchmarks (Morrison et al., 2019). While surveillance may be jusOfied by appeals to transparency, quality assurance, and accountability, Foucauldian criOcs highlight its corrosive effects on trust, academic freedom, and well-being (Ball, 2015; Komljenovic, 2021). Leadership must negoOate the tensions between ensuring insOtuOonal integrity and maintaining an environment conducive to creaOvity and risk-taking. Moreover, surveillance regimes oren disproporOonately impact marginalized or vulnerable groups, reinforcing exisOng inequaliOes within the academy (Ahmed, 2012; Hearn, 2019). Nonetheless, panopOc surveillance is not wholly determinisOc; it can provoke criOcal reflexivity, enabling actors to recognize, contest, and transform the operaOons of power (Allen & Anderson, 2016). Leaders can foster alternaOve forms of collecOve accountability, rooted in collegiality and dialogue rather than mere compliance (Smyth, 2017). Thus, understanding surveillance as both a constraint and a catalyst for agency is vital for ethical and effecOve higher educaOon leadership. Annals of the University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication and Management, Volume 11, 2025 181 181 4. Theme 3: Governmentality and University Governance. In the later phase of his work, Foucault introduced the concept of governmentality—essenOally, the “art of government”—to capture the myriad ways in which individuals and populaOons are managed, not simply through coercion, but via policies, raOonaliOes, and self-regulaOon (Foucault, 1991). Governmentality provides a powerful framework for analyzing how contemporary universiOes are governed through assemblages of policy, audit, and self-management pracOces (Rose, 1999; Dean, 2010). Higher educaOon leaders are increasingly situated within a regime of governance that privileges managerial raOonality, performance indicators, and financial accountability (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004; Clarke & Newman, 2012). The rise of New Public Management in universiOes introduces market logics that frame students as consumers and knowledge as a commodity, compelling leaders to act as entrepreneurial managers (Olssen & Peters, 2005; Marginson, 2011). Through strategies such as strategic planning, benchmarking, and quality assurance, university governance becomes oriented to risk management, compeOOon, and branding (Lynch, 2015; Dill & Beerkens, 2010). Foucauldian governmentality also highlights the construcOon of academic subjecOvity through regimes of responsibilizaOon, wherein faculty and students are encouraged to self-govern in alignment with insOtuOonal objecOves (Shamir, 2008). Instead of relying on external discipline, governance technologies insOll in individuals the imperaOve to become “autonomous” yet producOve subjects, intent on maximizing their potenOal under prescribed norms (Enroth, 2014). This mode of leadership, while ostensibly emancipatory, can intensify pressures to conform and conceal the limits of autonomy under neoliberal regimes (Connell, 2019). Yet, governmentality is not monolithic; it is always open to contestaOon and negoOaOon. University leaders can, and do, experiment with alternaOve forms of parOcipatory, democraOc governance, challenging the hegemony of market-driven raOonaliOes (Bleiklie & Kogan, 2007). Engaging criOcally with governmentality enables leaders to create spaces for agency and dissent, resisOng the reducOon of higher educaOon to technocraOc management and fostering more humane, dialogic futures for the sector (Lopes & Dewan, 2015). 5. Theme 4: Knowledge, Discourse, and the ConstrucOon of Truth. For Foucault, power and knowledge are inextricably linked; knowledge is never neutral but is produced and circulated through relaOons of power (Foucault, 1980). Discourses—the systems of statements and pracOces that structure what can be said, thought, or imagined—play a central role in construcOng truth within academic setngs (Ball, 2013). In higher educaOon, discursive formaOons determine legiOmacy, inclusion, and exclusion, shaping the epistemic contours of the university itself (Luke, 1997). Academic leaders parOcipate in the producOon, authorizaOon, and disseminaOon of knowledge regimes, mediaOng what is valued, recognized, or dismissed as “truth” (Blackmore, 2013; Furedi, 2017). Curricular developments, research agendas, and insOtuOonal policies all reflect and reinforce broader struggles over the authority to define and categorize knowledge (Readings, 1996; Cooper, 2019). Through processes such as accreditaOon, peer review, and grant allocaOon, leadership exercises significant power over academic desOnies, shaping whose voices and perspecOves are legiOmated (Hardy & Lingard, 2011). A Foucauldian approach unmasks the conOngent, constructed nature of academic norms and categories—such as “quality,” “excellence,” and “impact”—which are oren presented as objecOve but are deeply implicated in the poliOcs of funding, ranking, and inclusion (Harvey, 2008; Espeland & Sauder, 2007). Leadership decisions about programs, resource distribuOon, and appointments thus parOcipate in discursive struggles with real material effects, parOcularly for those on the margins (Morley, 2016; Ahmed, 2012). Challenging dominant discourses can be a strategic way for leaders to disrupt hegemonic structures and create openings for alternaOve knowledges and perspecOves (Cannella & Koro-Ljungberg, 2017). However, such efforts require criOcal reflexivity and an acute awareness of the power effects of even well-intenOoned intervenOons (O’Connor, 2018). By a2ending to the micro-poliOcs of discourse, higher educaOon leadership can foster greater epistemic jusOce, in academic contexts. 6. Theme 5: Resistance and the PossibiliOes for Subversion. Although Foucault is oren read as a theorist of dominaOon, he insistently argued that where there is power, there is also resistance (Foucault, 1982). In the context of higher educaOon leadership, resistance emerges in mulOple forms: from overt protests and strikes to more covert acts of noncompliance, withdrawal, or subversion (Morley, 2016; Ivancheva et al., 2019). Academic leaders both encounter and parOcipate in such dynamics, navigaOng (and someOmes provoking) forms of dissent that simultaneously threaten and renew insOtuOonal life (Casey, 2020). Annals of the University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication and Management, Volume 11, 2025 182 182 Leadership strategies oren aim to channel, contain, or co-opt resistance, but Foucauldian theory urges an appreciaOon of resistance as a consOtuOve feature of insOtuOonal life—necessary for democraOc vitality and ethical growth (Ball, 2012; Blackmore & Sachs, 2012). Examples range from criOcal pedagogy and curriculum transformaOon to faculty unions contesOng managerialism, or students mobilizing against exclusionary policies (Giroux, 2014; Brown & Carasso, 2013). These acts disrupt taken-for-granted hierarchies and expose the constructed nature of insOtuOonal “truths” (Apple, 2013). Foucauldian-informed leadership recognizes that resistance can also reinforce power, producing new forms of discipline or normalizing alternaOve pracOces that become subject to fresh regimes of control (Allen, 2011). Thus, the dialecOc between power and resistance is fluid and complex, requiring leaders to remain vigilant and responsive to the shiring terrains of contestaOon (Spicer & Böhm, 2007). Moreover, episodic or isolated acts of resistance are less likely to effect transformaOonal change unless linked to sustained collecOve agency and reflexive pracOces (Niesche & Gowle2, 2019). Mobilizing Foucault's theory invites higher educaOon leaders to criOcally engage with dissent, not simply as an obstacle but as a generaOve force that can animate insOtuOonal self-renewal. By culOvaOng cultures of criOcal reflecOon and open dialogue, leadership can insOtuOonalize resistance in ways that promote pluralism, risk-taking, and inclusive transformaOon (Weber & Deetz, 2008). This reflexive posture also challenges leaders themselves to examine their complicity in reproducing inequitable power relaOons, fostering more just and transparent universiOes. 7. Theme 6: SubjecOficaOon: Shaping Academic IdenOOes. Foucault’s noOon of subjecOficaOon refers to the producOon of selves through discursive and insOtuOonal pracOces, emphasizing that idenOty is always situated within regimes of power and knowledge (Foucault, 1982; Tamboukou, 2012). In higher educaOon, leaders are both subjects and agents of subjecOficaOon—posiOoned by, and capable of reconfiguring, the norms and expectaOons that structure academic idenOOes (Ball, 2015; Kimmons & Veletsianos, 2018). UniversiOes are saturated with pracOces that “make up” academics, administrators, and students—construcOng idenOOes around ideals of the “excellent scholar,” “efficient manager,” or “entrepreneurial student” (Morley, 2016; Kuntz, 2012). Leadership parOcipates in these processes through policy arOculaOons, performance reviews, and professional development iniOaOves, oren valorizing parOcular styles of behaviour or ways of being (Lynch, 2015; O’Connor, 2018). At the same Ome, academic idenOOes are far from fixed. They are traversed by ambiguiOes, contradicOons, and resistances, as individuals negoOate insOtuOonal demands, disciplinary allegiances, and personal aspiraOons (Niesche, 2017). Foucauldian analyses reveal the work involved in “self-formaOon”—the acOve processes by which subjects internalize or contest discursive norms, oren through pracOces of self-wriOng, confession, or criOque (Petersen, 2007). Leadership, from this perspecOve, becomes an ethical task: supporOng condiOons for the flourishing of diverse subjecOviOes, rather than imposing a single normaOve script (Davies & Bansel, 2007; Taylor, 2011). By comparing the complexiOes of subjecOficaOon, higher educaOon leaders can culOvate more inclusive and responsive insOtuOons. This entails not only reflexivity about their own posiOonality, but a deep commitment to fostering spaces where mulOple ways of knowing and being can coexist and thrive (Ahmed, 2012; Kimmons & Veletsianos, 2018). Such an approach resists the violence of normalizaOon, advancing instead a vision of leadership grounded in care, pluralism, and jusOce. 8. Concluding The applicaOon of Michel Foucault’s power theory to higher educaOon leadership reveals the mulOfaceted and dynamic character of power within academic insOtuOons. Rather than a staOc possession or hierarchical structure, power in universiOes is diffused across networks of disciplinary rouOnes, surveillance architectures, governance strategies, discursive formaOons, pracOces of resistance, and processes of subjecOficaOon. This Foucauldian lens challenges both the allure and the limitaOons of tradiOonal leadership models, urging higher educaOon leaders to criOcally navigate the ethical complexiOes and possibiliOes that arise from operaOng within—and against—such networks. By understanding and engaging with the producOve and repressive dimensions of power, academic leaders are be2er equipped to foster environments of genuine inquiry, inclusivity, and creaOve resistance. This reflexive orientaOon not only advances the quality and integrity of academic life, but also supports the ongoing project of democraOzing higher educaOon for diverse and evolving publics. The task, then, is not simply to manage, but to Annals of the University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication and Management, Volume 11, 2025 183 183 reimagine leadership in ways that foreground relaOonality, plurality, and jusOce, as demanded by both the spirit and the rigor of Foucauldian criOque. 9. References Ahmed, S. (2012). On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in InsOtuOonal Life. Duke University Press. Allen, A. (2011). Foucault and Power. In The Oxford Handbook of Power (pp. 605-622). Oxford University Press. Allen, J., & Anderson, J. (2016). Surveillance as control in higher educaOon: The panopOc possibiliOes of learning analyOcs. Teaching in Higher EducaOon, 21(8), 990-1007. Apple, M. W. (2013). Can EducaOon Change Society? Routledge. Ball, S. J. (2012). PoliOcs and Policy Making in EducaOon: ExploraOons in Sociology. Routledge. Ball, S. J. (2013). Foucault, Power, and EducaOon. Routledge. Ball, S. J. (2015). SubjecOvity as a site of struggle: Refusing neoliberalism? BriOsh Journal of Sociology of EducaOon, 36(2), 221-238. Besley, T., & Peters, M. A. (2007). SubjecOvity and Truth: Foucault, EducaOon, and the Culture of Self. Peter Lang. Blackmore, J. (2013). A feminist criOcal perspecOve on educaOonal leadership. InternaOonal Journal of Leadership in EducaOon, 16(2), 139-154. Blackmore, J., & Sachs, J. (2012). Performing and Reforming Leaders: Gender, EducaOonal Restructuring, and OrganizaOonal Change. SUNY Press. Bleiklie, I., & Kogan, M. (2007). OrganizaOon and Governance of UniversiOes. Higher EducaOon Policy, 20(4), 477-493. Brown, R., & Carasso, H. (2013). Everything for Sale? The MarkeOsaOon of UK Higher EducaOon. Routledge. Cannella, G. S., & Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2017). Power, privilege, and parOcipatory research. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 14(2), 100-103. Casey, D. (2020). The Academic Resistance: University Strikes and Protests. Higher EducaOon Policy, 33(4), 678696. Clarke, J., & Newman, J. (2012). The Managerial State. Sage. Connell, R. (2019). The Good University: What UniversiOes Actually Do and Why It’s Time for Radical Change. Zed Books. Cooper, S. (2019). A Foucauldian criOque of academic discourse. CriOcal Studies in EducaOon, 60(2), 141-156. Davies, B., & Bansel, P. (2007). Neoliberalism and educaOon. InternaOonal Journal of QualitaOve Studies in EducaOon, 20(3), 247-259. Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society (2nd ed.). Sage. Deem, R., Hillyard, S., & Reed, M. (2007). Knowledge, Higher EducaOon, and the New Managerialism. Oxford University Press. Dill, D. D., & Beerkens, E. (2010). Public Policy for Academic Quality: Analyses of InnovaOve Policy Instruments. Springer. Enroth, H. (2014). PoliOcal Science and the Concept of Power. Routledge. Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and ReacOvity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1-40. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other WriOngs. Pantheon. Foucault, M. (1982). The Subject and Power. CriOcal Inquiry, 8(4), 777-795. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (pp. 87-104). University of Chicago Press. Furedi, F. (2017). What’s Happened to the University? A Sociological ExploraOon of its InfanOlisaOon. Routledge. Gillies, D., & O'Connor, D. (2010). Discourses of discipline: An archaeology of educaOonal policy. Journal of EducaOon Policy, 25(4), 403-424. Giroux, H. A. (2014). Neoliberalism’s war on higher educaOon. Haymarket Books. Hardy, I., & Lingard, B. (2011). The PoliOcal of Teacher Professional Development. Routledge. Harvey, L. (2008). Rankings of higher educaOon insOtuOons: A criOcal review. Quality in Higher EducaOon, 14(3), 187-207. Hearn, A. (2019). Surveillance, social media, and the university. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(1), 28-41. Hope, A. (2015). Governmentality and the 'Selling' of Surveillance Technologies to Schools. BriOsh Journal of Sociology of EducaOon, 36(6), 884-902. Annals of the University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication and Management, Volume 11, 2025 184 184 Hoskin, K. (2007). EducaOon and the genesis of disciplinary government: On the pathologies of modern student assessment. History of EducaOon, 36(2), 183-199. Ivancheva, M., Lynch, K., & KeaOng, K. (2019). Precarity, gender and care in the neoliberal academy. Gender, Work & OrganizaOon, 26(4), 448-462. Kandiko, C. B. (2010). Student expectaOons and percepOons of higher educaOon. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher EducaOon. Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2018). EducaOon research perspecOves on open badges and micro-credenOals. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(2), 129-139. Knox, J. (2017). Data power in educaOon. European EducaOonal Research Journal, 16(6), 742-759. Komljenovic, J. (2021). Higher educaOon markets and online playorms. Learning, Media and Technology, 46(4), 429-441. Kuntz, A. M. (2012). Re-conceptualizing academic work: From performaOvity to professional educaOonal pracOce. CriOcal Studies in EducaOon, 53(3), 225-241. Leask, B., Rennie, J., & Watanabe, Y. (2020). Professional agency and academic integrity. Studies in Higher EducaOon, 45(7), 1384-1396. Lopes, A., & Dewan, I. (2015). The everyday of governmentality: Ethical subjecOvity and the producOon of the leader. EducaOonal Philosophy and Theory, 47(11), 1193-1207. Lorenz, C. (2012). If you’re so smart, why are you under surveillance? UniversiOes, neoliberalism, and new public management. CriOcal Inquiry, 38(3), 599-629. Luke, A. (1997). Theory and pracOce in criOcal discourse analysis. InternaOonal Encyclopedia of the Sociology of EducaOon, 50-57. Lupton, D., & Williamson, B. (2017). The Datafied Child: The Dataveillance of Children and ImplicaOons for Their Rights. New Media & Society, 19(5), 780-794. Lynch, K. (2015). Control by numbers: New managerialism and ranking in higher educaOon. CriOcal Studies in EducaOon, 56(2), 190-207. Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of naOonal and global compeOOon in higher educaOon. Higher EducaOon, 52(1), 1-39. Marginson, S. (2011). Higher EducaOon and Public Good. Higher EducaOon Quarterly, 65(4), 411-433. Morley, L. (2016). Troubling intra-acOons: Gender, neo-liberalism and research in the global academy. Journal of EducaOon Policy, 31(1), 28-39. Morrison, A., Saadatdoost, R., Dai, H., & Shalmani, H. B. (2019). Data AnalyOcs in Higher EducaOon: A Study from Managers' PerspecOve. EducaOonal Technology & Society, 22(2), 58-69. Niesche, R. (2017). Foucault and EducaOonal Leadership: Disciplinary PracOces and School SubjecOviOes. Routledge. Niesche, R., & Gowle2, C. (2019). Leadership, ethics and 'discourse': Leadership as ethics of difference. EducaOonal Philosophy and Theory, 51(5), 487-497. O’Connor, K. (2018). Academic idenOOes. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of EducaOon. Olssen, M. (2016). Neoliberal compeOOon in higher educaOon today: research, accountability and impact. BriOsh Journal of Sociology of EducaOon, 37(1), 129-148. Olssen, M., & Peters, M. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher educaOon and the knowledge economy. Journal of EducaOon Policy, 20(3), 313-345. Petersen, E. B. (2007). NegoOaOng academic idenOOes: Academic women’s junior leadership in Finnish universiOes. Gender and EducaOon, 19(6), 629-644. Power, M. (1997). The Audit Society: Rituals of VerificaOon. Oxford University Press. Readings, B. (1996). The University in Ruins. Harvard University Press. Rhoads, R., & Torres, C. (2006). The University, State, and Market: The PoliOcal Economy of GlobalizaOon in the Americas. Stanford University Press. Rose, N. (1999). Powers of Freedom: Reframing PoliOcal Thought. Cambridge University Press. Selwyn, N. (2020). Digital Technology and the Contemporary University: Degrees of DigiOzaOon. Routledge. Shamir, R. (2008). The Age of ResponsibilizaOon: On Market-Embedded Morality. Economy and Society, 37(1), 1–19. Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2015). Audit culture revisited: Rankings, raOngs and the reassembling of society. Current Anthropology, 56(3), 421-444. Simons, M., & Masschelein, J. (2008). The governmentalizaOon of learning and the assemblage of pedagogy. EducaOonal Philosophy and Theory, 40(6), 531-543. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic Capitalism and the New Economy. Johns Hopkins University Press. Annals of the University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication and Management, Volume 11, 2025 185 185 Smyth, J. (2017). The Toxic University: Zombie Leadership, Academic Rock Stars and Neoliberal Ideology. Palgrave Macmillan. Spicer, A., & Böhm, S. (2007). Moving management: Theorizing struggles against the hegemony of management in organizaOons. OrganizaOon Studies, 28(1), 1667-1698. Tamboukou, M. (2012). Foucauldian NarraOve Analysis. In J.A. Holstein & J.F. Gubrium (Eds.), VarieOes of NarraOve Analysis (pp. 88-111). Sage. Taylor, C. (2011). Power, Policy and the Post: Feminist ContribuOons to Higher EducaOon Policy and Management. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural PoliOcs of EducaOon, 32(4), 567-581. Weber, M., & Deetz, S. (2008). Voices in and against the neoliberal university: Resistance as academic pracOce. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 16(2), 163-178. Williamson, B. (2017). Big data in educaOon: The digital future of learning, policy and pracOce. Sage. .