How to build trust, manage conflict in university governance

Universities today operate in increasingly politicised environments where governance frameworks are tested by competing demands for transparency, accountability and inclusivity.

At the same time, student activism, often rooted in calls for democracy and institutional reform, has become a defining feature of higher education landscapes, reshaping governance structures and challenging authorities.

These developments raise critical questions about how universities can manage tensions and conflicts in governance processes without compromising inclusivity.

In regions such as Taiwan and Hong Kong, these dynamics are further intensified by broader sociopolitical movements. Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement and Hong Kong’s Occupy Central and Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill movements exemplify instances where students have advocated for democratic values while confronting authorities.

These social movements highlight the paradox of student activism within shared governance – where students act both as partners and challengers.

Politicisation

My recent study examines how universities in Taiwan and Hong Kong manage the balance between trust and tensions in their governance given these pressures. The findings are based on interviews with 40 university council members and 26 student leaders from the two regions.

The study shows that student activism has politicised university governance in both contexts. In Taiwan, activism is often seen as a means for students to build political capital, with protests and media pressure used to influence decision-making. Some university managers and faculty members have criticised students for prioritising visibility over problem-solving. However, student leaders have emphasised their role in promoting accountability within hierarchical structures.

In Hong Kong, by contrast, governance practices have focused on stability and institutional reputation. Administrators often view activism as potentially disruptive. Nevertheless, social movements have prompted universities to engage more openly with student organisations.

Transparency

The findings about different perspectives on transparency in university governance reveal significant contrasts between the broader contexts of Taiwan and Hong Kong.

In Taiwan, efforts to promote transparency, such as livestreaming council meetings, were embraced by students as tools for accountability. Although some faculty members have criticised these measures as disrespectful, stakeholders have generally accepted transparency as essential to governance, reflecting broader trends toward democratisation and participatory governance.

By contrast, stakeholders at Hong Kong universities, particularly administrators, prioritise stability, favouring closed-door negotiations over public confrontation to handle sensitive issues. While this approach has reduced immediate tensions, it has often left students feeling excluded from decision-making processes.

This exclusion, coupled with management’s negative perception of student activism, has seemed to push some students towards more radical approaches.

Student leadership

The findings also reveal contrasting approaches to student leadership in Taiwan and Hong Kong.

In Taiwan, student leaders, particularly those from elite universities, often view themselves as drivers of broader societal change. Their sense of responsibility reflects a belief that their actions shape not only campus policies but also national democratic practices.

However, tensions have emerged, as some students oppose this elitism, and some faculty members perceive student leaders as immature and lacking the expertise to participate meaningfully in governance. This hierarchical attitude reinforces a trust gap, leaving students feeling undervalued despite their advocacy for transparency and accountability.

In Hong Kong, student leaders have tended to downplay their leadership roles, positioning themselves as representatives rather than decision-makers. They have focused on acting as intermediaries between students and university management rather than asserting direct leadership.

During the 2019 protests, Hong Kong students leaned towards decentralised, bottom-up organising, emphasising collective participation over centralised leadership. This leaderless approach reflects the complex relationships of cooperation and trust amid contemporary student activism.

Meanwhile, some student leaders have described leadership roles as “sensitive” and “difficult”, prompting them to avoid engaging with controversial incidents or expressing political stances. This attitude reflects growing concerns about political labelling and legal repercussions. The changing political environment in Hong Kong after the protests has likely further reinforced this cautious approach to activism.

Trust as a cornerstone of governance

In his book Trust and the Public Good: Examining the cultural conditions of academic work, William G Tierney highlights trust as crucial for sustaining higher education as a public good. Aligning with this idea, my research shows that while trust is fundamental to governance, tensions are unavoidable, particularly in politically charged environments.

In light of Tierney’s “grammar of trust” framework, I argue that universities should actively cultivate trust through sustained engagement and incremental agreements to manage these tensions effectively.

Trust is a dynamic process shaped by communication and engagement, but its effectiveness can be constrained by the socio-political atmosphere in which universities operate.

The study suggests that these environments often amplify vulnerabilities, making it difficult for institutions to address broader socio-political challenges despite efforts to promote transparency and dialogue. Thus, communication, while essential for mutual understanding, cannot always resolve underlying issues when universities face external pressures beyond their control.

Divergent values among stakeholders add further complexity. The findings reveal that students often prioritise liberty and political change, faculty members emphasise seniority and academic traditions, and administrators lean towards stability and institutional reputation.

These differences present obstacles to cultivating a shared culture of trust. Universities should manage these tensions carefully, recognising that inclusivity and collaboration are crucial to overcoming entrenched divides.

Trust also operates as both a process and an outcome. It develops through small, incremental agreements that build confidence over time. However, the short-term nature of student leadership and the decentralised structures of activism introduce instability, raising questions about how to sustain trust when leadership changes frequently.

To address these challenges, universities should create opportunities for diverse voices to influence decision-making. Starting with manageable commitments can reduce risks and build a foundation for long-term trust. Fostering trust demands intentional leadership, proactive communication and incremental steps to strengthen resilience in governance structures.

William Yat Wai Lo is an associate professor in the School of Education at Durham University, United Kingdom. His research focuses on higher education policy and governance in East Asia. His research and publications can be found on this page.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.