Legitimacy and conflict: academic perspectives on hybrid governance and third-space professionals in a Chilean university

Universities worldwide are experiencing a rise in the professionalisation of management, leading to hybrid roles that bridge academic and administrative areas. While these third-space professionals play a vital role in coordinating institutions, their legitimacy remains contested, and their contributions are inconsistently recognised. Based on sixteen semi-structured interviews with academics and academic officials at a Chilean university, this article explores how legitimacy and conflict are relationally constructed between academics and these professionals, from the academics’ perspective. By combining these interviews with document analysis, it introduces a four-scenario model – Effective Collaboration, Active Institutional Conflict, Invisibility, and Identity Conflict and Resistance – to analyse how legitimacy is negotiated and how conflicts arise in hybrid governance. The findings suggest that legitimacy is dynamic and relational, influenced by organisational culture, leadership, and symbolic hierarchies. Although managerial reforms improve coordination, they also heighten tensions over academic autonomy, leading to fluctuating patterns of cooperation and resistance. The four-scenario model serves as an analytical tool; in this case, the institution primarily aligns with the identity-conflict-and-resistance scenario. The study views the Chilean case as a contribution to global discussions on hybrid governance and expands Whitchurch’s framework by adding conflict intensity as a key analytical aspect. Practically, it recommends strategies such as dialogue, transparency, and shared decision-making to balance managerial skills with academic trust and support sustainable, legitimate governance in higher education.