Global Bibliometric Mapping of Faculty Resistance to Change in Higher Education: Uncovering the Psychological Costs of University Governance

HRMARS - Over the past two decades, higher education systems worldwide have undergone radical neoliberal governance reforms centered on accountability, performance metrics, and audit culture. While these reforms are ostensibly designed to boost institutional efficiency and transparency, they have consistently triggered widespread faculty resistance and inflicted profound, yet understudied, psychological burdens on academic staff—including burnout, identity strain, and emotional exhaustion. As higher education grapples with sustaining academic vitality and faculty well-being amid relentless structural change, understanding the interplay between university governance, faculty resistance, and psychological costs has become an urgent global imperative. This study represents the first comprehensive global bibliometric mapping of scholarship at the intersection of these three critical domains. Drawing on 48 core Scopus-indexed publications (2000–2025), we deploy rigorous science-mapping techniques—co-occurrence networks, thematic clustering, and longitudinal evolutionary analysis—to systematically clarify the intellectual foundations, conceptual trajectory, and emerging research frontiers of the field. Our findings reveal a pivotal shift in the scholarship: from early structural debates about managerialism to a nuanced "emotional turn" that centers identity strain, emotional labor, and psychological sustainability. Governance and accountability mechanisms emerge as the structural core driving faculty resistance, which we frame not as mere organizational obstruction but as a vital form of professional agency. Additionally, we identify datafication and digital governance as fast-emerging forces amplifying psychological strain among faculty. We further map key global research hubs in the United States, Brazil, Australia, and the United Kingdom, while highlighting persistent disciplinary fragmentation that limits cross-contextual insight. Concluding, we propose a targeted research agenda for advancing the psychological sustainability of institutional change in higher education, with a focus on leadership models that prioritize emotional intelligence, professional autonomy, and human-centered governance. This study delivers actionable insights for policymakers, university leaders, and academic researchers, filling a critical gap in the global understanding of how governance reforms shape the emotional and professional lives of the faculty who form the backbone of higher education.