A Comparative Analysis of Rector Appointment Policies in Six Countries

This study comparatively examines the processes by which university rectors are appointed in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, China, South Korea, and Türkiye. Employing Bereday's (1964) four-stage comparative education method, the study draws on legal frameworks, institutional governance documents, policy reports, and recent academic literature to analyze these systems through five analytical dimensions: legal and institutional structure, key decision-making actors, stakeholder participation, transparency, and merit and leadership criteria. To this end, "merit" is defined as the evaluation of rector candidates based on academic qualifications, managerial experience, leadership competence, and transparent assessment processes—independent of political affiliation or personal networks. The study addresses a gap in the literature by integrating perspectives from institutional isomorphism, new public management, and transformational leadership theory to interpret cross-national differences in appointment models. Findings indicate that the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia operate through multi-stakeholder governance structures consistent with mimetic isomorphism and NPM principles, while China and Türkiye exemplify coercive isomorphism through state-dominated, politically driven appointment processes. South Korea represents a hybrid model situated between these poles. Critically, the study also finds that nominally transparent, merit-based systems in Western contexts are not immune to social power dynamics and demographic biases. Based on the findings, the study recommends for Türkiye and other centralized systems establishing a multi-stakeholder search committee, mandatory leadership certification for rector candidates, and reforms to enhance transparency in appointment processes.