Governing the Ungoverned: Institutional Leadership and Organizational Ambidexterity in the AI Adoption of Universities: A Systematic Review with Thematic Synthesis

Pablo Rivarola

doi:10.67294/46q6ch51

Authors

Pablo Rivarola Universidad Siglo 21 Author https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7419-6080

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.67294/46q6ch51

Keywords:

Artificial Intelligence Governance, Higher Education Institutions, Organizational Ambidexterity, Dynamic Capabilities, Datafication

Abstract

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence into higher education has produced a significant imbalance: a growing body of research addresses AI tools and their effects on student learning, while the institutional and leadership dimensions of AI governance remain systematically underexplored. This systematic review with thematic synthesis (PRISMA 2020) examines how indexed literature conceptualizes AI governance and leadership in higher education institutions (HEIs), what institutional and managerial factors operate as facilitators or barriers, what structural tensions characterize the field, and what the Latin American context reveals about the limits of prevailing frameworks. Drawing on a corpus of 30 verified sources — 20 peer-reviewed studies (2021–2026) plus 10 foundational theoretical works included by exception — the analysis identifies five analytical themes: fragmented governance architectures without systemic accountability; the underresearched role of academic leadership as the critical institutional link; the theoretical limits of individual acceptance models (TAM/UTAUT) when applied to organizational-level decisions; datafication as covert governance operating beneath formal policy layers; and Latin America’s near-absence from indexed production as a structural finding rather than a methodological limitation. The study proposes an integrative conceptual framework articulating organizational ambidexterity (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2004, 2013), dynamic capabilities (Teece, 2007), and the critique of datafication (Williamson, 2018; Selwyn & Gasevic, 2020) as a unified analytical device for AI governance in HEIs, anchored in the specific conditions of Latin American higher education.

References

Alzahrani, A. S., Tsai, Y.-S., Aljohani, N., Whitelock-Wainwright, E., & Gasevic, D. (2023). Do teaching staff trust stakeholders and tools in learning analytics? A mixed methods study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71, 1471–1501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10229-w

Alzahrani, A. S., Tsai, Y.-S., Iqbal, S., Moreno-Marcos, P. M., Scheffel, M., Drachsler, H., Delgado Kloos, C., Aljohani, N., & Gasevic, D. (2022). Untangling connections between challenges in the adoption of learning analytics in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 4563–4595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11323-x

An, Y., Yu, J. H., & James, S. (2025). Investigating the higher education institutions’ guidelines and policies regarding the use of generative AI in teaching, learning, research, and administration. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22, Article 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00507-3

Azevedo, L., Robles, P., Best, E., & Mallinson, D. J. (2025). Institutional policies on artificial intelligence in higher education: Frameworks and best practices for faculty. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2025(188), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.70013

Bond, M., Khosravi, H., De Laat, M., Bergdahl, N., Negrea, V., Oxley, E., Pham, P., Chong, S. W., & Siemens, G. (2024). A meta systematic review of artificial intelligence in higher education: A call for increased ethics, collaboration, and rigour. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21, 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00436-z

Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: The state of the field. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8

Crompton, H., Burke, D., Nickel, C., Bozkurt, A., Miao, F., Sharples, M., Greene, J. A., Parsons, D., Gill-Simmen, L., Edmett, A., Pegrum, M., de Waard, I., Bonk, C. J., Garcia, M. B., Curry, J. H., Lindsey, L., Yang, M., Marshall, S., Bali, M., . . . Yu, S. (2026). Governing generative AI in higher education: A global Delphi study on policy and practice. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 23, Article 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-026-00602-z

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews, 1(28). https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-28

Hong, Q. N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., Rousseau, M.-C., Vedel, I., & Pluye, P. (2018). The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information, 34(4), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-180221

Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), W65–W94. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71

Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Sage. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/meta-ethnography/book3560

O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–83. https://hbr.org/2004/04/the-ambidextrous-organization

O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002

O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjärtsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., . . . Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., Koffel, J. B., & PRISMA-S Group. (2021). PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10, 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z

Salas-Pilco, S. Z., & Yang, Y. (2022). Artificial intelligence applications in Latin American higher education: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00326-w

Sánchez Mendiola, M., & Carbajal Degante, E. (2023). La inteligencia artificial generativa y la educación universitaria: ¿Salió el genio de la lámpara? Perfiles Educativos, 45(Especial), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.22201/iisue.24486167e.2023.Especial.61692

Selwyn, N. (2019). What’s the problem with learning analytics? Journal of Learning Analytics, 6(3), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2019.63.3

Selwyn, N., & Gasevic, D. (2020). The datafication of higher education: Discussing the promises and problems. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(4), 527–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1689388

Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640

Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45

Tsai, Y.-S., Moreno-Marcos, P. M., Jivet, I., Scheffel, M., Tammets, K., Kollom, K., & Gašević, D. (2018). The SHEILA framework: Informing institutional strategies and policy processes of learning analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics, 5(3), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2018.53.2

Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165838

UNESCO IESALC. (2024). Transforming the digital landscape of higher education in Latin America and the Caribbean. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000388361

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Williamson, B. (2018). The hidden architecture of higher education: Building a big data infrastructure for the ‘smarter university’. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0094-1

Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education: Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0