Reframing School Stakeholder Engagement through the Lens of Critical Theory: A Systematic Review of Governance and Leadership Perspective

This systematic review examines how Critical Theory reframes school stakeholder engagement within educational governance and leadership. It responds to the continuing dominance of hierarchical and bureaucratic decision-making that limits authentic participation despite decades of decentralization reforms. By integrating evidence from twenty-eight (28) studies published between 2017 and 2025, the review synthesizes international and Philippine research through the analytical lens of Critical Theory, emphasizing power relations, communicative action, and emancipation. Guided by PRISMA methodology and thematic synthesis, the review identifies persistent tensions between policy rhetoric and democratic practice. Studies from contexts such as Iran, South Korea, China, Brazil, and the Philippines reveal that participatory mechanisms often remain procedural rather than transformative, constrained by cultural deference and structural control. Findings demonstrate that genuine stakeholder engagement emerges when governance emphasizes reflective dialogue, shared agency, and distributed leadership supported by institutional trust. The review contributes to theory by positioning engagement as an emancipatory process grounded in communication and equity, extending the works of Habermas and Freire into practical governance models. It further recommends that educational leaders institutionalize spaces for critical reflection and participatory decision-making, while policymakers strengthen decentralization with equitable capacity-building and transparency mechanisms. The study concludes that stakeholder engagement in education must evolve from compliance toward communicative collaboration to realize democratic governance and social justice.

Critical Theory, Stakeholder Engagement

1. Al-Thani, F. (2025). Inclusive leadership and gendered empowerment in private education systems: A feminist critical theory analysis. Qatar Journal of Educational Research, 12(2), 55–72. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ambroso, C., Lien, J., & Patel, R. (2021). Communication inequities and participation in educational governance. International Review of Education Policy, 47(3), 240–259. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bartolome, L. (2017). Cultural hierarchies and parental involvement in Philippine elementary schools. Philippine Journal of Education, 94(2), 55–67. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bartolome, L. (2019). Freirean empowerment and participatory governance in basic education. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 7(4), 45–60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bond, S. (2024). Socioeconomic status and parent participation: Revisiting class-based disparities in UK schools. British Educational Research Journal, 50(4), 812–829. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Clarke, R. (2020). Communication, discourse, and power: Rethinking school board transparency. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(6), 987–1002. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Dlamini, P. (2022). Distributed leadership and community empowerment in South African schools. Journal of Educational Change, 23(1), 56–72. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Elacqua, G., Martínez, M., & Santos, R. (2021). Local governance reform and structural inequities in Colombia. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 29(117), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Gillen, P. (2024). Transparency, communicative governance, and the ethics of participation. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 56(9), 1154–1168. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Giroux, H. A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. Bloomsbury Academic. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Guo, L., Li, X., & Zhang, Y. (2025). Hierarchy and empowerment: Rethinking participatory governance in Chinese schools. Asia Pacific Education Review, 26(2), 101–118. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Guzman, M. (2022). Bureaucracy, reform, and resistance in Philippine education. Philippine Social Science Review, 74(3), 210–229. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society. Beacon Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Haile, M. (2024). Reflective communication and participatory reform in Ethiopian basic education. African Educational Research Journal, 12(3), 223–240. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (1947). Dialectic of enlightenment: Philosophical fragments. Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Jabar, F. (2020). Community participation and governance in Mindanao schools: A Freirean perspective. Mindanao Journal of Social Development, 15(1), 55–72. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Jeong, H., Lee, J., & Cho, S. (2017). Decentralization and participatory leadership in South Korean secondary schools. Korean Journal of Educational Policy, 14(2), 41–59. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. King, A. (2024). Participatory councils and decentralization in Philippine education governance. Journal of Education and Public Policy, 12(1), 33–50. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Laguda, E., Cruz, P., & Santos, M. (2023). Decentralization, governance, and participatory reform in Philippine basic education. Philippine Journal of Educational Research, 20(2), 98–115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Mahajan, R. (2023). Efficiency, hierarchy, and exclusion: A critical theory analysis of Indian higher education governance. Journal of Social Theory in Education, 46(2), 129–148. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Melo-Becerra, L., García, E., & Vargas, J. (2020). Decentralization and hierarchical persistence in Colombian education. Policy Futures in Education, 18(7), 910–928. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2010). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Neddersen, L. (2025). The illusion of participation: Critical reflections on democratic governance models in schools. International Journal of Critical Education, 17(1), 34–50. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Peng, C. (2024). Dialogic leadership and communicative participation in educational governance. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 52(3), 354–370. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Saguin, K. (2020). Collaborative leadership and equity in local educational boards. Philippine Political Science Journal, 41(1), 87–104. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Sattar, M. (2022). Transformative leadership and stakeholder empowerment in Pakistani schools. International Education Studies, 15(4), 45–61. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Soares Furtado Oliveira, L., Mendes, R., & Pereira, F. (2023). Participatory governance and equity in Brazilian public schools: A critical policy review. Revista Brasileira de Política Educacional, 39(2), 112–134. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Valizadeh, N. (2023). Reflective dialogue and empowerment in Iranian education reform. International Journal of Educational Development, 99, 102759. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Wang, Z. (2024). Transformative leadership and decentralization in Chinese education policy. Frontiers in Education, 9, 150–168. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Woodforde, S., Klein, T., & James, E. (2024). Communication barriers in inclusive governance: Lessons from Western educational systems. Comparative Education Review, 68(1), 27–44. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Understanding Academic Leadership: Theory, Practice and Future Horizons
• A Literature Review on Leadership and Cultural Evolution of Adventism in East Africa Region
• Unlocking Employee Creativity Through Empowering Leadership: The Dynamic Interplay of Trust and Engagement
• The Integration of Preachers’ Leadership Competencies in Empowering Preachers for the Orang Asli Community in Malaysia
• Traditional Authority vs. Legacy Leadership: A Comparative Literature Review from the Arab World