University Naming as Governance: Institutional Continuity, Policy Variation, and Organizational Change

Abstract

The intensity of debates around university naming practices has increased as these institutions address their historical connections to slavery, segregation, settler colonialism, scientific racism, and exclusion. However, having a documented naming policy does not guarantee continuous, transparent, or significant review processes. This theory-building comparative document analysis explores naming governance at fifteen American universities. The study employs a preregistered-style audit trail and directed qualitative content analysis to examine policies, board actions, committee reports, and official statements, coding eleven dimensions across formal rule structures, processes, and outcomes. Findings illustrate a pattern of policy decoupling: although historical criteria, evidence standards, and review committees are often formalized, their activation typically requires petitions, controversies, or leadership discretion. Within the sample, only one institution employs a routine review on the trigger/periodic-review/appeal dimension. The Routine Stewardship Model explains this asymmetry by examining how activation, procedures, and outcomes are coupled. It offers a framework to differentiate between policy adoption and institutionalized practice and identifies practical design elements—such as recurring review triggers, role separation, public rationales, and mandatory decisions—that may enhance accountability in naming governance, reducing crisis dependence.