Conflict of Interest Policy

Approved by the ASHE Board of Directors on June 8, 2026

This Conflict of Interest Policy of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (“Association”) provides guidance on handling actual or potential conflicts of interest when members serve in decision-making positions. This policy ensures that the Association’s integrity, objectivity, and fairness are maintained in all professional and operational activities.

The conflicts of interest policy is to be widely publicized and readily accessible to ASHE members. 

3. Conflict of Interest. A conflict of interest refers to circumstances where an individual’s financial or personal interests—or those of their affiliated institutions—could significantly impair their objectivity or create an unfair advantage for any person or organization. This includes the allocation or withholding of benefits and any situation where an individual may personally gain from their service to ASHE.
   
   

4. Required Recusal. Individuals must withdraw or recuse themselves from service or decisions involving individuals or institutions where any of the following relationships exist:

   1. Academic: Current or former dissertation committee chair, or current or former student of a chair.

   2. Personal: Family member, spouse, or partner.

   3. Professional: Anyone with whom the individual has a current business or financial relationship (e.g., partner, employer, employee).

   4. Collaborative: Research collaborator or co-author currently or within the past five years.

   5. Institutional: Anyone working at, or having accepted a position at, the same institution  or someone who holds a formal affiliation (e.g., adjunct, emeritus, or visiting status) at the institution.

   6. Dual Roles and Personal Gain.

      1. Financial Interests: Individuals must recuse themselves from decisions involving organizations where they hold an investment, compensation arrangement, or prospective employment.

      2. Positional Interests: Members must disclose roles in other organizations (e.g., serving on another board) that may bias their advice or divert Association resources.

   7. Any significant professional or personal proximity that does not meet the mandatory criteria but triggers a personal concern regarding bias.

5. Ineligibility. To ensure the highest ethical standards and avert the appearance of bias:

   1. Members of the Board of Directors are ineligible to apply, be nominated for, or be selected for Association benefits with financial benefits besides the Graduate Student Members of the Board, who are eligible to apply for scholarships;

   2. Members of the Entity Leadership Teams are ineligible to apply, be nominated for, or be selected for Entity benefits with financial benefits besides the Graduate Student Members of that respective Leadership Teams who are eligible to apply for that respective Entity’s scholarships;

   3. Members of review and/or selection committees are ineligible to nominate individuals or to be candidates for awards, Fellows, grants, or scholarships from their respective committee during their term of service.

This does not preclude any member of any of these groups from conference proposal submissions, publication submissions, or assignment as a reviewer, chair, or discussant for the conference or manuscript reviewer for a publication, so long as appropriate conflicts are avoided.

5. Confidentiality. Individuals may not use or gain from information received in a confidential context (e.g., manuscript reviews) until that information is made public.

6. Implementation Procedures.

   1. Upon completion of a submission process or reviewer assignment, members should review applications and make known to the Executive Director any potential conflicts. Failure to disclose an actual or perceived conflict as defined in this policy may result in removal from the appointed position or voiding of the related decision per applicable policies (e.g., ethics policies, bylaws).

   2. Recusal process for unmasked selection processes including awards, nominations, and grants:

      1. Member: If a committee member identifies a Required Recusal relationship with any candidate in the pool, they are automatically recused from consideration of all nominations within that category.

      2. Chair: If a committee chair identifies a Required Recusal relationship with any candidate in the pool, the vice chair or a disinterested alternate will assume the leadership for that category. 

   3. Recusal process for masked selection processes including scholarships:

      1. If a reviewer or committee member identifies a Required Recusal relationship with any candidate in the pool, they must recuse themselves from the evaluation of that item only. 

   4. Recusal process for the Fellows Committee: 

      1. If any committee member, including the Chair, identifies a Required Recusal relationship with any candidate in the pool, they are automatically recused from consideration of only that nomination.

   5. Recusal process proposal and manuscript reviews: 

      1. If a reviewer identifies a Required Recusal relationship with any proposal, they must recuse themselves from the evaluation of that item only. 

   6. Recusal process for Publications: 

      1. If an Editor or Editorial Board Member identifies a Required Recusal relationship with a manuscript, they must recuse themselves from the evaluation of that specific manuscript only.

   7. Recusal process for the Conference Program Committee:

      1. If a section or pre-conference chair identifies a required recusal situation in their section, it shall be up to their section co-chair or if they do not have a co-chair (or if their co-chair would prefer), the Program Committee Co-Chairs to assign reviews and make the final decision on the proposal's acceptance.