Justice and the legitimacy of student evaluation systems in higher education: a systematic review

This article examines how justice perceptions shape the legitimacy of student evaluation of teaching (SET) as a high-stakes governance tool in higher education. Drawing on organisational justice theory and governance analysis, it presents a systematic review of 35 empirical studies published between 2015 and 2025 that examine faculty perceptions of fairness in SET and their relationship to legitimacy-related outcomes, including trust, acceptance and resistance. Using a PRISMA-guided process, studies were coded by methodological features, justice dimension and legitimacy outcomes. Five fairness frames are identified: distributive, procedural, interactional, epistemic and affective. While distributive and epistemic perspectives are slightly more prevalent, procedural and interactional frames are also well represented. Among studies reporting legitimacy-related outcomes, procedural justice shows the most consistent positive association with trust and acceptance of high-stakes SET use, whereas distributive inequities, interactional harms and validity-related concerns undermine confidence. These relationships are conditioned by employment precarity, identity-based inequality, disciplinary norms and governance regimes. The review develops a justice-based governance framework that explains why procedural integrity, rather than outcome favorability alone, underpins legitimacy, and argues that justice-sensitive governance design is central to the effective use of SET beyond psychometric refinement.