Despite the emergence of new scholarship, public higher education boards in the United States remain relatively under-investigated. While the literature on higher education governance and boards, in particular, tends to profess these knowledge gaps repeatedly, few works have scratched the surface as to why our understanding of boards is so limited. In this paper, the authors move past the acknowledgment that boards are vastly understudied to reflect on why that is the case. Using a case study centered on interviews with governance scholars, the authors highlight findings of logistical, theoretical, methodological, and epistemological rationale that have prevented governing boards from being studied in a manner, depth, and scope on par with their import in higher education. The authors present the case that researchers must first recognize and then identify ways to address and overcome these challenges to innovate research in the field of governance, particularly in a higher education environment in which boards are more visible. Implications for future research are provided.