While the majority of research promotes the idea of transparency and puts all efforts into refining existing concepts, critical studies emphasize the performativity of measures to increase visibility. The article theorizes the nexus of transparency and secrecy by drawing on Erving Goffman’s frontstage/backstage theory, according to which actors vie to maintain boundaries of visibility by alternating these two types of situations. Using this approach, the article interprets the emergence of new forms of secrecy in reaction to transparency measures as efforts to maintain or create boundaries of visibility between front- and backstage. This perspective is empirically applied to a study on parliamentarian representatives of the Pirate Party of Germany, a political party that tries to be as transparent as possible and vows to live up to this ambition when elected. The study demonstrates that an organization which deprives itself of boundaries of visibility between frontstage and backstage faces obstacles which lead it to eventually introduce such boundaries. This study, therefore, offers an in-depth examination of the limitations of transparency and its unintended consequences.

ZusammenfassungDer Zusammenhang zwischen Rankings und Konkurrenz wird häufig unterstellt, aber selten genauer untersucht. Der vorliegende Aufsatz geht ihm am Beispiel globaler Universitätsrankings nach. Ausgehend von einem soziologischen Verständnis von Konkurrenz bestimmen wir „Ranken“ als eine soziale Operation, die vier Teiloperationen miteinander kombiniert: Vergleich von Leistungen, Quantifizierung, Visualisierung, und wiederholte Publikation. Visualisierung und Publikation stehen für die in der Literatur bisher kaum berücksichtigte performative Dimension von Rankings, die für die Analyse des Zusammenhangs zwischen Rankings und Konkurrenz von zentraler Bedeutung ist. Auf dieser Grundlage zeigen wir, wie globale Universitätsrankings zur Konstruktion von Konkurrenz beitragen: durch (a) Globalisierung eines spezifischen Exzellenzdiskurses; (b) Verknappung von Reputation; (c) Transformation einer stabilen in eine dynamische Statusordnung. Wir schließen mit einer Diskussion von Implikationen dieser Analyse für die soziologische Erforschung von Konkurrenz und ihrer gesellschaftlichen Effekte.

Facing increasing demands for transparency, more and more organizations have embraced managed forms of information disclosure that rely on digital technologies. However, when doing so, they tend to create an idealized self-presentation for their audiences. Aggravated by these attempts to undermine ‘true openness’, calls for a ‘hands-off’ approach to information disclosure – also known as unmanaged transsparency – have grown louder. Following this development, the paper conceptualizes organizations as sites of managed and unmanaged transparency practices and asks how these practices shape audience support and are affected by audiences. Empirically, we study a German political party from 2011 to 2017. Audiences initially supported the party’s commitment to unmanaged transparency but soon withdrew their support. Members in executive positions reacted by enacting multiple managed transparency practices to change the party’s negative public image. These efforts, however, were futile, and the party could not regain audience support. We theorize this dynamic in a framework that draws attention to the impact of (un)managed transparency and the organizational environment on audience support. Overall, our study suggests that unmanaged transparency in a digital society is more like a double-edged sword rather than a Swiss army knife: organizations might profit from its positive effects on the audience’s support, but they also make themselves vulnerable by the high level of dissonance they put on display.

Accounts of why rankings are pervasive features of the modern world focus mostly on their properties as valuation devices that, upon entering the public sphere, exert pressure on the ranked. In doing so, however, research tends to overlook the important role played by the different types of organizations that produce rankings. To remedy this, the article draws from a qualitative study consisting of semi-structured interviews with members of these organizations to show that they put a great deal of effort into addressing and responding to different kinds of criticism. Working towards building and maintaining the credibility of rankings is thus revealed to require constant attention by their producers, who devise multiple procedures and rhetorical strategies to this end.

When explaining the ubiquity of rankings, researchers tend to emphasize macro or contextual phenomena, such as the power of or the trust in numbers, neoliberal forces, or a general spirit of competition. Meanwhile, the properties of rankers are rarely, if at all, taken into account. In contrast to the received wisdom, we argue that the institutionalization of rankings in different fields is also contingent upon another, often-neglected factor: Over time, rankers have become increasingly more organized. To investigate the role of ranking organizations, we look into the distinct properties of present-day rankings and highlight three dimensions along which rankings have evolved over the course of the twentieth century, namely, publication frequency, handling complex tasks, and audience engagement. On this basis, we argue that these dimensions have to a large extent been affected by formal organization and we show how ranking organizations have over time developed capacities to: (a) publish rankings on a continual basis; (b) handle the often complex production process by means of division of labor; and (c) generate considerable degrees of attention by addressing large and diverse audiences. On a more general note, we argue that accounting for the role of organization in the instutionalization of rankings requires a combination of insights from both “old” and “new” strands of thinking in institutional theory.