Rankings and Global Knowledge Governance

Abstract

This series aims to explore the globalization of higher education and the impact this has had on education systems around the world including East Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Europe and the US. Analyzing HE systems and policy this series will provide a comprehensive overview of how HE within different nations and/or regions is responding to the new age of universal mass higher education. This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. There has been a surge of global indicator knowledge that has come to challenge more traditional forms of transnational governance. This book discusses the field development in global ranking and argues that there is now a global policy script on knowledge governance that is greatly linked to economic competitiveness and innovation. Higher education and innovation policies have become central features of national economic competitiveness, nowadays measured by global rankings. We see this as a part of a broader field development in global comparative assessment, where earlier rankings in economic competitiveness and good governance are increasingly interlinked with global university rankings and indicators on innovativeness.We observe the interlinkages and similarities in the indicators of different policy domains, arguing that there is now an evolving field of global measurement that surpasses them. In considering the dynamics of field development, we highlight how the number of indicators is rising rapidly, as there are new entrants to the field that propose methodological improvements or claim to explore novel conceptual grounds. Regional rankings and city-level indicators have also emerged as alternatives to global rankings.As a result, the rankings now construct a global policy script on knowledge governance that posits institutions and practices of national knowledge production at the heart of ec...

A power-critique of academic rankings: Beyond managers, institutions, and positivism

“…Rankings are ordinal and multi-dimensional series of unit-objects (universities, publications, departments, individuals, etc.) that are composed through the quantification of the qualities of knowledge production situated in recognized academic institutions, and which are presented in serial relation to one another according to a certain criteria (Erkkilä and Piironen, 2018: 22–28). Though the tabular rank is the most common form that academic rankings take (THES, QS, ARWU, etc.…”

“…Audit culture migrated throughout the 1980s into higher education from the finance sectors (Shore and Wright, 2000: 59). Ordinal ranked tables appeared nationally by the 1990s (Dill, 2009: 98; Myers and Robe, 2009), initially in the North Atlantic core of the world-system (Kehm, 2013: 21–22), but then across the global semi-periphery into the 2000s (Erkkilä and Piironen, 2018: 104; Hazelkorn, 2011; Paradelse and Thoening, 2013). Multidimensional rankings were innovated by the 2010s (Erkkilä and Piironen, 2018: 123–175; Van Vught and Westerheijden, 2010).…”

“…Ordinal ranked tables appeared nationally by the 1990s (Dill, 2009: 98; Myers and Robe, 2009), initially in the North Atlantic core of the world-system (Kehm, 2013: 21–22), but then across the global semi-periphery into the 2000s (Erkkilä and Piironen, 2018: 104; Hazelkorn, 2011; Paradelse and Thoening, 2013). Multidimensional rankings were innovated by the 2010s (Erkkilä and Piironen, 2018: 123–175; Van Vught and Westerheijden, 2010). However, what is decisive is how global academic rankings have been born twin with neoliberalization (Welsh, 2020a, 2020c, 2021; Pusser and Marginson, 2013; Shore, 2008, 2010).…”

“…Shore and Wright (2000) are correct that when ‘audit procedures present themselves as rational, objective and neutral, based on sound principles of efficient management’ (p. 61), we are of course encountering a political technology (see also Amsler and Bolsmann, 2012). Rankings are then just another illustration of the way that ‘numerical objectification of social phenomena can function to depoliticize potentially political issues’ (Erkkilä and Piironen, 2018: 1), such as those of power, subordination, exploitation, and control.…”

The politics of academic knowledge and time in the worlds of higher education

“…The continual institutionalization of “the global” in the higher education sector did not take place in a vacuum: it benefitted from the growth in indicator development, which serviced the rankings industry (see Erkkilä and Piironen 2019 ). By reducing complexities to numbers, metrics, and embedded algorithms allow for comparisons that were previously not made.…”