Standards for quality? A critical appraisal of the Berlin Principles for international rankings of universities

Abstract

This paper discusses the principles developed to assure the quality of international ranking practices for higher education, the so called Berlin Principles, and the role given to them in the higher education community. While the principles are generally regarded as proper quality assurance principles, we argue that they are problematic both in their content and form. By examining the process leading up to the principles as well as their use, we underline some legitimacy principles with these principles and the potential impact this may have on the further development of the higher education field. The study is based on official documents and published material. 2 Standards for quality?A critical appraisal of the Berlin Principles for international rankings of universities Abstract This paper discusses the principles developed to assure the quality of international ranking practices for higher education, the so called Berlin Principles, and the role given to them in the higher education community. While the principles are generally regarded as proper quality assurance principles, we argue that they are problematic both in their content and form. By examining the process leading up to the principles as well as their use, we underline some legitimacy principles with these principles and the potential impact this may have on the further development of the higher education field. The study is based on official documents and published material. Establishing principles for rankingsInternational rankings have become a core feature of the competitive landscape of universities and higher education institutions. These rankings proclaim to provide students and other interested stakeholders with information and guides to value for money of educational offerings, and to provide universities and higher education institutions with benchmarking standards and assessments of the relative standing and competitive position of its programs and the institution. Such rankings have proliferated over the past decade, and increased in number as well as in scope. That these rankings have a significant impact on the higher education landscape is by now well-documented (Hazelkorn, 2007; Kehm & Stensaker, 2009;King 2009;Locke et al., 2008;Wedlin, 2006).The issue for this paper is not on the impact of rankings, but on the legitimacy and development of the rankings as measurement practices. How have rankings established their positions as influential measures of performance of higher education organizations across the world? By investigating one of the recent efforts to establish criteria on which to judge and evaluate ranking practices, we seek to increase understanding of how ranking practices become legitimate elements of the global higher education landscape.With the proliferation of international rankings of universities over the past decade have come concerns for how these rankings are constructed, what they measure and, more recently, which of them are trustworthy and reliable measures of performance and relative standing of wo...

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Organizational Rankings: A Multidisciplinary Review of the Literature and Directions for Future Research

“…Whereas increased transparency may reduce their power, it could also increase the utility of rankings such that ranked organizations and intended audiences accord them greater credibility. The producers of related rankings could also benefit by collaborating with one another and their constituents to establish common principles and guidelines (Hägg & Wedlin, 2013).…”

World Class Universities, Rankings and the Global Space of International Students

“…Studies on the fate of the Berlin Principles largely agree that there is room for improvement, though there is disagreement about the form such improvement should take. Whilst some researchers have called for the refinement of certain precepts (Cheng and Liu 2008), others have taken a more critical position, stating that these guidelines suffer from formal and substantial problems that cannot be so easily overcome, including their development within a self-organised network of agents who either engage in rankings themselves or are representatives of organisations that produce rankings, their usage in practice as a tool to rank the rankings themselves, as well as the fact that they can be ambiguous and even contradictory (Hägg and Wedlin 2013). Scholars holding this latter stance also contend that the Berlin Principles paradoxically have been disengaged from ranking practices, which suggests that the document itself and the social context of its production are regarded more as a source of legitimacy for the institutionalisation of rankings rather than as a technical tool (Barron 2017).…”

Vägledande eller vilseledande? : Kvalitetsmätning och ranking av universitet och högskolor

“…Till stöd för sin rankingmodell refererar Urank även till en uppsättning principer om kvalitet och god praxis för ranking fastställd av International Ranking Expert Group (IREG) som Berlin Principles on Ranking of Higher Education Institution (IREG, 2006;Hägg & Wedlin, 2013).…”