The Organizational Engine of Rankings: Connecting “New” and “Old” Institutionalism

Abstract

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.

“Measure of Shame”: Media Career of the Global Slavery Index

“…At the same time, as documented by Ringel in another chapter of this volume, ranking organizations can vary in their approach to the press. Arguably, this depends both on the sector in which they operate and on the kind of organization they are (see also Ringel, Brankovic, & Werron, 2020). Rankers such as the OECD, Transparency International, and Business Week-assuming they have different motives, interests, and capacities for producing a ranking-are therefore expected to vary in their respective media strategies.…”

Keeping One’s Shiny Mercedes in the Garage: Why Higher Education Quantification Never Really Took Off in Germany

“…The interviews in turn served to establish which quantification instruments are most salient from a regulatory and managerial perspective, and to certify that no instruments were overlooked. As quantitative data infrastructures presented by (commercial) third parties were found to have a negligible bearing on regulatory and managerial decision making, they are not treated in detail in the analysis (see however Ringel, Brankovic, & Werron, 2020;Krüger, 2020).…”

The “LOOMING DISASTER” for higher education: how commercial rankers use social media to amplify and foster affect

“…A small but growing body of scholarship on probing the role of ranking entrepreneurship in HE has emerged recently (see Brankovic et al, 2018;Chirikov, 2021;Jacqmin, 2021;Lim, 2018;Shahjahan et al, 2020a;Stack, 2016). As rankings have mushroomed in ubiquity, rankers face greater pressures to generate and grow profits in an increasingly competitive field (Brankovic et al, 2018;Jacqmin, 2021;Lim, 2018;Ringel et al, 2020;Shahjahan et al, 2020a). While their rankings are free to access, rankers garner revenue mostly from advertising, selling ranking data and analytics, consulting, and access to events or workshops (Chirikov, 2021;Jacqmin, 2021;Shahjahan et al, 2020a).…”

“…By affect, as a noun, we are broadly referring to collective emotions, desires, and moods that are "on the move" (i.e., contagious) and act like invisible forces manifesting and mobilizing collective emotional states or actions within public spaces (Boler & Davis, 2018, p. 81;Massumi, 1995). As such, rankings are associated with "intense expressivity" (Thrift, 2004, p. 58) or "sticky objects" (Shahjahan et al, 2021, p. 1) that "buzz" among HE stakeholders as various players brand their performances to attract attention, such as governments, policymakers, parents, students, institutions, and programs (Bamberger et al, 2020;Brankovic et al, 2018;Ringel et al, 2020;Shields, 2016;Shahjahan et al, 2020aShahjahan et al, ,b, 2021. As Shahjahan et al (2020aShahjahan et al ( , 2021 noted, amid a data-fetish HE policy world, affect plays a significant role in policy mobilities in global HE, but are rarely examined in the rankings' literature.…”