University Rankings: Evidence and a Conceptual Framework

Fowles, Jacob; Frederickson, H. George; Koppell, Jonathan G. S.

doi:10.1111/puar.12610

Cited by 33 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On the individual level, performance indicators could induce the substitution of extrinsic motivations for intrinsic motivations, a problem referred to as goal displacement [ 9 , 23 ]. In addition, citation metrics have been argued to be more likely to consecrate stable institutional prestige hierarchies than to foster inter-organizational competition [ 15 , 24 ]. More generally, rankings in higher education are viewed as reactive, in that they create the social order they are supposed to measure [ 25 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does bibliometric research confer legitimacy to research assessment practice? A sociological study of reputational control, 1972-2016

Jappe¹,

Pithan²,

Heinze³

2018

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of bibliometric measures in the evaluation of research has increased considerably based on expertise from the growing research field of evaluative citation analysis (ECA). However, mounting criticism of such metrics suggests that the professionalization of bibliometric expertise remains contested. This paper investigates why impact metrics, such as the journal impact factor and the h-index, proliferate even though their legitimacy as a means of professional research assessment is questioned. Our analysis is informed by two relevant sociological theories: Andrew Abbott’s theory of professions and Richard Whitley’s theory of scientific work. These complementary concepts are connected in order to demonstrate that ECA has failed so far to provide scientific authority for professional research assessment. This argument is based on an empirical investigation of the extent of reputational control in the relevant research area. Using three measures of reputational control that are computed from longitudinal inter-organizational networks in ECA (1972–2016), we show that peripheral and isolated actors contribute the same number of novel bibliometric indicators as central actors. In addition, the share of newcomers to the academic sector has remained high. These findings demonstrate that recent methodological debates in ECA have not been accompanied by the formation of an intellectual field in the sociological sense of a reputational organization. Therefore, we conclude that a growing gap exists between an academic sector with little capacity for collective action and increasing demand for routine performance assessment by research organizations and funding agencies. This gap has been filled by database providers. By selecting and distributing research metrics, these commercial providers have gained a powerful role in defining de-facto standards of research excellence without being challenged by expert authority.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does bibliometric research confer legitimacy to research assessment practice? A sociological study of reputational control, 1972-2016

Jappe¹,

Pithan²,

Heinze³

2018

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The last threat is the periodical publication of the rankings, which provokes concern in many universities about the systematic collection of data that allows universities to rise in the rankings year by year, converting the means (measurement) into the goal (to be measured). However, after many years of reports, we already know that results are very stable: the correlation (r Pearson) of results from one year to the next is up to 0,96 (Fowles, Frederickson, & Koppell, 2016b). Thus, what we have has been a persistent system of exalting the top universities and of disparaging the rest.…”

Section: Threatsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…This growing presence of rankings in the main databases of the international scientific literature reveals that the publication of university rankings is of undoubted interest to the university community, as well as to society in general. This popularity of the rankings is fuelled by university managers and policy makers, as well as their recipients (Fowles, Frederickson, & Koppell, 2016a;Millot, 2015;O'Connell, 2015). However, these articles contain criticisms by scientists and experts, especially regarding methodological matters.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Universities Under Pressure: the Impact of International University Rankings

García

Ferreira

2020

J. New Approaches Educ. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper synthesizes the characteristics of university rankings that cause pressure or ‘harassment’ on universities and analyses possible strategies for action that can be carried out in the real context of the three main university rankings (QS, THE, ARWU), suggesting the consequences for the so-called world-class universities and others (which represent 95% of the total). Although there is controversy over the criteria of the university ranking systems, many universities are establishing strategies aimed at adapting to these criteria and indicators and improving their positions. This study concludes that international university rankings should not be a relevant source of information to consider the quality of universities because this can have a negative impact on the development of medium- and long-term policies in higher education and the universities themselves. Universities should concentrate on their mission and must provide valid and reliable information to all stakeholders about the level of achievement of their goals.

show abstract

“…This makes research reputation critical to creating a virtuous circle in which more research funding generates good research outcomes, and enhances desirability further (Morphew et al, ). If reputational winners also derive direct financial benefits through an ability to charge higher fees, or attract more students, this makes sustained research excellence more affordable and can explain the observed stability of US rankings (Fowles et al, ; Sauder & Lancaster, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What's in a name? The impact of reputation and rankings on the teaching income of English universities

Wolf

Jenkins

2018

Higher Education Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the impact of universities’ reputation on teaching income and demonstrates how strongly reputation may affect the fees that they can charge. Higher Education is increasingly competitive and international, and institutions are preoccupied with national and international prestige. Research output is demonstrably central to reputation and, specifically, to global rankings, but less has been written about the benefits of high prestige for teaching income and the ability to charge high fees. This article uses English data to show the impact when fees are partially deregulated. Public universities with high rankings in global league tables and on domestic measures can command teaching income per student which is very much higher (in this case typically more than a third) than lower‐prestige institutions. This financial return to prestige further increases universities’ incentives to seek high positions in league tables and establish a reputational brand.

show abstract

University Rankings: Evidence and a Conceptual Framework

Cited by 33 publications

References 53 publications

Does bibliometric research confer legitimacy to research assessment practice? A sociological study of reputational control, 1972-2016

Does bibliometric research confer legitimacy to research assessment practice? A sociological study of reputational control, 1972-2016

Universities Under Pressure: the Impact of International University Rankings

What's in a name? The impact of reputation and rankings on the teaching income of English universities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About