Advertisement

Ratings, rankings, research evaluation: how do Schools of Education behave strategically within stratified UK higher education?

  • Marcelo MarquesEmail author
  • Justin J. W. Powell
Article

Abstract

While higher education research has paid considerable attention to the impact of both ratings and rankings on universities, less attention has been devoted to how university subunits, such as Schools of Education, are affected by such performance measurements. Anchored in a neo-institutional approach, we analyze the formation of a competitive institutional environment in UK higher education in which ratings and rankings assume a central position in promoting competition among Schools of Education (SoE). We apply the concepts of “institutional environment” and “organizational strategic actors” to the SoE to demonstrate how such university subunits articulate their qualities and respond to the institutional environment in which they are embedded—by using ratings and rankings (R&R) to compete for material and symbolical resources as well as inter-organizational and intra-organizational legitimacy. Through findings from 22 in-depth expert interviews with members of the multidisciplinary field of education and a content analysis of websites (n = 75) of SoE that participated in REF 2014, we examine the stratified environment in which SoE are embedded (1). We uncover how R&R are applied by SoE within this competitive, marketized higher education system (2). Finally, we indicate the strategic behaviors that have been triggered by the rise of R&R in a country with a highly formalized and standardized research evaluation system (3). The results show both homogenization and differentiation among SoE in their use of organizational vocabulary and the applications of R&R while simultaneously revealing strategic behavior, ranging from changes in internal practices to changes in organizational structures.

Keywords

Research evaluation Educational research Ratings Rankings Competition Higher education UK 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Jennifer Dusdal, Mike Zapp, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Funding

This research was funded by the University of Luxembourg’s tandem program for interdisciplinary research for the Project “The New Governance of Educational Research. Comparing Trajectories, Turns and Transformations in the UK, Germany, Norway, and Belgium” (EDRESGOV).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Aldrich, H. E., & Ruef, M. (2006). Organizations evolving (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, S. (2017). Governing by numbers. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Bastedo, M. N., & Bowman, N. A. (2010). The U.S. News and World Report college rankings: modeling institutional effects on organizational reputation. American Journal of Education, 116(2), 163–184.Google Scholar
  4. Biesta, G. J. J. (2011). Disciplines and theory in the academic study of education. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 19(2), 175–192.Google Scholar
  5. Bloch, R., Mitterle, A., Paradeise, C., & Peter, T. (eds.) (2018). Universities and the production of elites. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Boliver, V. (2015). Are there distinctive clusters of higher and lower status universities in the UK? Oxford Review of Education, 41(5), 608–627.Google Scholar
  7. Bowman, N. A., & Bastedo, M. N. (2009). Getting on the front page: Organizational reputation, status signals, and the impact of U.S. News and World Report on student decisions. Research in Higher Education, 50(5), 415–436.Google Scholar
  8. Brankovic, J. (2018). The status games they play: unpacking the dynamics of organizational status competition in higher education. Higher Education, 75(4), 695–709.Google Scholar
  9. Brankovic, J., Ringel, L., & Werron, T. (2018). How rankings produce competition: the case of global university rankings. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 47(4), 270–287.Google Scholar
  10. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.Google Scholar
  11. Cantwell, B., & Taylor, B. J. (2013). Global status, intra-institutional stratification and organizational segmentation: a time-dynamic Tobit analysis of ARWU position among U.S. universities. Minerva, 51(2), 195–223.Google Scholar
  12. Clarke, M. (2007). The impact of higher education rankings on student access, choice, and opportunity. Higher Education in Europe, 32(1), 59–70.Google Scholar
  13. Collins, F. L., & Park, G. S. (2016). Ranking and the multiplication of reputation. Higher Education, 72(1), 115–129.Google Scholar
  14. Dill, D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: a cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49(4), 495–533.Google Scholar
  15. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organization fields. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 63–82). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dobbins, M., & Knill, C. (2014). Higher education governance and policy change in Western Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Drori, G., Delmestri, G., & Oberg, A. (2016). The iconography of universities as institutional narratives. Higher Education, 71(2), 163–180.Google Scholar
  18. Erlingsdóttir, G., & Lindberg, K. (2005). Isomorphism, isopraxism, and isonymism: complementary or competing processes? In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevón (Eds.), Global ideas: how ideas, objects and practices travel in the global economy (pp. 47–70). Malmö: Liber.Google Scholar
  19. Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2009). The discipline of rankings: tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 63–82.Google Scholar
  20. Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2016). Engines of anxiety: academic rankings, reputation, and accountability. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  21. Furlong, J. (2013). Education—an anatomy of the field. Rescuing the university project. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Gonzales, L., & Núñez, A.-M. (2014). The ranking regime and the production of knowledge. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(31), 1–24.Google Scholar
  23. Hasse, R., & Krücken, G. (2013). Competition and actorhood: a further expansion of the neo-institutional agenda. Sociologia Internationalis, 51(2), 181–205.Google Scholar
  24. Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Huisman, J., & Mampaey, J. (2015). The style it takes: how do UK universities communicate their identity through welcome addresses? Higher Education Research and Development, 35(3), 502–515.Google Scholar
  26. Hüther, O., & Krücken, G. (2016). Nested organizational fields: isomorphism and differentiation among European universities. In E. Popp Berman & C. Paradeise (Eds.), The university under pressure (pp. 53–83). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  27. Kosmützky, A., & Krücken, G. (2015). Sameness and difference. Analyzing institutional and organizational specificities of universities through mission statements. International Studies of Management & Organization, 45(2), 137–149.Google Scholar
  28. Krücken, G., & Meier, F. (2006). Turning the university into an organizational actor. In G. Drori, J. W. Meyer, & H. Hwang (Eds.), Globalization and organization: world society and organizational change (pp. 241–257). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lagemann, E. C. (2000). An elusive science: the troubling history of education research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lawn, M., & Furlong, J. (2009). The disciplines of education in the UK. Oxford Review of Education, 35(5), 541–552.Google Scholar
  31. Mampaey, J., & Huisman, J. (2016). Branding of UK higher education institutions. Recherches Sociologiques et Anthropologiques, 41(1), 133–148.Google Scholar
  32. Marques, M., Powell, J. J. W., Zapp, M., & Biesta, G. (2017). How does research evaluation impact educational research? Exploring intended and unintended consequences of research assessment in the United Kingdom, 1986–2014. European Educational Research Journal, 16(6), 820–842.Google Scholar
  33. McCulloch, G. (2017). Education: an applied multidisciplinary field? The English experience. In G. Whitty & J. Furlong (Eds.), Knowledge and the study of education: an international exploration (pp. 211–229). Oxford: Symposium Books.Google Scholar
  34. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.Google Scholar
  35. Meyer, J. W., Ramirez, F. O., Frank, D. J., & Schofer, E. (2007). Higher education as an institution. In P. J. Gumport (Ed.), Sociology of higher education (pp. 187–221). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Oancea, A. (2008). Performative accountability and the UK Research Assessment Exercise. ACCESS: Critical Perspectives on Communication, Cultural & Policy Studies, 27(1/2), 153–173.Google Scholar
  37. Power, M. (1997). The audit society: rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Ramirez, F. O. (2013). World society and the university as formal organization. Sisyphus, 1(1), 124–153.Google Scholar
  39. Rasche, A., Hommel, U., & Cornuel, E. (2014). Discipline as institutional maintenance: the case of business school rankings. In A. Pettigrew, E. Cornuel, & U. Hommel (Eds.), The institutional development of business schools (pp. 196–218). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Rosinger, K. O., Taylor, B. J., Coco, L., & Slaughter, S. (2016). Organizational segmentation and the prestige economy: deprofessionalization in high- and low-resource departments. The Journal of Higher Education, 87(1), 27–54.Google Scholar
  41. Schofield, C., Cotton, D., Gresty, K., Kneale, P., & Winter, J. (2013). Higher education provision in a crowded marketplace. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(3), 193–205.Google Scholar
  42. Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations: rational, natural, and open systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  43. Scott, P. (2001). Triumph and retreat. In D. Warner & D. Palfreyman (Eds.), The state of UK higher education (pp. 186–204). Buckingham: SRHE.Google Scholar
  44. Scott, P. (2009). Structural changes in higher education: the case of the United Kingdom. In D. Palfreyman & T. Tapper (Eds.), Structuring mass higher education (pp. 35–55). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  46. Seeber, M., et al. (2015). European universities as complete organizations? Public Management Review, 17(10), 1444–1474.Google Scholar
  47. Shattock, M. (2012). Making policy in British higher education 1945–2011. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Sidhu, R., Ho, K. C., & Yeoh, B. (2011). Emerging education hubs: the case of Singapore. Higher Education, 61(1), 23–40.Google Scholar
  49. Tight, M. (2007). Institutional diversity in English higher education. Higher Education Review, 39(2), 3–24.Google Scholar
  50. Tight, M. (2009). Higher education in the United Kingdom since 1945. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Tushman, M. L., & Scanian, T. J. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals. The Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 289–305.Google Scholar
  52. Wedlin, L. (2006). Ranking business schools. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  53. Zapp, M., Marques, M., & Powell, J. J. W. (2018). European educational research (re)constructed—institutional change in Germany, the United Kingdom, Norway, and the European Union. Oxford: Oxford Symposium Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Education and SocietyUniversity of LuxembourgEsch-sur-AlzetteLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations