Minerva

, Volume 51, Issue 2, pp 195–223 | Cite as

Global Status, Intra-Institutional Stratification and Organizational Segmentation: A Time-Dynamic Tobit Analysis of ARWU Position Among U.S. Universities

Article
First Online:

Abstract

Ranking systems such as The Times Higher Education’s World University Rankings and Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s Academic Rankings of World Universities simultaneously mark global status and stimulate global academic competition. As international ranking systems have become more prominent, researchers have begun to examine whether global rankings are creating increased inequality within and between universities. Using a panel Tobit regression analysis, this study assesses the extent to which markers of inter-institutional stratification and organizational segmentation predict global status among US research universities as measured by position in ARWU. Findings indicate some support that both inter-institutional stratification and organizational segmentation predict global status.

Keywords

Global rankings Academic competition US higher education Global universities Tobit analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Academic Ranking of World Universities. 2012. About ARWU. http://www.arwu.org/aboutARWU.jsp. Accessed 27 March 2012.
  2. Altbach, Philip G. 2004. Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management 10(1): 3–25.Google Scholar
  3. Altbach, Philip. G. 2007. Empires of knowledge and development. In World class worldwide: Transforming research universities in Asia and Latin America, eds. Philip Altbach, and Jorge Balan, 1–30. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Altbach, Philip G., and Jorge Balán. 2007. World class worldwide: Transforming research universities in Asia and Latin America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Archibald, Robert B., and David H. Feldman. 2008. Graduation rates and accountability: Regression versus production frontiers. Research in Higher Education 49(1): 80–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arizona State University. Recognition of excellence at ASU. http://www.asu.edu/excellence/recognition.html. Accessed 23 March 2012.
  7. Association of American Universities. 2010. Innovation and competitiveness. Retrieved from: http://www.aau.edu/policy/article.aspx?id=4692.
  8. Bastedo, Michael, and Nicholas Bowman. 2010. College Rankings as an interorganizational dependency: Establishing the foundation for strategic and institutional account. Research in Higher Education 52(1): 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beck, Nathaniel. 2010. Time is not a theoretical variable. Political Analysis 18: 293–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bok, Derek. 2004. Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bowman, Nicholas, and Michael Bastedo. 2011. Anchoring effects in world university rankings: Exploring biases in reputation scores. Higher Education. doi: 10.1007/s10734-010-9339-1.Google Scholar
  12. Britt, Ronda. 2010. Universities report $55 billion in science and engineering R&D spending for FY 2009. NSF 10-329. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Report available at: http://nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf10329/?org=NSF.
  13. Bruno, Isabelle. 2009. The “Indefinite Discipline” of competitiveness benchmarking as a neoliberal technology of government. Minerva 47: 261–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cameron, A. Colin, and Pravin K. Trivedi. 2010. Microeconometrics using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cantwell, Brendan. 2011a. Transnational mobility and international academic employment: Gate keeping in an academic competition arena. Minerva 49(4): 425–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cantwell, Brendan. 2011b. Academic in-sourcing: International postdoctoral employment and new modes of production. Higher Education Policy and Management 33(2): 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cantwell, Brendan, and Alma Maldonado-Maldonado. 2009. Four stories: Confronting contemporary ideas about globalisation and internationalisation in higher education. Globalisation, Societies, and Education 7(3): 289–306.Google Scholar
  18. Carter, David B., and Curtis S. Signorino. 2010. Back to the future: Modeling time dependence in binary data. Political Analysis 18: 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clark, Burton R. 1998. Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. New York: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  20. College Board. 2010. Trends in student aid 2010. Mount Vernon, IL: The College Board Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Commonfund International. 2011. About HEPI. http://www.commonfund.org/Commonfundinstitute/HEPI/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 8 February 2011.
  22. Cremonini, Leon, Paul Benneworth, and Don F. Westerheijden. 2010. In the shadow of celebrity: The impact of world-class universities policies on national higher education systems. In Paper presented at annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Indianapolis. http://www.ashe.ws/?page=725. Accessed on 15 December 2010.
  23. Deem, Rosemary, and Kevin J. Brehony. 2005. Management as ideology: The case of “new management” in higher education. Oxford Review of Education 31(2): 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Deem, Rosemary, Ka H. Mok, and Lisa Lucas. 2008. Transforming higher education in whose image? Exploring the concept of the “world-class” university in Europe and Asia. Higher Education Policy 21: 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. The Delta Project. 2011. Postsecondary education costs, productivity, and accountability overview. http://www.deltacostproject.org/data/overview.asp. Accessed 7 February 2011.
  26. Dill, David, and Frans van Vught. 2010. National innovation and the academic research enterprise: Public policy in global perspective. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from National systems and “mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy 29(2): 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Florian, Ravzan V. 2007. Irreproducibility of the results of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities. Scientometrics 72(1): 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Foucault, Michel. 1979. Discipline and punish. Transl. Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  30. Foucault, Michel. 1984. Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In The Foucault Reader, ed. Paul Rabinow, 76–100. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  31. Foucault, Michel. 1990. The history of sexuality, vol 1: An introduction. Transl. Robert Hurley, New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  32. Geiger, Roger. 2004. Knowledge and money: Research universities and the paradox of the marketplace. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  34. Gujarati, Damodar, N. 2003. Basic econometrics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  35. Halffman, Willem, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2010. Is inequality among universities increasing? Gini coefficients and the elusive rise of elite universities. Minerva 48(1): 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hazelkorn, Ellen. 2011. Rankings and the reshaping of higher education. The battle for world-class excellence. Basingstokes Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Mcmillon.Google Scholar
  37. Horta, Hugo. 2009. Global and national prominent universities: Internationalization, competitiveness and the role of the State. Higher Education 58(3): 387–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kerr, Clark. 2001. The uses of the university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Marginson, Simon. 2006. Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education 52: 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marginson, Simon. 2007. Global positioning and position taking: The case of Australia. Journal of Studies in International Education 11(1): 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marginson, Simon. 2010. The rise of the global university: 5 new tensions. Chronicle of higher education. http://chronicle.com/article/The-Rise-of-the-Global/65694/. Accessed 5 June 2010.
  42. Marginson, Simon, and Mark Considine. 2000. The enterprise university: Power, governance and reinvention in Australia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  43. Marginson, Simon, and Marijk van der Wende. 2007. To rank or to be ranked: The impact of global rankings in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education 11(3–4): 306–329.Google Scholar
  44. Michigan State University. 2012. Global. http://www.msu.edu/global/index.html. Accessed 23 March 2012.
  45. Monks, James, and Ronald G. Ehrenberg. 1999. The impact of US News and World Report college rankings on admission outcomes and pricing decisions at selective private institutions. No. w7227. National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  46. Moses, Hamilton, E. Ray Dorsey, David H.M. Matheson, and Samuel O. Thier. 2005. Financial anatomy of biomedical research. The Journal of the American Medical Association 294(11): 1333–1342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Münch, Richard, and Christian Baier. 2012. Institutional struggles for recognition in the academic field: The case of university departments in German chemistry. Minerva 50(1): 97–126.Google Scholar
  48. Naidoo, Rajani. 2011. Higher education, the competition fetish and the construction of value. Keynote delivered to: CHERIF Consortium, University of University of Jyvaskla. Finland, August 22–23.Google Scholar
  49. National Science Foundation [NSF]. (2009). NSF-NIH survey of graduate students and post doctorates. Retrieved August 19 2010 from http://webcaspar.nsf.gov/TableBuilderIndex;jsessionid=4ADA5A92135BE343D70F66CA20310302.
  50. National Science Board. 2010. Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  51. Pestre, Dominique. 2009. Understanding the forms of government in today’s liberal and democratic societies: An introduction. Minerva 47(3): 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Porter, Stephen R., and Robert K. Toutkoushian. 2006. Institutional research productivity and the connection to average student quality and overall reputation. Economics of Education Review 25(6): 605–617.Google Scholar
  53. Pusser, Brian. 2011. Power and authority in the creation of a public sphere through higher education. In Universities and the Public Sphere: Knowledge Creation and State building in the Era of Globalization, eds. Brian Pusser, Ken Kempner, Simon Marginson and Imanol Ordorika, 27–46. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Readings, Bill. 1996. The University in Ruins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Rhoades, Gary, and Barbara Sporn. 2002. Quality assurance in Europe and the U.S.: Professional and political framing of higher education policy. Higher Education 43(3): 355–390.Google Scholar
  56. Rizzo, M. J. 2006. State preferences for higher education spending: A panel data analysis, 1977–2001. In What’s happening to public higher education? ed. Ehrenberg, R.G., 3–36. Wesport, CT: Praeger Press.Google Scholar
  57. Ryman, Anne. (13 Sept. 2011). College rankings are pointing in different directions. The Arizona Republic (online). http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/09/13/20110913arizona-college-rankings-pointing-different-directions.html. Accessed 23 March 2012.
  58. Saisana, Michaela, Beatrice D’Hombres, and Andrea Saltelli. 2011. Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings and policy implications. Research Policy 40: 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Salmi, Jamil. 2009. The challenge of establishing world-class universities. Washington, DC: The World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schuster, Jack H., and Martin J. Finkelstein. 2006. The restructuring of academic work and careers: The American faculty. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Scott, Peter. 2000. Globalisation and higher education: Challenges for the 21st century. Journal of Studies in International Education 4(1): 3–10.Google Scholar
  62. Scott, Peter. 2011. The university as a global institution. In Handbook on globalization and higher education, eds. King, Roger, Simon Marginson, and Rajani Naidoo, 56–75. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  63. Shin, Jung C. 2009. Building world-class research university: The Brain Korea 21 project. Higher Education 58(5): 669–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sigelman, Lee, and Langche Zeng. 1999. Analyzing censored and sample-selected data with Tobit and Heckit models. Political Analysis 8(2): 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Slaughter, Sheila, and Brendan Cantwell. 2012. Transatlantic moves to the market: The United States and the European Union. Higher Education 63(5): 583–606.Google Scholar
  66. Slaughter, Sheila, and Larry Leslie. 1997. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Slaughter, Sheila, and Gary Rhoades. 1996. The emergence of a competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and technology. Science, Technology and Human Values 21(3): 303–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Slaughter, Sheila, and Gary Rhoades. 2004. Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Tierney, William G. 2009. Globalization, international rankings and the American model: A reassessment. Higher Education Forum 6: 1–18.Google Scholar
  70. van der Wende, Marijk. 2008. Rankings and classifications in higher education: A European perspective. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, ed. John C. Smart. 49–71. Springer.Google Scholar
  71. Volkwein, J. Fredericks, and Kyle V. Sweitzer. 2006. Institutional prestige and reputation among research universities and liberal arts colleges. Research in Higher Education 47(2): 129–148.Google Scholar
  72. Yamaner, Michael. 2009. Federal funds for research and development: Fiscal years 2007–2009. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of EducationMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Department of Counseling and Higher EducationUniversity of North TexasDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations