The Berlin Principles on Ranking Higher Education Institutions: limitations, legitimacy, and value conflict
- 667 Downloads
University rankings have been widely criticized and examined in terms of the environment they create for universities. In this paper, I reverse the question by examining how ranking organizations have responded to criticisms. I contrast ranking values and evaluation with those practiced by academic communities. I argue that the business of ranking higher education institutions is not one that lends itself to isomorphism with scholarly values and evaluation and that this dissonance creates reputational risk for ranking organizations. I argue that such risk caused global ranking organizations to create the Berlin Principles on Ranking Higher Education Institutions, which I also demonstrate are decoupled from actual ranking practices. I argue that the Berlin Principles can be best regarded as a legitimizing practice to institutionalize rankings and symbolically align them with academic values and systems of evaluation in the face of criticism. Finally, I argue that despite dissonance between ranking and academic evaluation, there is still enough similarity that choosing to adopt rankings as a strategy to distinguish one’s institution can be regarded as a legitimate option for universities.
KeywordsUniversity rankings Performance measurement Ranking ethics Values Evaluation University governance Cultural economy
Compliance with ethical standards
The research upon which this paper is based was approved by a University Research Ethics Board.
All participants were provided with informed consent.
- Bourdieu, P. (1980). The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Du Gay, P., & Pryke, M. (2002). Cultural economy: Cultural analysis and commercial life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Gladwell, M. (2011). The order of things. The New Yorker, February 14. Retrieved January 16, 2014, http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_gladwell.
- Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle for World-Class Excellence. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- International Ranking Expert Group. (2014). Berlin Principles on Ranking. Retrieved January 29, 2014, http://www.ireg-observatory.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41&Itemid=48.
- International Ranking Expert Group. (2015). IREG Approved. Retrieved March 24, 2015, http://www.ireg-observatory.org/en/index.php/information.
- Lamont, M. (2010). How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Law, J., & Hassard, J. (Eds.). (1999). Actor network theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
- Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Marope, M. P. T., Wells, P. J., & Hazelkorn, E. (2013). Rankings and Accountability in Higher Education: Uses and Misuses. United Nations EducationalScientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved December 19, 2014, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/resources/in-focus-articles/rankings/.
- Nigavekar, A. (2012, April 3). Obsession with university rankings. Financial Chronicle. Retrieved on January 16, 2014 from Factiva.Google Scholar
- Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. The Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203–223.Google Scholar
- Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Quacquarelli Symonds. (2013). World University Rankings | Top Universities. Retrieved October 13, 2013. http://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings.
- Quacuarelli Symonds. (2014). QS university rankings: BRICS 2014 | Top Universities. Retrieved December 2, 2014. http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/brics-rankings/2014#sorting=rank+country=+stars=false+search=.
- Sayer, D. (2016). Rank Hypocrisies: The Insult of the REF. London, UK: SAGE Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/rank-hypocrisies/book244105.
- Smelser, N. J. (2013). Dynamics of the Contemporary University: Growth, Accretion, and Conflict. University of California Press. Retrieved June 14, 2015, http://california.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1525/california/9780520275812.001.0001/upso-9780520275812.
- Smith, D. E. (2006). Institutional ethnography as practice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
- Stake, J. (2015). Play The Ranking Game: The Law School Ranking Game Page: Indiana Law. Retrieved March 28, 2015, http://monoborg.law.indiana.edu/LawRank/play.shtml.
- Stark, D. (2009). The sense of dissonance. [electronic Resource]: Accounts of worth in economic life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Times Higher Education. (2014). World university rankings—Home—Times Higher Education. Retrieved December 16, 2014, http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/.
- U-Multirank. (2014). U-Multirank. Retrieved October 5, 2013. http://umultirank.org/.
- US News. (2014). Top Arab Region Universities | US News Best Arab Region Universities—US News. US News & World Report. Retrieved December 16, 2014, http://www.usnews.com/education/arab-region-universities.
- Usher, A. (2014). The problem with global reputation rankings|HESA. Retrieved October 9, 2014, http://higheredstrategy.com/the-problem-with-global-reputation-rankings/.
- Walker, S. (2004, December 1). Diversity not being considered. The Australian, No. 42. Retrieved on January 16, 2014 from Factiva.Google Scholar