Higher Education

, Volume 73, Issue 2, pp 317–333 | Cite as

The Berlin Principles on Ranking Higher Education Institutions: limitations, legitimacy, and value conflict

  • Gary R. S. Barron


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.


University rankings Performance measurement Ranking ethics Values Evaluation University governance Cultural economy 


Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical standard

The research upon which this paper is based was approved by a University Research Ethics Board.

Informed consent

All participants were provided with informed consent.


  1. Amsler, S. S., & Bolsmann, C. (2012). University ranking as social exclusion. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 33(2), 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker, D. (2008). Ethics and lobbying: The case of real estate brokerage. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(1), 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baty, P. (2014). The times higher education world university rankings, 2004–2012. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 13(2), 125–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1980). The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 2, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Du Gay, P., & Pryke, M. (2002). Cultural economy: Cultural analysis and commercial life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. (1998). Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 313–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gladwell, M. (2011). The order of things. The New Yorker, February 14. Retrieved January 16, 2014,
  10. 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
  11. International Ranking Expert Group. (2014). Berlin Principles on Ranking. Retrieved January 29, 2014,
  12. International Ranking Expert Group. (2015). IREG Approved. Retrieved March 24, 2015,
  13. Lamont, M. (2010). How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lamont, M. (2012). Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology, 38(1), 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Law, J., & Hassard, J. (Eds.). (1999). Actor network theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Liu, N. C., & Cheng, Y. (2005). The academic ranking of world universities. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Marginson, S. (2007). Global university rankings: Implications in general and for Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(2), 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marginson, S., & van der Wende, M. (2007). To rank or be ranked: The impact of global rankings in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 306–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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,
  21. Nigavekar, A. (2012, April 3). Obsession with university rankings. Financial Chronicle. Retrieved on January 16, 2014 from Factiva.Google Scholar
  22. Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. The Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203–223.Google Scholar
  23. Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Power, M. K. (2003). Auditing and the production of legitimacy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(4), 379–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Power, M., Scheytt, T., Soin, K., & Sahlin, K. (2009). Reputational risk as a logic of organizing in late modernity. Organization Studies, 30(2–3), 301–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Quacquarelli Symonds. (2013). World University Rankings | Top Universities. Retrieved October 13, 2013.
  27. Quacuarelli Symonds. (2014). QS university rankings: BRICS 2014 | Top Universities. Retrieved December 2, 2014.
  28. Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. N. (2009). The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and Social Science. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sayer, D. (2016). Rank Hypocrisies: The Insult of the REF. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
  31. Smelser, N. J. (2013). Dynamics of the Contemporary University: Growth, Accretion, and Conflict. University of California Press. Retrieved June 14, 2015,
  32. Smith, D. E. (2006). Institutional ethnography as practice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  33. Stake, J. (2015). Play The Ranking Game: The Law School Ranking Game Page: Indiana Law. Retrieved March 28, 2015,
  34. Stark, D. (2009). The sense of dissonance. [electronic Resource]: Accounts of worth in economic life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Strathern, M. (1997). ‘Improving ratings’: Audit in the British University system. European Review, 5(3), 305–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Times Higher Education. (2014). World university rankings—Home—Times Higher Education. Retrieved December 16, 2014,
  37. Timmermans, S. & Epstein, S. (2010). A world of standards but not a standard world: Toward a sociology of standards and standardization*. Annual Review of Sociology, 36(1), 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. U-Multirank. (2014). U-Multirank. Retrieved October 5, 2013.
  39. US News. (2014). Top Arab Region Universities | US News Best Arab Region Universities—US News. US News & World Report. Retrieved December 16, 2014,
  40. Usher, A. (2014). The problem with global reputation rankings|HESA. Retrieved October 9, 2014,
  41. Walker, S. (2004, December 1). Diversity not being considered. The Australian, No. 42. Retrieved on January 16, 2014 from Factiva.Google Scholar
  42. West, P. W. A. (2009). A Faustian bargain? institutional responses to national and international rankings. Higher Education Management and Policy, 21(1), 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology, Faculty of ArtsUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations