Quality pp 107-151 | Cite as

Quality Inscriptions: Their Makers and Their Consequences

  • Peter Dahler-LarsenEmail author


The previous chapter made clear that the concept of quality itself is spacious enough to embrace a wide variety of perspectives. Furthermore, within a given perspective, no one can guarantee that (the social construction of) quality remains stable and fixed. This chapter is concerned with how quality inscriptions take place, who makes them, and what the consequences of quality inscriptions are.


  1. Alder, Ken. 2002. The Measure of All Things: The Seven-Year Odyssey and Hidden Error that Transformed the World. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, Neville. 2013. Thoughts on the New South Africa. Pretoria: Jacana.Google Scholar
  3. Bache, Ian, and Louise Reardon. 2016. The Politics and Policy of Wellbeing. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauman, Zygmunt. 1983. Industrialism, Consumerism and Power. Theory, Culture and Society 1 (3): 32–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ———. 2000. Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Beck, Ulrich. 2002. Fagre Nye Arbejdsverden [Schöne neue Arbeitswelt]. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzel.Google Scholar
  7. Becker, Howard S. 1996. The Epistemology of Qualitative Research. In Essays on Ethnography and Human Development, ed. R. Jessor, A. Colby, and R. Schweder. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bijker, Wiebe E., and John Law. 1992. Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Boltanski, Luc, and Eve Chiapello. 2007. The New Spirit of Capitalism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, Wendy. 2015. Undoing the Demos. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  11. Brunsson, Nils, and Bengt Jacobsson, eds. 2000. A World of Standards. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Butler, Linda. 2003. Explaining Australia’s Increased Share of ISI Publications: The Effects of a Funding Formula Based on Publication Counts. Research Policy 34: 565–574.Google Scholar
  13. Butler, Judith. 2010. Performative Agency. Journal of Cultural Economy 3 (2): 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Byrne, David. 2012. How Music Works. Smithsonian 43 (6): 24–26, 29.Google Scholar
  15. Cape Times, Feb 23 2017. Cape Town: Cape Town Independent News & Media PLC.Google Scholar
  16. Cape Times, Feb 24 2017. Cape Town: Cape Town Independent News & Media PLC.Google Scholar
  17. Castoriadis, Cornelius. 1997. World in Fragments: Writings on Politics, Society, Psychoanalysis, and the Imagination. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Chavarro, Diego, Puay Tang, and Ismael Ràfols. 2017. Why Researchers Publish in Non-mainstream Journals: Training, Knowledge Bridging, and Gap Filling. Research Policy 46 (9): 1666–1689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dahler-Larsen, Peter. 2008. Kvalitetens Beskaffenhed [The Nature of Quality]. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 2013. Constitutive Effects of Performance Indicators: Getting Beyond Unintended Consequences. Public Management Review 16 (7): 969–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ———. 2014. Global Inscription Devices and the Politics of Education. Knowledge Cultures 2 (4): 90–109.Google Scholar
  22. Davies, William. 2015. The Happiness Industry: How the Government and Big Business Sold Us Well-Being. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  23. Desrosières, Alain. 2002. The Politics of Large Numbers: A History of Statistical Reasoning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. DiMaggio, Paul, and Walter Powell. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48 (6): 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Duffhues, Piet, and Wim Weterings. 2011. The Quality of Credit Ratings and Liability: The Dutch View. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 8 (4): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eijffinger, Sylvester C.W. 2012. Rating Agencies: Role and Influence of Their Sovereign Credit Risk Assessment in the Eurozone. Journal of Common Market Studies 50 (6): 912–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Erkkilä, Tero, and Ossi Piironen. 2014. (De)politicizing Good Governance: The World Bank Institute, the OECD and the Politics of Governance Indicators. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 27 (4): 344–360.Google Scholar
  28. Fountain, Jane E. 2001. Paradoxes of Public Sector Customer Service. Governance 14 (1): 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. Gläser, Jochen, and Grit Laudel. 2015. A Bibliometric Reconstruction of Research Trails for Qualitative Investigations of Scientific Innovations. Historical Social Research – Historische Sozialforschung 40: 299–330.Google Scholar
  31. Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. 2001. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hochschild, Arlie. 2004. Gennem Sprækker i Tidsfælden [Through Cracks in the Time Bind]. In Arbejdssamfundet [The Labour Society], ed. M. Hviid and J. Tonbo, 109–131. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels.Google Scholar
  33. Kaltenbrunner, Wolfgang, and Sarah de Ricjke. 2017. Quantifying ‘Output’ for Evaluation: Administrative Knowledge Politics and Changing Epistemic Cultures in Dutch Law Faculties. Science and Public Policy 44 (2): 284–293.Google Scholar
  34. Kauko, Jaakko, Risto Rinne, and Tuomas Takala. 2018. Politics of Quality in Education. A Comparative Study of Brazil, China, and Russia. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. W.K. Kellogg Foundation. 2004. Logic Model Development Guide. Battle Creek: W.K. Kellogg Foundation.Google Scholar
  36. Koselleck, Reinhart. 2011. Introduction and Prefaces to the Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Contributions to the History of Concepts 6 (1): 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kula, Witold. 1996. Measures and Men. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Stony Stratford: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  39. ———. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor–Network-Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory Life, the Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Läubli Loud, Marlène, and John Mayne. 2013. Enhancing Evaluation Use: Insights from Internal Evaluation Units. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Lilford, Richard, Mohammad A. Mohammad, David Spiegelhalter, and Richard Thomson. 2004. Use and Misuse of Process and Outcome Data in Managing Performance of Acute Medical Care: Avoiding Institutional Stigma. The Lancet 363: 1147–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lindeberg, Tobias. 2007. Evaluative Technologies: Quality and the Multiplicity of Performance. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
  44. Meyer, John W. 2008. Building Education for a World Society. In Changing Knowledge and Education, ed. M.A. Pereyra, 31–49. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  45. Meyer, John W., John Boli, and George M. Thomas. 1987. Ontology and Rationalization in the Western Cultural Account. In Institutional Structure: Constituting State, Society, and the Individual, ed. G.M. Thomas, J.W. Meyer, F.O. Ramirez, and J. Boli, 12–37. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Munro, Eileen. 2004. The Impact of Audit on Social Work Practice. British Journal of Social Work 34: 1075–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nisbet, Robert. 1966. The Sociological Tradition. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  48. Nóvoa, Antonio, and Tali Yariv-Mashal. 2003. Comparative Research in Education: A Mode of Governance or a Historical Journey. Comparative Education 39 (4): 423–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Orlikowski, Wanda J., and Susan V. Scott. 2008. Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization. The Academy of Management Annals 2 (1): 433–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ozga, Jenny, Peter Dahler-Larsen, Christina Segerholm, and Hannu Simola. 2011. Fabricating Quality in Education: Data and Governance in Europe. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pflueger, Dane. 2016. Knowing Patients: The Customer Survey and the Changing Margins of Accounting in Healthcare. Accounting, Organizations and Society 53: 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Porter, Theodore M. 1995. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Prewitt, Kenneth, Thomas A. Schwandt, and Miron L. Straf. 2012. Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  54. Rom, Mark C. 2009. The Credit Rating Agencies and the Subprime Mess: Greedy, Ignorant, and Stressed? Public Administration Review: 640–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rosa, Hartmut. 2003. Social Acceleration: Ethical and Political Consequences of a Desynchronized High–Speed Society. Constellations 10 (1): 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rothstein, Henry, Michael Huber, and George Gaskell. 2006. A Theory of Risk Colonization: The Spiralling Regulatory Logics of Societal and Institutional Risk. Economy and Society 35 (1): 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scalet, Steven, and Thomas F. Kelly. 2012. The Ethics of Credit Rating Agencies: What Happened and the Way Forward. J Bus Ethics 111: 477–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schutz, Alfred. 1975. Hverdagslivets Sociologi [The Sociology of Everyday Life]. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzel.Google Scholar
  59. Schwandt, Thomas A. 2000. Three Epistemological Stances for Qualitative Inquiry: Interpretivism, Hermeuneutics, and Social Constructivism. In Handbook of Qualitative Methods, ed. N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, 189–210. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  60. Scott, W. Richard. 1992. Organizations. Rational, Natural and Open Systems. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  61. Stone, Deborah. 2012. Policy Paradox. 3rd ed. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  62. van Thiel, Sandra, and Frans L. Leeuw. 2002. The Performance Paradox in the Public Sector. Public Performance and Management Review 25 (3): 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vostal, Filip. 2016. Accelerating Academia, the Changing Structure of Academic Time. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  64. White, Lawrence J. 2012. Credit Rating Agencies: An Overview. The Annual Review of Financial Economics 5: 1–22.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations