Quality pp 153-188 | Cite as

Qualitization and Models of Qualitization

  • Peter Dahler-LarsenEmail author


Given the broad and vague character of the concept of quality, and given the relativity of quality perspectives, the concept itself does not prescribe how it is going to be used. It does not set itself in motion. Let us look at how it happens.


  1. Arnaboldi, Michela, and Giovanni Azzone. 2010. Constructing Performance Measurement in the Public Sector. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 21 (4): 266–282.Google Scholar
  2. Beer, David. 2016. Metric Power. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Boedker, Christina, and Wai Chua. 2013. Accounting as an Affective Technology: A Study of Circulation, Agency and Entrancement. Accounting, Organizations and Society 38 (4): 245–267.Google Scholar
  4. Boyte, Harry. 2011. Constructive Politics as Public Work: Organizing the Literature. Political Theory 39 (5): 630–660.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, Wendy. 2015. Undoing the Demos. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  6. Bruno, Isabelle, Emmanuel Didier, and Tommaso Vitale. 2014. Statactivism. Forms of Action between Disclosure and Affirmation. Partecipazione e Conflitto 7 (2): 198–220.Google Scholar
  7. Buzan, Barry, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde. 1998. Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  8. Callon, Michel. 1998. An Essay on Framing and Overflowing: Economic Externalities Revisited by Sociology. In The Laws of the Markets, ed. M. Callon, 244–269. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Callon, Michel, Cécile Méadel, and Vololona Rabeharisoa. 2002. The Economy of Qualities. Economy and Society 31 (2): 194–217.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, Bernard I. 2006. The Triumph of Numbers: How Counting Shaped Modern Life. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  11. Dahler-Larsen, Peter. 2013. Constitutive Effects of Performance Indicators: Getting Beyond Unintended Consequences. Public Management Review 16 (7): 969–986.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 2016. Tæller Vi Det Der Tæller. Målstyring og Standardisering i Arbejdslivet [Do We Count What Counts? Management by Objectives and Standardization in Working Life]. In Moderne Arbejdsliv, ed. M.F. Andersen and L. Tanggard, 109–132. Copenhagen: Klim.Google Scholar
  13. Dahler-Larsen, Peter, and Signe Pihl-Thingvad. 2014. Resultatmålinger og Stress [Performance Measurement and Stress]. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar
  14. Dambrin, Claire, and Keith Robson. 2011. Tracing Performance in the Pharmaceutical Industry: Ambivalence, Opacity and the Performativity of Flawed Measures. Accounting, Organizations and Society 36 (7): 428–455.Google Scholar
  15. Dewey, John. 1931. Philosophy and Civilization. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.Google Scholar
  16. Englund, Hans, and Magnus Frostenson. 2017. Managing Performance Evaluation Uncertainties in Schools: When Teachers Become Struggling Performers. European Educational Research Journal (online): 1–22.Google Scholar
  17. Espeland, Wendy N., and Michael Sauder. 2007. Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds. American Journal of Sociology 113 (1): 1–40.Google Scholar
  18. Feldman, Martha A., and Wanda Orlikowski. 2011. Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory. Organization Science 22 (5): 1240–1253.Google Scholar
  19. Fochler, Maximilian, and Sarah de Rijcke. 2017. Implicated in the Indicator Game? An Experimental Debate. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 3: 21–40.Google Scholar
  20. Habermas, Jürgen. 1991. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hackett, Edward J., Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and Judy Wajcman. 2008. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. House, Ernest R., and Kenneth R. Howe. 2000. Deliberative Democratic Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation 85: 3–12.Google Scholar
  23. Jensen, Casper Bruun. 2011. Making Lists, Enlisting Scientists: The Bibliometric Indicator, Uncertainty and Emergent Agency. Science Studies 24 (2): 64–84.Google Scholar
  24. Kelman, Steven, and John N. Friedman. 2009. Performance Improvement and Performance Dysfunction: An Empirical Examination of Distortionary Impacts of the Emergency Room Wait-Time Target in the English National Health Service. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19 (4): 917–946.Google Scholar
  25. Lamont, Michèle. 2009. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Stony Stratford: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Meyer, John W., and Brian Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83: 340–363.Google Scholar
  28. Moe, Terry M. 2005. Power and Political Institutions. Perspectives on Politics 3 (2): 215–233.Google Scholar
  29. Moed, Henk. 2018. Towards a Multi-Paradigmatic, Value Free Informetrics: A Reply to Paul Wouters’ Book Review “The Failure of a Paradigm”. Journal of Informetrics. Scholar
  30. Mortensen, Nils. 2004. Det Paradoksale Samfund [The Paradoxical Society]. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzel.Google Scholar
  31. Mouritzen, P.E., Niels Opstrup, and Pernille Bak Pedersen. 2018. En fremmed kommer til byen. Ti år med den bibliometriske forskningsindikator [A Stranger Comes to Town. Ten Years with the Bibliometric Research Indicator]. Odense: University of Southern Denmark Press.Google Scholar
  32. Øvretveit, John. 2005. Public Service Quality Improvement. In The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, ed. E. Ferlie, L.E. Lynn Jr., and C. Pollitt. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Palonen, Kari. 2002. The History of Concepts as a Style of Political Theorizing: Quentin Skinner’s and Reinhart Koselleck’s Subversion of Normative Political Theory. European Journal of Political Theory 1 (1): 91–106.Google Scholar
  34. Pinch, Trevor J., and Wiebe E. Bijker. 1984. The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. Social Studies of Science 14 (3): 399–441.Google Scholar
  35. Pollock, Neil, Luciana D’Adderio, Robin Williams, and Ludovic Leforestier. 2018. Conforming or Transforming? How Organizations Respond to Multiple Rankings. Accounting, Organizations and Society 64: 55–68.Google Scholar
  36. Porter, Theodore M. 1994. Making Things Quantitative. Science in Context 7 (3): 389–407.Google Scholar
  37. ———. 1995. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Power, Michael. 1996. Making Things Auditable. Accounting, Organizations and Society 21 (2/3): 289–315.Google Scholar
  39. Roberts, John. 2018. Managing Only with Transparency: The Strategic Functions of Ignorance. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 55: 53–60.Google Scholar
  40. Säljö, Roger. 2002. My Brain’s Running Slow Today. Studies in Philosophy and Education 21: 389–405.Google Scholar
  41. Sauder, Michael, and Wendy N. Espeland. 2009. The Discipline of Rankings: Tight Coupling and Organizational Change. American Sociological Review 74 (1): 63–82.Google Scholar
  42. Schwandt, Thomas A. 1994. Constructivist, Interpretivist Approaches to Human Inquiry. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, ed. N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, 118–137. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Scott, W. Richard. 1992. Organizations. Rational, Natural and Open Systems. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  44. Shore, Cris, and Susan Wright. 2015. Governing by Numbers: Audit Culture, Rankings and the New World Order. Social Anthropology 23 (1): 22–28.Google Scholar
  45. Smith, Peter. 1995. On the Unintended Consequences of Publishing Performance Data in the Public Sector. International Journal of Public Administration 18 (2–3): 277–310.Google Scholar
  46. Stark, David. 2009. The Sense of Dissonance, Accounts of Worth in Economic Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Stilgoe, Jack, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation. Research Policy 42: 1568–1580.Google Scholar
  48. van Thiel, Sandra, and Frans L. Leeuw. 2002. The Performance Paradox in the Public Sector. Public Performance and Management Review 25 (3): 267–281.Google Scholar
  49. Vattimo, Gianni. 2005. Nihilisme og Emancipation. Etik, Politik, Ret [Nihilsm and Emancipation. Ethics, Politics, and Law]. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Venturini, Tommaso. 2010. Diving in Magma: How to Explore Controversies with Actor–Network Theory. Public Understanding of Science 19 (3): 258–273.Google Scholar
  51. Wallenburg, Iris, Julia Quartz, and Roland Bal. 2016. Making Hospitals Governable: Performativity and Institutional Work in Ranking Practices. Administration & Society: 1–27.Google Scholar
  52. Weick, Karl E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Wouters, Paul. 2018. Book Review: The Failure of a Paradigm. Henk F. Moed. Applied Evaluative Informetrics. Journal of Informetrics 12 (2): 534–540.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations