The Political Life of Metrics

  • Jeffrey Alan Johnson
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 33)


This chapter extends the analysis of the previous chapter to the role of metrics in political practice, using the U.S. standard graduation rate metric as a case. I argue that information is best understood as a process of communication in which observation is encoded into data through the translation regime and then decoded into metrics which are then institutionalized in political processes. In both processes, political factors are prominent, making metrics a political outcome at the least. I go further, however, showing that metrics play important distributive roles in politics, allocating material and moral goods as well as the conditions of political power. Metrics also exercise political control directly, working much like administrative procedures to select favored outcomes without direct legislative intervention and building the capacity of the state to exercise control over policy areas.


  1. American Association of Community Colleges. (2010, December 1). Sample completion commitment statement. Accessed 3 Dec 2015.
  2. Berlin, I. (1979). Does political theory still exist? In H. Hardy (Ed.), Concepts and categories: Philosophical essays of Isaiah Berlin (pp. 143–172). Oxford: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  3. Buhler, D. L. (2015, July 22). 2015–2016 USHE performance funding model and allocations. Accessed 9 May 2017.
  4. Committee on Measures of Student Success. (2011, December). Committee on measures of student success: A report to secretary of education Arne Duncan. United States Department of Education. Accessed 9 May 2017.
  5. Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions. (2016, September 21). Regional accreditors announce expanded review of institutions with low graduation rates. Accessed 9 May 2017.
  6. Easton, D. (1953). The political system: An inquiry into the state of political science. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  7. Fuller, C. (2011). The history and origins of survey items for the integrated postsecondary education data system (No. NPEC 2012–833). Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.
  8. Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hall, S. (2006). Encoding/decoding. In M. G. Durham & D. M. Kellner (Eds.), Media and cultural studies: Keyworks (Revised ed., pp. 163–173). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Institutional Research & Information. (2012). Student success/retention. Accessed 12 Mar 2014.
  11. Lasswell, H. D. (1950). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. New York: P. Smith.Google Scholar
  12. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  13. McCubbins, M. D., Noll, R. G., & Weingast, B. R. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 3(2), 243–277.Google Scholar
  14. McMillan Cottom, T. (2017). Lower ed: The troubling rise of for-profit colleges in the new economy. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  15. Mitchell, W. C. (1961). Politics as the allocation of values: a critique. Ethics, 71(2.) Accessed 7 May 2017.
  16. National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.-a). The integrated postsecondary education data system––Glossary. Accessed 11 Nov 2015.
  17. National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.-b). Outcome measures. IPEDS 2015–16 data collection system. Accessed 11 Nov 2015.
  18. National Conference of State Legislators. (2015, July 31). Performance-based funding for higher education. Accessed 7 May 2017.
  19. Schneider, M. (2008). The costs of failure factories in American higher education. (No. Education Outlook Number 6. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. Accessed 26 Nov 2015.
  20. Selingo, J.L. (2013). What presidents think: A 2013 survey of four-year college presidents. The chronicle of higher education. Accessed 11 Nov 2015.
  21. Skocpol, T., & Finegold, K. (1982). State capacity and economic intervention in the early New Deal. Political Science Quarterly, 97(2), 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Student Success and Retention. (2017, March). UVU completion plan. Utah Valley University. Accessed 10 May 2017.
  23. Svrluga, S. (2016, January 19). University president allegedly says struggling freshmen are bunnies that should be drowned. The Washington Post: Grade Point. Accessed 17 Nov 2016.
  24. Taylor, M. (2016, November 7). Student affairs PBA. Accessed 9 May 2017.
  25. University Planning Advisory Committee. (2014, October 9). Meeting minutes, October 9, 2014. Accessed 25 May 2017.
  26. University Planning Advisory Committee. (2016, February 25). Meeting minutes, February 25, 2016. Accessed 25 May 2017.
  27. University Planning Advisory Committee. (2017, February 23). 2016–2017 Mission fulfillment self-evaluation. Utah Valley University. Accessed 25 May 2017.
  28. U.S. Department of Education. (2014, December 19). For public feedback: A college ratings framework. Accessed 12 May 2017.
  29. Utah Valley University. (2015). UVU: State of the University––February 10, 2015. Orem, Utah. Accessed 25 May 2017.
  30. Weingast, B.R. (2013, October 3). McNollgast. Accessed 11 May 2017.
  31. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey Alan Johnson
    • 1
  1. 1.Institutional Effectiveness, Planning, and Accreditation SupportUtah Valley UniversityOremUSA

Personalised recommendations