How Rankings Produce Competition: The Case of Global University Rankings

  • 1 Bielefeld University, Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld, Deutschland
  • 2 Bielefeld University, Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld, Deutschland
  • 3 Bielefeld University, Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld, Deutschland
Jelena Brankovic
  • Corresponding author
  • Bielefeld University, Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld, Deutschland
  • Email
  • Further information
  • Jelena Brankovic is Postdoctoral Researcher and Lecturer at the Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld University, Germany. She holds a PhD in Sociology from Ghent University, Belgium. Her research interests are in the study of organizations in general and universities in particular, forms of interaction, competition and global dynamics.Selected recent publications:Brankovic, J., 2018: The status games they play: unpacking the dynamics of organisational status competition in higher education. Higher Education 75: 695–709Brankovic, J., 2018: How do meta-organizations affect extra-organizational boundaries? The case of university associations. S. 259–281 in: L. Ringel, P. Hiller & C. Zietsma (eds.), Towards Permeable Boundaries of Organizations? Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar
, Leopold Ringel
  • Corresponding author
  • Bielefeld University, Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld, Deutschland
  • Email
  • Further information
  • Leopold Ringel is Lecturer at the Faculty of Sociology at Bielefeld University, Germany. His scholarly work focuses on the emergence of transparency as a global norm and its impact on organizations, with a special focus on unintended and adverse effects. Currently, he investigates the production, institutionalization, and organizational effects of rankings.He has published on the organizational consequences of transparency and the permeability of organizational boundaries:Ringel, L., 2018: Unpacking the Transparency-Secrecy Nexus: Frontstage and backstage behaviour in a political party. Organization Studies: 0170840618759817.Ringel, L., P. Hiller & C. Zietsma (Eds.), 2018: Towards Permeable Boundaries of Organizations?. Research in the Sociology of Organizations 47. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar
and Tobias Werron
  • Corresponding author
  • Bielefeld University, Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld, Deutschland
  • Email
  • Further information
  • Tobias Werron is a professor of Sociological Theory at Bielefeld University, Germany. Before joining the Faculty of Sociology in Bielefeld in 2016, he was a professor of Science Studies and Politics at the Forum Internationale Wissenschaft (FIW) at Bonn University.His main areas of interests include globalization & world society studies, sociology of competition and methodological questions of theorizing.Koloma Beck, T. & T. Werron, 2017: Violent Conflictition: Armed Conflicts and Global Competition for Attention and Legitimacy. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society1–22.Werron, T., 2015: Why do we believe in competition? A historical-sociological view of competition as an institutionalized modern imaginary. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory 16: 186–210.
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar

Zusammenfassung

Der Zusammenhang zwischen Rankings und Konkurrenz wird häufig unterstellt, aber selten genauer untersucht. Der vorliegende Aufsatz geht ihm am Beispiel globaler Universitätsrankings nach. Ausgehend von einem soziologischen Verständnis von Konkurrenz bestimmen wir „Ranken“ als eine soziale Operation, die vier Teiloperationen miteinander kombiniert: Vergleich von Leistungen, Quantifizierung, Visualisierung, und wiederholte Publikation. Visualisierung und Publikation stehen für die in der Literatur bisher kaum berücksichtigte performative Dimension von Rankings, die für die Analyse des Zusammenhangs zwischen Rankings und Konkurrenz von zentraler Bedeutung ist. Auf dieser Grundlage zeigen wir, wie globale Universitätsrankings zur Konstruktion von Konkurrenz beitragen: durch (a) Globalisierung eines spezifischen Exzellenzdiskurses; (b) Verknappung von Reputation; (c) Transformation einer stabilen in eine dynamische Statusordnung. Wir schließen mit einer Diskussion von Implikationen dieser Analyse für die soziologische Erforschung von Konkurrenz und ihrer gesellschaftlichen Effekte.

  • Barron, G.R.S., 2017: The Berlin Principles on Ranking Higher Education Institutions: limitations, legitimacy, and value conflict. Higher Education 73: 317–333.

  • Bookstein, F.L., H. Seidler, M. Fieder & G. Winckler, 2010: Too much noise in the Times Higher Education rankings. Scientometrics 85: 295–299.

  • Bowman, N.A. & M.N. Bastedo, 2009: Getting on the Front Page: Organizational Reputation, Status Signals, and the Impact of U.S. News and World Report on Student Decisions. Research in Higher Education 50: 415–436.

  • Buchholz, L., 2016: What is a global field? Theorizing fields beyond the nation-state. The Sociological Review Monographs 64: 31–60.

  • Bühler, M. & B. Heintz, 2017: Seen But Not Noticed. The Role of Comparisons in Economic Sociology. Economic Sociology: The European Electronic Newsletter 18: 9–18.

  • Corley, K. & D. Gioia, 2000: The Rankings Game: Managing Business School Reputation. Corporate Reputation Review 3: 319–333.

  • de Rijcke, S., I. Wallenburg, P. Wouters & R. Bal, 2016: Comparing Comparisons. On Rankings and Accounting in Hospitals and Universities. in: J. Deville, M. Guggenheim & Z. Kova (Hrsg.), Practising Comparison: Logics, Relations, Collaborations. Manchester: Mattering Press.

  • Dichev, I., 2001: News or Noise? Research in Higher Education 42: 237–266.

  • Espeland, W.N. & M. Sauder, 2007: Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds. American Journal of Sociology 113: 1–40.

  • Espeland, W.N. & M. Sauder, 2016a: Engines of Anxiety: Academic Rankings, Reputation, and Accountability. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

  • Espeland, W.N. & M. Sauder, 2016b: Accountability by the Numbers. S. 19–39 in: W.N. Espeland & M. Sauder, Engines of Anxiety: Academic Rankings, Reputation, and Accountability. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

  • Espeland, W.N. & M.L. Stevens, 1998: Commensuration as a Social Process. Annual Review of Sociology 24: 313–343.

  • Fligstein, N. & D. McAdam, 2012: A Theory of Fields. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Go, J. & M. Krause, 2016: Fielding Transnationalism. Chichester: Wiley.

  • Hansen, H.K. & M. Flyverbom, 2015: The politics of transparency and the calibration of knowledge in the digital age. Organization 22: 872–889.

  • Hazelkorn, E., 2015: Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle for World-Class Excellence. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Hazelkorn, E. (Hrsg.), 2016: Global Rankings and the Geopolitics of Higher Education: Understanding the influence and impact of rankings on higher education, policy and society. New York, NY: Routledge.

  • Hazelkorn, E., T. Loukkola & T. Zhang, 2014: Rankings in Institutional Strategies and Processes: Impact or Illusion. Brussels: European University Association.

  • Healy, K., 2017: By the Numbers – Wendy Espeland and Michael Sauder, Engines of Anxiety: Academic Rankings, Reputation, and Accountability (New York, Russell Sage, 2016). European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie 58: 512–519.

  • Heintz, B., 2010: Numerische Differenz. Überlegungen zu einer Soziologie des (quantitativen) Vergleichs. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 39: 162–181.

  • Heintz, B., 2016: „Wir leben im Zeitalter der Vergleichung.“ Perspektiven einer Soziologie des Vergleichs (“We Live in an Age of Comparisons.” Towards a Sociology of Comparison). Zeitschrift für Soziologie 45: 305–323.

  • Jongbloed, B., F. Kaiser & F. van Vught, 2013: U-Map and U-Multirank: profiling and ranking tools for higher education institutions. in: The Impact of Higher Education: Addressing the challenges of the 21st century. Gehalten auf der EAIR 35th Annual Forum, Rotterdam, Netherlands.

  • Kelley, J. & B. Simmons, 2014: The Power of Performance Indicators: Rankings, Ratings and Reactivity in International Relations (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2451319). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.

  • Kette, S., 2018: Prognostische Leistungsvergleiche. Ratings zwischen Performanz und Performativität. S. 73–98 in: C. Dorn & V. Tacke (Hrsg.), Vergleich und Leistung in der funktional differenzierten Gesellschaft. VS.

  • Krücken, G. & F. Meier, 2006: Turning the University into an Organizational Actor. S. 241–257 in: G.S. Drori, J.W. Meyer & H. Hwang (Hrsg.), Globalization and Organization: World Society and Organizational Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Latour, B., 1987: Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Lim, M.A., 2018: The building of weak expertise: the work of global university rankers. Higher Education 75: 415–430.

  • Marginson, S., 2008: Global field and global imagining: Bourdieu and worldwide higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education 29: 303–315.

  • Marginson, S., 2014: University Rankings and Social Science. European Journal of Education 49: 45–59.

  • Marginson, S. & M. van der Wende, 2007: Globalisation and Higher Education. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 8. Paris: OECD Publishing.

  • Martins, L.L., 2005: A Model of the Effects of Reputational Rankings on Organizational Change. Organization Science 16: 701–720.

  • Mau, S., 2017: Das metrische Wir: über die Quantifizierung des Sozialen. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

  • Meredith, M., 2004: Why Do Universities Compete in the Ratings Game? An Empirical Analysis of the Effects of the U.S. News and World Report College Rankings. Research in Higher Education 45: 443–461.

  • Meyer, J.W. & B. Rowan, 1977: Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83: 340–363.

  • Mohrman, K., W. Ma & D. Baker, 2008: The Research University in Transition: The Emerging Global Model. Higher Education Policy 21: 5–27.

  • Monks, J. & R.G. Ehrenberg, 1999: U.S. News & World Report’s College Rankings Why They Do Matter. Change 31: 42–51.

  • Myers, L. & J. Robe, 2009: College Rankings: History, Criticism and Reform S. 51. Washington, DC: Center for College Affordability and Productivity.

  • Paradeise, C. & J.-C. Thoenig, 2013: Academic Institutions in Search of Quality: Local Orders and Global Standards. Organization Studies 34: 189–218.

  • Paradeise, C. & J.-C. Thoenig, 2016: In Search of Academic Quality. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Power, M., T. Scheytt, K. Soin & K. Sahlin, 2009: Reputational Risk as a Logic of Organizing in Late Modernity. Organization Studies 30: 301–324.

  • Ramirez, F.O. & D. Tiplic, 2013: In pursuit of excellence? Discursive patterns in European higher education research. Higher Education 67: 439–455.

  • Rindova, V.P., L.L. Martins, S.B. Srinivas & D. Chandler, 2017: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Organizational Rankings: A Multidisciplinary Review of the Literature and Directions for Future Research. Journal of Management 21: 2175–2208.

  • Rosa, H., 2006: Wettbewerb als Interaktionsmodus. Leviathan 34: 82–104.

  • Sauder, M., 2006: Third Parties and Status Position: How the Characteristics of Status Systems Matter. Theory and Society 35: 299–321.

  • Sauder, M. & W.N. Espeland, 2009: The Discipline of Rankings: Tight Coupling and Organizational Change. American Sociological Review 74: 63–82.

  • Sauder, M., F. Lynn & J.M. Podolny, 2012: Status: Insights from Organizational Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 38: 267–283.

  • Schimank, U. & U. Volkmann, 2017: Das Regime der Konkurrenz: Gesellschaftliche Ökonomisierungsdynamiken heute. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz Juventa.

  • Simmel, G., 1903: Soziologie der Konkurrenz. Neue Deutsche Rundschau (Freie Bühne) 14: 1009–1023.

  • Simmel, G., 1950: The Sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: Simon and Schuster.

  • Simmel, G., 1955: Conflict and The Web of Group-affiliations. New York: Free Press.

  • Spoerhase, C., 2014: Das Maß der Potsdamer Garde. Die ästhetische Vorgeschichte des Rankings in der Europäischen Literatur- und Kunstkritik des 18. Jahrhunderts. Jahrbuch der Deutschen Schillergesellschaft 58: 90–126.

  • Teichler, U., I. Ferencz & B. Wächter (Hrsg.), 2011: Mapping Mobility in European Higher Education. Bd. I: Overview and Trends. Bonn: DAAD.

  • THE World Summits. (o. J.)Times Higher Education.

  • Wainer, H., 1992: Understanding Graphs and Tables. ETS Research Report Series 1992: 4–20.

  • Warner, M., 2002: Publics and Counterpublics. Public Culture 14: 49–90.

  • Webster, D.S., 1986: Academic Quality Rankings of American Colleges and Universities. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

  • Wedlin, L., 2014: How global comparisons matter: the ‘truths’ of international rankings. S. 65–75 in: W. Blockmans, L. Engwall & D. Weaire (Hrsg.), Bibliometrics: Use and Abuse in the Review of Research Performance. Bd. 87. Portland, OR: Portland Press Limited.

  • Werron, T., 2014: On Public Forms of Competition. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies 14: 62–76.

  • Werron, T., 2015: Why do we believe in competition? A historical-sociological view of competition as an institutionalized modern imaginary. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory 16: 186–210.

  • Werron, T., 2016: Direkte Konflikte, indirekte Konkurrenzen / Direct Conflict, Indirect Competition. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 39: 302–318.

  • Werron, T. & L. Ringel, 2017: Rankings in a Comparative Perspective. Conceptual Remarks. In: S. Lessenich (Hrsg.), Geschlossene Gesellschaften. Verhandlungen des 38. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie. Essen: DGS.

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
$42.00
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.


or
Log in with your institution

Journal + Issues

The Zeitschrift für Soziologie publishes peer-reviewed articles from all areas of sociology, aiming to represent both the diversity of empirical research as well as the plurality of theoretical traditions. Founded in 1971, the journal aims to represent the discipline as comprehensively as possible, inviting contributions from sociologists regardless of their conceptual affinities and orientations.

Search