College Rankings as an Interorganizational Dependency: Establishing the Foundation for Strategic and Institutional Accounts

Abstract

Higher education administrators believe that revenues are linked to college rankings and act accordingly, particularly those at research universities. Although rankings are clearly influential for many schools and colleges, this fundamental assumption has yet to be tested empirically. Drawing on data from multiple resource providers in higher education, we find that the influence of rankings depends on constituencies' placement in the higher education field. Resource providers who are vulnerable to the status hierarchy of higher education--college administrators, faculty, alumni, and out-of-state students--are significantly influenced by rankings. Those on the periphery of the organizational field, such as foundations and industry, are largely unaffected. Although rankings are designed largely for stakeholders outside of higher education, their strongest influence is on those within the higher education field.

How Third-Party CSR Evaluation Matters: Keeping Up with Rivals in CSR Performance Ratings of Korean Firms, 2011–2015

“…The research on the phenomenon of ratings/rankings notes that ratings/rankings are part of a broad trend toward quantification and standardization in contemporary life. These ratings/rankings are devised to ensure the accountability and transparency of a target group, and third-party entities such as market intermediaries, government agencies, and civic movement groups conduct the majority of evaluation activities and publicize the outcomes [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. It is also noted that due to the high level of publicity, elicited ratings/rankings are socially salient and widely shared, and such characteristics thus render ratings/rankings as useful benchmarks for decision-making by many outside stakeholders.…”

“…Yet this literature has overlooked the research and findings from the literature on ratings/rankings [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8], which suggests that ratings/rankings in and of themselves could impact organizational behavior.…”

“…Combining insights from the research on ratings/rankings [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] and a behavioral theory of the firm [9][10][11][12][13][14][15], we hypothesize that rated firms are more likely to enhance their subsequent CSR behavior, and hence performance ratings, when their negative CSR rating gaps-CSR ratings below the industry average-are large rather than small, while positive CSR rating gaps-CSR ratings above the industry average-are unlikely to change their subsequent behavior. We reason that this relationship arises because firms tend to seek to eschew being seen as CSR laggards compared with their industry rivals, thereby putting more efforts toward elevating their CSR performance.…”

Responses to Conflicting Field Imperatives: Institutions and Agency Among Evangelical Christian Colleges

“…This article contributes to a growing body of research that explores new directions in neo-institutional theory in the context of U.S. higher education (e.g., Bastedo and Bowman 2011;Hearn and Belasco in press;Morphew 2009;Powell and Colyvas 2008;Rusch and Wilbur 2007). One of its contributions is its identification of the ways in which actor-level processes vary based on between-organizational differences suggested by SAF McAdam 2011, 2012).…”

What's in a name? The impact of reputation and rankings on the teaching income of English universities

“…In contrast, Hazelkorn (, passim ) found that an overwhelming majority of international students use rankings to inform decisions with high‐achieving and affluent students especially likely to use them. Bastedo and Bowman () looked at the impact of domestic rankings on financial outcomes, using a sample of 225 US universities that appear in the composite USNWR rankings. They analyse tuition and fees for in‐state and out‐of‐state students separately, since the latter are routinely set at much higher levels.…”