The impact and influence of rankings on the quality, performance andaccountability agenda

Abstract

Introduction-the Rise of Rankings When global rankings first appeared in 2003, rankings in general were little known despite the fact that collecting statistical information on individual academic institutions had begun by the U.S. Bureau of Education in the late 19 th century (Snyder, 1993). This was followed by various attempts to measure and compare the performance of faculty members and correspondingly their institutions by focusing on the schooling and characteristics of birth of such "Geniuses" or "Great Men". This early focus on "distinguished persons" dominated rankings to the 1950s but effectively excluded most public universities, such as Land Grant universities, because they were newer institutions with a different mission than the older private universities. By the second half of the 20 th century, rankings were becoming more sophisticated and numerous. The appearance of the Science Citation Index in 1961 and the Social Sciences Citation Index in 1966 enabled rankings to "skip survey methodologies" (Usher, 2016). This gave them the appearance of independence and scientific rigour. The emergence of U.S. News and World Report College Rankings in 1983 marked a turning point, transforming rankings from an individual-scholarly pursuit into a consumer product. Coinciding with the massification of higher education, greater student mobility, and the acknowledged link between qualification, career, salary and lifestyle, these early endeavours paved the way for the emergence of user-oriented university rankings-which now exist worldwide. Over the decades, rankings have become a significant actor on the higher education landscape, used around the world by policymakers and decision-makers at government and higher education institution (HEI) level, as well as myriad stakeholders including students. In varying ways, and depending upon local context, global rankings have eclipsed national rankings in their influence and impact. This chapter contextualises the rise and influence of ranking within broader discussions of quality, performance and accountability. It explores the influence of rankings on the quality debate, on measuring and comparing performance, and on the politicisation of the accountability agenda. Section 2 provides an overview on rankings, while Section 3 situates rankings within the discourse and politics of the accountability agenda. Section 4 looks at the influence and role of rankings at the institutional level. Section 5 reviews some recent developments, and at alternative rankings and alternatives to rankings, and argues that the influence of rankings extends beyond their technical characteristics.

Scientific output scales with resources. A comparison of US and European universities

“…Not only in those countries such as Italy and the UK where in post 2008 crisis budget cuts were implemented, but also in countries such as France and Germany where funding for special excellence initiatives was made available however in a limited scale compared to funding available to top US universities. At the same time, European countries would be well advised to keep their focus on delivery of good quality university education and research at regional level that represents a strength of the European system [48]. Performance-based allocation of funds might contribute to increasing ‘average quality’, but should not be coined towards international excellence as the underlying mechanisms are different.…”

Sustainability Rankings: What they are About and How to make them Meaningful

“…As discussed earlier, preparing submissions for the sustainability rankings are resource intensive and the cost involved in such exercises does not provide a significant advantage. However, a lower rank may have an adverse impact in the main WUR standing or the ability to attract funding from government or private sources (Bautista, Calderon, 2019; De la Poza et al, 2021; Hazelkorn & Mihut, 2021).…”

University League Tables have no Legs to Stand on

“…All fell significantly short and the commercial agencies performed worst of all. 6 However, despite the scholarship, 7 and calls from senior leaders (bit.ly/3O6b4st) and grass-roots initiatives for a rethink, the global rankings remain impervious to critique. Indeed, on publication of the INORMS ranker ratings, only one of the smaller rankings responded.…”