An examination of global university rankings as a new mechanism influencing mission differentiation: the UK context

Since their emergence a decade ago, global university rankings have become a powerful force in higher education internationally. The majority of research studies on global rankings have examined the effects at institutional and national levels. This study offers a valuable perspective on the ways rankings (and other international benchmarks) are deployed at the intra-sector level, by UK higher education ‘mission groups‘, to support different policy positions. The concept of object in activity theory is used to problematize the analysis. Critical discourse analysis is used as a methodological orientation to study the ways global rankings mediate the object in this context. The findings contribute to the current debate on whether rankings are promoting isomorphism in higher education sectors nationally, illustrating a differentiated engagement with rankings in the UK context. The relevance of the findings for policy-makers and institutional managers is discussed.

     

Global university rankings and their impact on the internationalisation of higher education

Global university rankings are a worldwide trend that emerged in times of the globalisation and internationalisation of higher education. Universities worldwide are now striving to become “world‐class” institutions and are constantly aiming to improve their ranking position. Global rankings of universities are thus perceived by many as an ultimate tool for assessing the level of internationalisation at individual higher education institutions. This article first discusses the meaning of and relationship between the globalisation and internationalisation of higher education, as their influence on the emergence of global rankings is undeniable. It then outlines the methodological designs of four main global university rankings which serve as key prerequisites for the subsequent analyses of both the international(‐isation) indicators that these rankings include and of the international ranking initiatives that focus exclusively on the international outlook of higher education institutions. In the concluding discussion, the article reveals that, due to the predominantly quantitative orientation of global university rankings (on the internationalisation of higher education), their results should not be generalised or understood as a means to improve the quality of (internationalisation of) higher education.     

Globalizing whiteness? Visually re/presenting students in global university rankings websites

ABSTRACT

Amid debates about the role and impact of global university rankings (GURs), very few have closely examined how GURs media outlets construct meanings of higher education (HE) in their visual representations. We critically examine publicly available visual media of students in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings and US News and World Report websites. Drawing on Stuart Hall’s heuristics of representation and attending to visual grammars, we argue whiteness maintains its racial hegemony in GURs’ student imagery through its flexibility and in/visbility. Furthermore, whiteness is entangled with other systems of oppression, particularly patriarchy, homonormativity, and heterosexuality. We suggest that GURs rankings media are not simply constructing and informing us about the quality and excellence of HE, but simultaneously teaching us how to view students, often reproducing oppressive racialized and gendered ideologies. We end with methodological implications of visual cultural studies in comparative education.     

Sticky and slippery destinations for academic mobility: the case of Singapore

This article seeks to contribute to the existing scholarship on academic mobility in two ways. First, it brings together insights on academic mobility (aspirations, desperations) and higher education internationalisation to show how we may analytically organise these insights to shed light on the shifting global higher education landscape from an experiential perspective. Second, it provides fresh data on the ‘lived experiences’ of mobile faculty members based in an attractive academic destination outside of the traditional knowledge cores—Singapore. As a city state without any natural resources, Singapore has successfully transformed its economy into one that is knowledge-intensive based on combined efforts from grooming locals to recruiting foreign talents to shore up skilled manpower needs. These efforts are reflected in the university sector where Singapore’s comprehensive universities have consistently ranked high across many global university rankings. Using survey and interview data, I show how the mobility and immobility experiences of faculty based in Singapore have contributed to its making as a ‘sticky’ and ‘slippery’ academic destination. My contributions point to the need to integrate individual-level factors underpinning academic mobility decisions with systemic developments to better understand the changing global higher education landscape today.

     

University ranking as social exclusion

In this article we explore the dual role of global university rankings in the creation of a new, knowledge-identified, transnational capitalist class and in facilitating new forms of social exclusion. We examine how and why the practice of ranking universities has become widely defined by national and international organisations as an important instrument of political and economic policy. We consider the development of university rankings into a global business combining social research, marketing and public relations, as a tangible policy tool that narrowly redefines the social purposes of higher education itself. Finally, it looks at how the influence of rankings on national funding for teaching and research constrains wider public debate about the meaning of ‘good' and meaningful education in the United Kingdom and other national contexts, particularly by shifting the debate away from democratic publics upward into the elite networked institutions of global capital. We conclude by arguing that, rather than regarding world university rankings as a means to establish criteria of educational value, the practice may be understood as an exclusionary one that furthers the alignment of higher education with neoliberal rationalities at both national and global levels.     

Language games: University responses to ranking metrics

League tables of universities that measure performance in various ways are now commonplace, with numerous bodies providing their own rankings of how institutions throughout the world are seen to be performing on a range of metrics. This paper uses Lyotard's notion of language games to theorise that universities are regaining some power over being placed on league tables by creating narratives that manipulate their rankings to promote their own strengths. This paper examines the findings of a study involving university responses to global rankings throughout 2016 produced by two major ranking bodies, Times Higher Education and QS Top Universities. The existing literature has established that ranking tables can be used as a vehicle for humiliation and can produce terrors for all those involved. Thus, the significance of this study's findings is in new ways of theorising university responses to appearing on league tables at a time when academia is a high‐stakes activity where institutions’ abilities are measured and reported on at a global scale.     

University rankings as a zoning technology: a Taiwanese perspective on an imaginary Greater China higher education region

This paper argues that global university rankings can be understood as a mechanism upholding Taiwan's interests in light of cross-national analysis of university ranking and recent discussion on regionalisation of higher education in Asia. To draw an analytical framework, it begins by delineating a conceptualisation of university ranking, in which ranking exercises are seen as a form of institutions in the globalised field of education politics and policy. In anticipation of the emergence of the Greater China higher education region, the paper suggests that global university ranking can be used as a zoning technology to form an imaginary line of cultural and academic sovereignty, and to affect university strategies and government policies. This analysis not only explains how global university rankings can be used to uphold interests of Taiwan's higher education, but also sheds light on the way to constitute subjectivity in the process of regionalisation of worldwide higher education.     

Competition,innovation and diversity in higher education: dominant discourses,paradoxes and resistance

Abstract

This article explores the powerful yet contradictory role of neoliberalism, its competitive mechanisms and emotional logics. Theoretically, it reviews the shifting state-higher education-market nexus through the lens of a critical cultural political economy paradigm. Conceptually, it closely examines Davies’ work on the ‘logic of competition’ (2014) and Naidoo’s idea of ‘competition fetish’ (2011, 2015, 2018) to expose the material and discursive dispositifs through which nation-states, institutions and individual actors mobilize universities to position themselves in the global knowledge economy. The discussion is informed and supported by empirical evidence drawn from a doctoral project (2013–2014). The article aims to contribute to the extant critique of (higher) education by introducing the paradox of ‘polarized convergence’ as an instance of differentiation without diversity in the contemporary English university. Such paradox urges the re-visitation and broadening of the idea and practice of the entrepreneurial university to reinvigorate the link between competition, innovation and diversity.     

Is teacher education at risk? A tale of two cities – Hong Kong and Macau

Consequences of competition for global university rankings, such as changes in funding modes, have been extensively discussed in the field of higher education. However, few studies have reviewed its implications on knowledge production. This study provides a contextualised method for theorising the implications of this competition on the development of East Asian higher education, specifically teacher education. It identifies the new forms of knowledge being produced in two teacher education institutions in Hong Kong and Macau by reviewing the publications of new recruits in a five-year period. The study considers the following variables: author(s), date and form of publication, abstract, title, keywords, journal name, language, data source, research context and methods. The findings show that the dominant publication trends are towards quantitative research and multiple authors. Psychological research is the most popular area and studies of other long-term issues in teacher education are being marginalised.     

Soft power,university rankings and knowledge production: distinctions between hegemony and self‐determination in higher education

The purpose of this article is to analyse the nature of the global hegemonies in higher education. While anti‐colonial thinkers describe the dominance of the Western paradigm as an oppression of indigenous culture and knowledge and as neo‐colonialism in higher education, their arguments lead to such questions as how much self‐determination do non‐Western countries have? On what basis can the colonised resist the coloniser? To what extent are non‐Western nations aware of the Western hegemony? To answer these questions, this article uses the concept of soft power to interrogate how global hegemonies are manifested in higher education agendas. With reference to the pursuit of a world‐class status in higher education in East Asia, it discusses how the international inequality in higher education is viewed from the anti‐colonial perspective in the existing literature. The article then proposes the soft‐power perspective as an alternative way to explain why non‐Western countries are willing to follow the Anglo‐American paradigm to develop their higher education systems. Extending this analysis, the article argues that the emerging global university rankings are important resources of soft power that have the potential, as a governance tool, to reshape the global higher education landscape.     

Conflicting logics of online higher education

Abstract

The advent of massive open online courses and online degrees offered via digital platforms has occurred in a climate of austerity. Public universities worldwide face challenges to expand their educational reach, while competing in international rankings, raising fees and generating third-stream income. Online forms of unbundled provision offering smaller flexible low-cost curricular units have promised to disrupt this system. Yet do these forms challenge existing hierarchies in higher education and the market logic that puts pressure on universities and public institutions at large in the neoliberal era? Based on fieldwork in South Africa, this article explores the perceptions of senior managers of public universities and of online programme management companies. Analysing their considerations around unbundled provision, we discuss two conflicting logics of higher education that actors in structurally different positions and in historically divergent institutions use to justify their involvement in public–private partnerships: the logic of capital and the logic of social relevance.     

The cathedral’s ivory tower and the open education bazaar – catalyzing innovation in the higher education sector

ABSTRACT

Will open education replace traditional higher education, or augment it? Digital innovation in the higher education sector is fuelling speculation about the transformation of higher education and the future role of universities. Much of the speculation makes questionable implicit assumptions about current and future business models in the higher education sector. This conceptual paper applies an innovation management perspective to critically examine the use and misuse of the business model concept in the context of digital innovation in the higher education sector. Using Raymond’s metaphor of the cathedral and the bazaar which contrasted traditional commercial software development (the cathedral) with open source software development (the bazaar). We analogise this relationship with the relationship between ‘cathedral-type’ business models in traditional higher education (e.g. universities) and ‘bazaar-type’ business models in open education (e.g. open educational resource publishers). Using the historical perspective we now have on the software industry’s evolution we critique the ubiquitous replacement narrative of destruction and disruption of the sector, and propose an alternative narrative of interdependence and mutual innovative catalysis. We predict that higher education ecosystems will be based on synergistic relationships between organisations that represent many gradations on the continuum between ‘cathedral-type’ and ‘bazaar-type’ organisations.     

文化视阈下的高校创新人才培养

高校的根本任务是培养人才,如何培养创新人才是高校面临的新课题。坚持以文化人,培养创新人才,是教育文化本性的必然要求。培养创新人才要遵循人才成长规律。建设创新文化,培养创新人才,需要树立国际意识和世界眼光,提高本土文化创新因子含量;需要建设社会创新文化,优化大学文化育人环境;需要建设大学创新文化,培植适宜创新人才成长的土壤,重点建设崇尚创新的精神文化、自觉创新的行为文化、保障创新的制度文化、鼓励创新的环境文化。     

International rankings and the contest for university hegemony

In just a decade, the international university rankings have become dominant measures of institutional performance for policy-makers worldwide. Bolstered by the façade of scientific neutrality, these classification systems have reinforced the hegemonic model of higher education – that of the elite, Anglo-Saxon research university – on a global scale. The process is a manifestation of what Bourdieu and Wacquant have termed US “cultural imperialism.” However, the rankings paradigm is facing growing criticism and resistance, particularly in regions such as Latin America, where the systems are seen as forcing institutions into a costly and high-stakes “academic arms race” at the expense of more pressing development priorities. That position, expressed at the recent UNESCO conferences in Buenos Aires, Paris, and Mexico City, shows the degree to which the rankings have become a fundamental element in the contest for cultural hegemony, waged through the prism of higher education.     

Reflections on a Decade of Global Rankings: what we've learned and outstanding issues

Ten years after the first global rankings appeared, it is clear that they have had an extraordinary impact on higher education. While there are fundamental questions about whether rankings measure either quality or what's meaningful, they have succeeded in exposing higher education to international comparison. More so, because of the important role higher education plays as a driver of economic development, rankings have exposed both an information deficit and national competitiveness. Accordingly, both nations and institutions have sought to maximise their position vis-á-vis global rankings with positive and perverse effects. Their legacy is evident in the way rankings have become an implicit — and often explicit – reference point for policymaking and higher education decision-making, and have reinforced an evaluative state's over-reliance on quantitative indicators to measure quality. They are embedded in popular discourse, and have informed the behaviour of many stakeholders, within and outside the academy. This paper reflects on three inter-related issues; i) considers the way rankings have heightened policy and investment interest in higher education, ii) discusses whether the modifications to rankings have resolved some of the questions about what they measure, and iii) looks at how rankings have influenced stakeholder behaviour. Finally, the paper reflects on what we have learned and some outstanding issues.     

The Influence of technologies on financing options

Abstract

International higher education is a major source of revenue in many developed countries. Historically the top destination countries for international students have included USA, UK, France and Australia. The key countries where most international students are recruited from include China, India and other parts of Asia. The extant literature has mostly examined the factors influencing international students to study in Western countries. A new trend is now emerging with an accelerating growth of international students in countries such as China and other parts of Asia. This mixed-methods study addresses the gap in the literature by exploring the factors that influence international students’ choice to study undergraduate or postgraduate courses in China. The study found that China is becoming an important destination choice for international students due to the distinctiveness of the Chinese language, the rise of its universities in global rankings and the country’s economic growth.     

公共问责与市场竞争：大学排名难以承受之重

理想的大学排名目的和意义在于,作为服务于公共问责的有益工具,为排名使用者提供关于大学教育质量的可靠信息,同时激励大学提升质量。然而,当前大学排名所采用的大部分指标与院校选择性程度高度相关,为学生提供的大学教育质量信息不充分;且由于大学排名主要是大学教育作为准商品参与市场竞争的产物,指标设计偏重于高等教育对训练人力和发展科研的价值,忽视学生个人发展、教育公平等这些隐蔽但影响深远的社会价值,导致高等教育生态恶化,社会不公加剧。要解决这些问题,＂教育增值＂评价的发展是一个可能的改进途径,但不是根本的解决之道。归根结底,大学排名只是众多评价方式之一,不应也不可能承担质量评价的全部责任。

Abstract：

The idealistic purpose of university ranking is to encourage the self-improvement of universities as well as providing reliable information to users on higher education quality for public accountability.Nevertheless,most current rankings advocate indices related highly to the academic selectivity of institutions,while having nothing to do with quality of their performances.At the same time,since the rankings are mostly pushed by competition among universities as quasi-merchandise,it was inevitable that some social values of higher education as labor training and research were emphasized more than others such as student individual development and social justice,which are more invisible but influential from a long term.The rankings therefore ruined the ecology of higher education competition and made social injustice more serious.Value-added evaluation might bring some light to the darkness of rankings but not the primary way to solve the problem since it is functioned as one of the many measures in quality assessment.     

Teacher education budget cuts in Romania and the US: points of contrast and comparison

Background

Budgets for teacher education programmes have been substantially reduced as a result of the global economic crisis.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the teacher education budget cutting processes and procedures for universities in Romania versus one university in the United States.

Sample

The data were collected from six Romanian universities that all have teacher education programmes. These universities represent the range of higher education quality in the country as indicated by their publication rates. Data from these universities were compared with those from the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR). UNR is the flagship university in the Nevada System of Higher Education, and Nevada has been harder hit by the recent global economic crisis than any other state in the United States and cuts to teacher education there have been substantial.

Design and methods

Data about the budget cutting processes and decisions in the teacher education programmes of six Romanian universities were collected through an electronic survey. These data were compared with the processes and decisions made at the UNR.

Results

The budget cutting processes in Romania were less transparent, and involved less input from stakeholders such as faculty and staff. Most decisions were made at a higher level of authority in Romania, and cuts in Romania were more likely to be across the board rather than more strategically targeted as they were in Nevada.

Conclusions

These differences are discussed in terms of the historical legacy of structures and policies in Romania, and the resistance to reform inherent in those structures and policies.     

University Rankings in Japan

Japan has a highly diversified mass higher education system, consisting mainly of private institutions. In their highly developed and matured "market", higher education institutions have been ranked in terms of selectivity for many years. However, the university rankings that began in the 1990s took a different approach, that is, showing multiple rankings in order to enrich the perspectives of university applicants. This article aims at tracing the development of university rankings in Japan and at explaining the link between rankings and the mature, but drastically changing, Japanese higher education market.