Field Structuration and Fragmentation of Global Rankings

  • Tero Erkkilä
  • Ossi Piironen
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Global Higher Education book series (PSGHE)

Abstract

In this chapter, we look closely at the fragmentation of rankings and indicators relevant to knowledge governance in higher education, economic competitiveness, innovation, and good governance that has challenged the established producers of numeric knowledge. Not only have the amount of international datasets multiplied, but the varieties of measurement—concerning conceptual and methodological decisions—have also increased. We find that the process of fragmentation has not effectively challenged the ideas behind the figures. Instead, the emerging indicator sets are woven into the fabric of the existing measurements as the figures that enter the field largely build on the existing ones without fundamentally challenging their ideational premises. This further embeds the use of numerical assessment in transnational governance.

References

  1. Aguillo, Isidro F., Judit Bar-Ilan, Mark Levene, and José Luis Ortega. 2010. Comparing University Rankings. Scientometrics 85 (1): 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, Matt. 2008. The Good Governance Agenda: Beyond Indicators without Theory. Oxford Development Studies 36 (4): 379–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600810802455120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews, Matt, Roger Hay, and Jerrett Myers. 2010. Can Governance Indicators Make Sense? Towards a New Approach to Sector-Specific Measures of Governance. Oxford Development Studies 38 (4): 391–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600818.2010.524696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bacchi, Carol Lee. 1999. Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of Policy Problems. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Baert, Patrick. 1991. Unintended Consequences: A Typology and Examples. International Sociology 6 (2): 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/026858091006002006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barendrecht, Maurits. 2011. Rule of Law, Measuring and Accountability: Problems to Be Solved Bottom Up. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 3 (02): 281–304. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1876404511200071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CHE. 2009. News: The CHERPA-Network Wins a European Tender to Develop a Multi-Dimensional Global Ranking of Universities. http://www.che.de/cms/?getObject=302&getNewsID=983&getCB=309&getLang=en
  8. Cho, Dong-Sung, and Hwy-Chang Moon. 2000. From Adam Smith to Michael Porter: Evolution of Competitiveness Theory. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dakowska, Dorota. 2013. Polish Higher Education and the Global Academic Competition: University Rankings in the Reform Debates. In Global University Rankings. Challenges for European Higher Education, ed. Tero Erkkilä, 107–123. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Desrosières, Alain. 1998. The Politics of Large Numbers: A History of Statistical Reasoning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Drechsler, Wolfgang. 2004. Governance, Good Governance, and Government: The Case for Estonian Administrative Capacity. TRAMES 4: 388–396.Google Scholar
  12. Dubouloz, Catherine. 2008. L’Europe Veut Lancer Son Propre Classement Des Universités. Le Temps (CH), December 5.Google Scholar
  13. Erkkilä, Tero. 2016. Global Governance Indices as Policy Instruments: Actionability, Transparency and Comparative Policy Analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 18 (4): 382–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2015.1023052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erkkilä, Tero, and Ossi Piironen. 2013. Reforming Higher Education Institutions in Finland: Competitiveness and Global University Rankings. In Global University Rankings. Challenges for European Higher Education, ed. Tero Erkkilä, 124–143. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ———. 2014. (De)Politicizing Good Governance: The World Bank Institute, the OECD and the Politics of Governance Indicators. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 27 (4): 344–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2013.850020.Google Scholar
  16. European Commission. 2006. Creating an Innovative Europe. Report of the Independent Expert Group on R&D and Innovation Appointed Following the Hampton Court Summit and Chaired by Mr. Esko Aho. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/aho_report.pdf
  17. ———. 2011. Supporting Growth and Jobs—An Agenda for the Modernisation of Europe’s Higher Education System, COM(2011) 567 Final. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  18. Freistein, Katja. 2016. Effects of Indicator Use: A Comparison of Poverty Measuring Instruments at the World Bank. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 18 (4): 366–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2015.1023053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review 48 (6): 781–795. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ginsburg, Tom. 2011. Pitfalls of Measuring the Rule of Law. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 3 (02): 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1017/S187640451120006X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Global Integrity. 2011. The Global Integrity Report: 2011. Methodology White Paper. https://www.globalintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2011_GIR_Meth_Whitepaper.pdf
  23. Gramatikov, Martin, Maurits Barendrecht, and Jin Ho Verdonschot. 2011. Measuring the Costs and Quality of Paths to Justice: Contours of a Methodology. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 3 (02): 349–379. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1876404511200101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guha, Krishna, and Richard McGregor. 2007. World Bank Directors Test Zoellick. Financial Times, July 13. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/fe1d7ece-30d8-11dc-9a81-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz2883nwxuM
  25. Haas, Peter M. 1992. Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization 46 (1): 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hammergren, Linn. 2011. Indices, Indicators and Statistics: A View from the Project Side as to Their Utility and Pitfalls. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 3 (02): 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1876404511200083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hinthorne, Lauren Leigh. 2011. Democratic Crisis or Crisis of Confidence? What Local Perceptual Lenses Tell Us about Madagascar’s 2009 Political Crisis. Democratization 18 (2): 535–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2011.553371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hobsbawm, Eric. 1987. Introduction: Inventing Traditions. In The Invention of Tradition, ed. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. IMD. 2017. Competitiveness History Garelli and Bris—IMD Executive Education. IMD Business School. Accessed June 3. https://www.imd.org/wcc/world-competitiveness-center-mission/center-history-bris-garelli/
  30. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. 2016. Contributors and Detractors: Ranking Countries’ Impact on Global Innovation. Executive Summary. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. http://www2.itif.org/2016-contributors-and-detractors-executive-summary.pdf?_ga=1.249958406.127216268.1464961189
  31. INSEAD. 2007. Global Innovation Index 2007: The Power of Innovation. World Business. https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/userfiles/file/GII-2007-Report.pdf
  32. ———. 2013. The Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2013. INSEAD. https://www.insead.edu/sites/default/files/assets/dept/globalindices/docs/GTCI-2013-report.pdf
  33. ———. 2016. The Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2017. INSEAD. http://www.gtci2017.com/documents/GTCI_2017_web_r5.pdf
  34. Ivanov, Kalin. 2009. Fighting Corruption Globally and Locally. In Ethics and Integrity in Public Administration: Concepts and Cases, ed. Raymond W. Cox III, 146–154. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  35. Jobbins, David. 2005. Moving to a Global Stage: A Media View. Higher Education in Europe 30 (2): 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/03797720500260009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Joshi, Devin. 2011. Good Governance, State Capacity, and the Millennium Development Goals. Perspectives on Global Development & Technology 10 (2): 339–360. https://doi.org/10.1163/156914911X582468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kaufmann, Daniel, Aart Kraay, and Pablo Zoido-Lobatón 1999a. Aggregating Governance Indicators. World Bank Policy Research working Paper No. 2195. Google Scholar
  38. ———. 1999b. Governance Matters. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2196. Google Scholar
  39. Kaufmann, Daniel, Aart Kraay, and Massimo Mastruzzi. 2003. Governance Matters III: Governance Indicators for 1996–2002. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3106.Google Scholar
  40. ———. 2007. Governance Matters VI: Governance Indicators for 1996–2006. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4149. Google Scholar
  41. ———. 2008. Governance Matters VII: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators, 1996–2007. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4654.Google Scholar
  42. ———. 2010. Response to ‘What Do the Worldwide Governance Indicators Measure?’. European Journal of Development Research 22 (1): 55–58. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2009.49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. ———. 2011. The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 3 (02): 220–246. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1876404511200046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kauppi, Niilo, and Tero Erkkilä. 2011. The Struggle Over Global Higher Education: Actors, Institutions, and Practices. International Political Sociology 5 (3): 314–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Knack, Stephen, Mark Kugler, and Nick Manning. 2003. Second-Generation Governance Indicators. International Review of Administrative Sciences 69 (3): 345–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852303693004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Knoll, Martin, and Petra Zloczysti. 2012. The Good Governance Indicators of the Millennium Challenge Account: How Many Dimensions Are Really Being Measured? World Development 40 (5): 900–915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.11.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Langbein, Laura, and Stephen Knack. 2010. The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Six, One, or None? Journal of Development Studies 46 (2): 350–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380902952399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Liu, Nian Cai, and Ying Cheng. 2005. The Academic Ranking of World Universities. Higher Education in Europe 30 (2): 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/03797720500260116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Liu, Nian Cai, Ying Cheng, and Liu Li. 2005. Academic Ranking of World Universities Using Scientometrics—A Comment to the ‘Fatal Attraction’. Scientometrics 64 (1): 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0241-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McFerson, Hazel M. 2009. Measuring African Governance. Journal of Developing Societies (Sage Publications Inc.) 25 (2): 253–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0169796X0902500206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Morgan, Grace. 2011. Traction on the Ground: From Better Data to Better Policy. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 3 (02): 380–396. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1876404511200113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mustajoki, Arto. 2013. Measuring Excellence in Social Sciences and Humanities: Limitations and Opportunities. In Global University Rankings. Challenges for European Higher Education, ed. Tero Erkkilä, 147–165. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Neumann, Robert, and Peter Graeff. 2010. A Multitrait-Multimethod Approach to Pinpoint the Validity of Aggregated Governance Indicators. Quality & Quantity 44 (5): 849–864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-009-9238-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. OECD. 2001. Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  55. ———. 2003. Open Government. Fostering Dialogue with Civil Society. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  56. ———. 2005. Management in Government: Feasibility Report on the Development of Comparative Data. GOV/PGC(2005)10/ANN. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  57. ———. 2006a. Issues in Outcome Measurement for “Government at a Glance”. OECD GOV Technical Paper 3. GOV/PGC(2006)10/ANN3. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  58. ———. 2006b. Issues in Output Measurement for “Government at a Glance”. OECD GOV Technical Paper 2. GOV/PGC(2006)10/ANN2. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  59. ———. 2006c. How and Why Should Government Activity Be Measured in “Government at a Glance”? OECD GOV Technical Paper 1. GOV/PGC(2006)10/ANN1. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  60. ———. 2007. Towards Better Measurement of Government. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, 2007/1, OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  61. ———. 2009. Government at a Glance 2009. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  62. Palonen, Kari. 2003. Four Times of Politics: Policy, Polity, Politicking, and Politicization. Alternatives 28 (2): 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Porter, Theodore M. 1996. Trust in Numbers. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Raan, Anthony F.J.van. 2005a. Fatal Attraction: Conceptual and Methodological Problems in the Ranking of Universities by Bibliometric Methods. Scientometrics 62 (1): 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0008-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. ———. 2005b. Reply to the Comments of Liu et al. Scientometrics 64 (1): 111–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0242-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Reinalda, Bob. 2013. Global, Asian and European Backgrounds of Global University Rankings. In Global University Rankings. Challenges for European Higher Education, ed. Tero Erkkilä, 36–50. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Saisana, Michaela, and Andrea Saltelli. 2011. Rankings and Ratings: Instructions for Use. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 3 (02): 247–268. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1876404511200058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Saisana, Michaela, Béatrice d’Hombres, and Andrea Saltelli. 2011. Rickety Numbers: Volatility of University Rankings and Policy Implications. Research Policy, Special Section on Heterogeneity and University-Industry Relations, 40 (1): 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.003.
  69. Skinner, Quentin. 1969. Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas. History and Theory 8 (1): 3–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stubbs, Rebecca. 2009. The Millennium Challenge Account: Influencing Governance in Developing Countries Through Performance-Based Foreign Aid. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 42 (2): 621–682.Google Scholar
  71. Sum, Ngai-Ling. 2009. The Production of Hegemonic Policy Discourses: ‘Competitiveness’ as a Knowledge Brand and Its (Re-)Contextualizations. Critical Policy Studies 3 (2): 184–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460170903385668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Thomas, M.A. 2010. What Do the Worldwide Governance Indicators Measure? European Journal of Development Research 22 (1): 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2009.32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Trapnell, Stephanie E. 2011. Actionable Governance Indicators: Turning Measurement into Reform. Hague Journal of the Rule of Law 3 (2): 317–348. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1876404511200095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. U-Multirank. 2017. Our Approach to Ranking/U-Multirank/Universities Compared. Your Way. Accessed June 2. http://www.umultirank.org/#!/about/methodology/approach-to-ranking?trackType=about&sightMode=undefined
  75. Waltman, Ludo, Clara Calero-Medina, Joost Kosten, Ed C.M. Noyons, Robert J.W. Tijssen, Nees Jan van Eck, Thed N. van Leeuwen, Anthony F.J. van Raan, Martijn S. Visser, and Paul Wouters. 2012. The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012: Data Collection, Indicators, and Interpretation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63 (12): 2419–2432. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. World Bank. 2007. Strengthening World Bank Group Engagement on Governance and Anticorruption. World Bank.Google Scholar
  77. World Economic Forum. 2011. The Global Competitiveness Report 2011–2012. World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GCR_Report_2011-12.pdf
  78. ———. 2014. Global Competitiveness Report 2014–2015. World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2014-15.pdf
  79. ———. 2015. Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016. World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/gcr/2015-2016/Global_Competitiveness_Report_2015-2016.pdf
  80. ———. 2016. The Global Competitiveness Report 2016–2017. World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2016-2017/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2016-2017_FINAL.pdf
  81. Zanotti, Laura. 2005. Governmentalizing the Post—Cold War International Regime: The UN Debate on Democratization and Good Governance. Alternatives 30 (4): 461–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tero Erkkilä
    • 1
  • Ossi Piironen
    • 2
  1. 1.University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Ministry for Foreign Affairs of FinlandHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations