The Work of Global University Rankers and the Building of Weak Expertise

The dissertation is an investigation into the puzzle of university rankers’ contested influence in higher education. It is organized around four articles and an overview. Despite widespread critique university rankings have become an important part of university and even national policy making. The dissertation draws upon a methodology that involves (1) a sustained conversation and relationship with the director of one of the major ranking organizations and (2) a wide ranging observation of the higher education conference circuit. The data collection involved 84 conversations and interviews with informants at 21 ranking and education oriented events held around the world. Through these the study aims to offer a broad yet deep picture of the work done in the ranking sector.

The articles that constitute this dissertation are:
1. Global university rankings: determining the distance between Asia and ‘superpower status’ in higher education
2. The Building of Weak Expertise: the Work of Global University Rankers
3. Active Instruments: On the Use of University Rankings in Developing National Systems of Higher Education (with J. Williams Oerberg)
4. University Rankings: Management by Flawed Image

The study is organized around two questions: ‘Who are the global university rankers?’ and ‘What do rankings do? These lead to a third question treated throughout the dissertation: ‘How and why do rankers and rankings wield such influence in the world of higher education and policy making?’

In answer to the first theme – who are the rankers – the dissertation proposes the idea of rankers as embedded actors and rankers as weak experts. Rankers are embedded in networks of other experts and professionals and operate in a wide, interconnected community. Rankers are furthermore weak experts. They are influential but are also criticized and resisted. They need to achieve a balance between relevance, reliability, and robustness of their ranking instruments. They also need to continuously build up their legitimacy by associating other experts from their network and by building up and speaking to their audiences in their networks.

With regard to the second theme – what rankings do – the dissertation argues that rankings are active, not inert, instruments. In many respects rankings have a life of their own and rankers do not always behave in ways that policymakers want. Rankings also change managerial approaches. They can change policies and behaviors because they have a powerful effect by framing university performance in certain, quantified, ways. This leads rankings to have, the dissertation argues, an ‘illusion’ effect that can change the perspectives by which managers and their other readers see the world.

The study uses a variety of concepts from different disciplinary fields but has drawn generously from science and technology studies and economic sociology, particularly the work of Bruno Latour and Michel Callon, in developing further the concepts used in actor-network-theory. The work aims to contribute to existing scholarly discussions around university rankings, education policy, the sociology of evaluation and evaluation instruments, and the nature of expertise.

The dissertation overview is presented as follows. First (1) it situates the puzzle about rankings and outlines the origins of the author’s conceptual contributions as outgrowths of as well as responses to conversations in scholarly conversations about university rankings and the nature and operation of policy actors. Next (2) it outlines the methods used to answer the research questions. It further describes the research field, types of data, and research methods. Next (3) it reflects upon how the author’s methods impacted upon and deepened his understanding of the issues he faced during the research process. In particular it outlines certain reflections on researching one key informant from the world of university rankings: Phil Baty of the Times Higher Education. The dissertation expounds on the research of the ranking ‘conference circuit’ and what kinds of insights were generated from this line of inquiry. Then, (4) it elaborates on the findings of all this fieldwork and briefly presents the contributions made in the four articles that constitute the body of the dissertation. Finally, (5) it offers some concluding remarks to the entire research project.