17th Bacchus reading group
Brankovic, J., Ringel, L., & Werron, T. (2022). Spreading the gospel: Legitimizing university rankings as boundary work. Research Evaluation, Online First.
It was interesting that they also acknowledged the meso scale (not just macro and mico) use of these rankings, for example when they state: “university administrators may see rankings as useful for comparing the performances of their own with other institutions, finding suitable partners, setting targets in their strategic planning, or even monitoring how individual departments and academic staff ‘perform’”.
They do imply it, but more could have been made of how the rankings in themselves are a technology of simplification, and it is the simplification that is part of their appeal
The specific empirical data set that they are analysing, IREG which is short for ‘International Ranking Expert Group’ has an interesting dynamic as well.
They started off as a genuine push for trying to control and verify the validity of the rankings and provide a forum for discussion
However, over the years they seem to have been changed and transformed into both and economic and political arena for where all the boundary issues around are being investigated
Lastly, there existence then becomes a form of self-legitimisation for these very rankings that they have entered a symbotic relationship with
Their research paper was a good reminder, that arguments that position “neoliberalism” as a causal force are not necessarily wrong. But rather it can easily become a catch all phrase, that also captures some of the issues and problems inherent in general bureaucracy and bureaucratization regardless of ideological leaning.
There could have been further elaboration of the other actors involved in the assemblage that makes the rankings work and gives them their persistence
However, this is most likely due to the particular framing of the article and the investigation of IREG
Another interesting point to make is that the a) intention of the initiator, b) the practical use of a technology and c) how people feel about do not have to align at all.
The example that was being discussed in the reading group was that of how journal rankings are utilised in staff performance evaluations and NOT necessarily in university evaluation or ranking. Yet, academics are under the impression that these factor into the rankings, as they are being directly evaluated by their line manger through it. This type of reification – to borrow a Marxist term – then plays with the concept of what is and is not real, and how it causally affects the rankings … that if staff decisions are made based on it, then it does indeed influence the ranking, albeit in an indirect causal fashion
There seems to be a similar network in relation to research impact, which is called Network for Advancing & Evaluating the Societal Impact of Science (AESIS)
In both cases, the existence of these networks – even if they are critical of the thing they are dealing with – lend legitimacy and relevance to the concept in question, be it ranking or impact
This seems to be an unavoidable aspect of (academic) life. Hence one ought to at least strife to not be consumed by only occupying the critical position on one issue. As to become constructive and able to stand on one’s own network and not be parasitic on external agendas that one might not agree with.
