University Rankings, Diversity, and the New ... - Sense Publishers

INTRODUCTION
are of equal quality, or by establishing evaluation processes, performance indicator
systems, and reporting schemes providing those that create the rankings with most
of the information they need to make their comparisons. However, whether the
information used to feed the rankings is meaningful in terms of serving as indicators
of performance and quality could be contested.
As indicated, the rationales behind the establishment of rankings are not only
linked to extrinsic factors outside higher education, but also to intrinsic factors
within the sector. Hence, in principle one could argue that rankings are a sign of a
radical transformation of higher education as such. Of course, how one should
interpret this transformation, and the place rankings have as part of the transformative
process can be disputed.
THE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF UNIVERSITY RANKINGS
There are at least five different interpretations of what rankings mean for higher
education, and how rankings might contribute to change the sector. These five
perspectives are not mutually exclusive, but are presented separately to illustrate
the many potential functions of rankings in higher education.
Rankings as Market Regulation
One interpretation of what rankings mean for higher education is associated with
the changes in how the sector is regulated and governed. In this perspective, the
state has abdicated as the key regulator of higher education, and the governance of
the sector is more diffuse and complex than in the past, creating hybrid governance
arrangements (Gornitzka and Maassen 2000). As part of these hybrid governance
arrangements, the state has facilitated a number of market-based or quasi marketbased
governing strategies, including increased competition between higher education
institutions. Rankings can be said to be linked to this governing approach in a
number of ways. An interesting aspect here is the fact that some countries link
institutional positions in ranking exercises to resource allocation. The Research
Assessment Exercise (RAE) in the United Kingdom, and the Performance-Based
Research Fund (PBRF) in New Zealand are prime examples (Clarke 2005), a
development that can be interpreted to represent an ‘outsourcing’ of the instruments
of governance. While such a direct link between ranking exercises and governmental
funding is still rather unusual, it is intriguing since the governments in
such cases also may pave the way to align their policy-making to the design of
(global) rankings. Even more intriguing are the potential consequences of this
transfer, if one also considers the possibility that some of the rankings might be
based on questionable methodology.
The role of rankings in this perspective is not only that of being a means in a
more market-regulated sector, where rankings could be considered an instrument
for regulation. One could even argue that rankings may also be a driver of the
development. Since rankings are open, available and easy accessible to the public,
the broader public also gets more insight into the activities and into the performance
ix