Rankings, diversity and the power of renewal in science: A comparison between Germany, the UK and the US

European Journal of Education

Volumn 49, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 60-76

  Münch, Richard ^a   Schäfer, Len Ole ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BAMBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Capital; Diversity; Evaluation; Knowledge; Performance; Power of renewal; Ranking; Stratification; University

Indexed keywords

EID: 84897726720     PISSN: 01418211     EISSN: 14653435     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12065     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Ben-David, J. (1971) The Scientist's Role in Society (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall).
2. Berghoff, S., Federkeil, G., Giebisch, P., Hachmeister, C.-D., Hennings, M., Roessler, I. & Ziegele, F. (2009) Das CHE-Forschungsranking deutscher Universitäten 2009. Arbeitspapier Nr. 130 (Gütersloh, Bertelsmann Stiftung). http://www.che-ranking.de/downloads/CHE_AP130_Forschungsranking_2009.pdf.
3. Berman, E. P. (2012) Creating the Market University: How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine (Princeton, Princeton University Press).
4. Bonitz, M. & Scharnhorst, A. (2001) Competition in science and the Matthew Core Journal, Scientometrics, 51, pp. 37-54.
5. Bonitz, M., Bruckner, E. & Scharnhorst, A. (1997) Characteristics and impact of the Matthew Effect for countries, Scientometrics, 40, pp. 407-422.
6. Bornmann, L. & Daniel, H.-D. (2006) Potential sources of bias in Research Fellowship Assessments: effects of university prestige and field of study, Research Evaluation, 15, pp. 209-219.
7. Bourdieu, P. (1975) The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason, Social Science Information, 14, pp. 19-47.
8. Burris, V. (2004) The academic caste system. Prestige hierarchies in PhD exchange networks, American Sociological Review, 69 (April), pp. 239-264.
9. Campbell, D. T. (1957) Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings, Psychological Bulletin, 54, pp. 297-312.
10. Campbell, D. T. (1976) Assessing the impact of planned social change, Occasional Paper Series No. 8 (Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo. Evaluation Center). http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED303512.pdf.
11. Clark, B. R. (1998) Creating Entrepreneurial Universities. Organizational Pathways of Transformation (Oxford and New York, Pergamon Press).
12. Cole, J. R. & Cole, S. (1973) Social Stratification in Science (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).
13. Curran, P. J. (2000) Competition in UK higher education: competitive advantage in the Research Assessment Exercise and Porter's Diamond Model, Higher Education Quarterly, 54, pp. 386-410.
14. CWCU (Center for World-Class Universities) (2012) Academic Ranking of World Universities. http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2012.html.
15. CWTS (Centre for Science and Technology Studies) (2013) CWTS Leiden Ranking 2013. http://www.leidenranking.com/ranking.
16. Dean, M. (2009) Governmentality. Power and Rule in Modern Society, 2nd edition (London, Sage).
17. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R. & Ryan, R. M. (1999) A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation, Psychological Bulletin, 125, pp. 627-668.
18. DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) (2009) Förder-Ranking 2009. Institutionen - Regionen - Netzwerke. Fachliche Profile von Hochschulen und außeruniversitären Forschungseinrichtungen im Licht öffentlich geförderter Forschung (Weinheim, WILEY-VCH Verlag).
19. DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) (2012) Förderatlas 2012: Kennzahlen zur öffentlich finanzierten Forschung in Deutschland (Weinheim, WILEY-VCH Verlag).
20. Elton, L. (2000) The UK Research Assessment Exercise: unintended consequences, Higher Education, 54, pp. 274-283.
21. Espeland, W. N. & Sauder, M. (2007) Rankings and Reactivity. How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds, American Journal of Sociology, 113, pp. 1-40.
22. Espeland, W. N. & Sauder, M. (2009) Rankings and diversity, Southern California Review of Law and Social Justice, 18, pp. 587-608.
23. Feyerabend, P. K. (1970/1993) Against Method (Third ed). (London, Verso).
24. Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison (New York, Pantheon Books).
25. Foucault, M. (2008) The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978-1979 (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan).
26. Goldstone, J. A. (1979) A deductive explanation of the Matthew Effect in science, Social Studies of Science, 9, pp. 385-391.
27. Halffman, W. & Leydesdorff, L. (2010) Is inequality among universities increasing? Gini coefficients and the elusive rise of Elite Universities, Minerva, 48, pp. 55-72.
28. HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England) (2009) Strategic Plan 2006-2011. Updated June 2009 (Bristol).
29. HEEACT (2010) 2010 Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities. http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2010/homepage/.
30. HESA (Higher Education Statistics Agency) (2006) Higher Education Statistics Agency: Finance Data Tables. http://www.hesa.ac.uk/dox/dataTables/finance/download/stafffin0607-0708.xls?v=1.0.
31. HESA (Higher Education Statistics Agency) (2012) Higher Education Statistics Agency: Finance Data Tables. http://www.hesa.ac.uk/component/option, com_datatables/Itemid, 121/task, show_category/catdex, 1/.
32. Hornbostel, S. (1997) Wissenschaftsindikatoren. Bewertungen in der Wissenschaft (Opladen, Leske & Budrich).
33. Jansen, D., Wald, A., Franke, K., Schmoch, U. & Schubert, T. (2007) Drittmittel als Performanzindikator der wissenschaftlichen Forschung. Zum Einfluss von Rahmenbedingungen auf Forschungsleistungen, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 59, pp. 125-149.
34. Johnes, J. (1996) Performance assessment in higher education in Britain, European Journal of Operation Research, 89, pp. 18-33.
35. Konsortium Bundesbericht Wissenschaftlicher Nachwuchs (2013) Bundesbericht wissenschaftlicher Nachwuchs 2013 (Bielefeld, W. Bertelsmann).
36. Mazloumian, A., Helbing, D., Lozano, S., Light, R. P. & Börner, K. (2013) Global Multi-Level Analysis of the 'Scientific Food Web', Scientific Reports 3, Article number 1167, doi:10.1038/step01167 (London and New York, Nature Publishing Group). http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130130/srep01167/full/srep01167.html.
37. McNamee, S. J. & Willis, C. L. (1994) Stratification in Science, Science Communication, 15, pp. 396-416.
38. Merton, R. K. (1942/1973) The normative structure of science, in: R. K. Merton (Ed) The Sociology of Science (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, pp. 267-278).
39. Merton, R. K. (1968) The Matthew Effect in science, Science 159 (3810), pp. 56-63.
40. Merton, R. K. (1995) The Thomas Theorem and the Matthew Effect, Social Forces, 74, pp. 379-424.
41. Merton, R. K. (1996) The Matthew Effect in science, II: cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property, in: R. K. Merton (Ed) On Social Structure and Science (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, pp. 318-336.)
42. Miller, P. & Rose, N. (2008) Governing the Present (Cambridge, Polity Press).
43. Münch, R. (2007) Die akademische Elite. Zur sozialen Konstruktion wissenschaftlicher Exzellenz (Frankfurt a.M., Suhrkamp).
44. Münch, R. (2009) Globale Eliten, lokale Autoritäten. Bildung und Wissenschaft unter dem Regime von PISA, McKinsey & Co. (Frankfurt a. M., Suhrkamp).
45. Münch, R. (2011) Akademischer Kapitalismus (Berlin, Suhrkamp).
46. Münch, R. (2014) Academic Capitalism: Universities in the Global Struggle for Excellence (London & New York, Routledge).
47. NAS (National Academy of Sciences) (2012) A Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Excel Data Table (revised 4/29/2011). (Washington, D.C., The National Academies Press) http://www.nap.edu/rdp/.
48. NSF (National Science Foundation) (2006) Academic Research and Development Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2006. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08300/.
49. NSF (National Science Foundation) (2011) Integrated Science and Engineering Resources Data System. https://webcaspar.nsf.gov/.
50. NSF (National Science Foundation) (2012) FY 2012: Agency Financial Report. Investing in America's Future. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13002/nsf13002.pdf.
51. Nobelprize (2009) The Official Web Site of the Nobel Prize. http://www.nobelprize.org.
52. Porter, T. M. (1995) Trust in Numbers: the pursuit of objectivity in science and public life (Princeton, Princeton University Press).
53. Power, M. (1997) The Audit Society. Rituals of Verification (Oxford, Oxford University Press).
54. RAE (Research Assessment Exercise) (2008) rae2008 Research Assessment Exercise. http://www.rae.ac.uk/submissions/download.aspx.
55. REF (Research Excellence Framework) (2013) REF2014 Research Excellence Framework. http://www.ref.ac.uk/.
56. Sauder, M. & Espeland, W. N. (2009) The discipline of rankings: tight coupling and organizational change, American Sociological Review, 74, pp. 63-82.
57. Shibayama, S., Walsh, J. P. & Baba, Y. (2012) Academic entrepreneurship and exchange of scientific resources: material transfer in life and materials sciences in Japanese universities, American Sociological Review, 77, pp. 804-830.
58. Slaughter, S. & Leslie, L. L. (1997) Academic Capitalism: politics, policies, and the Entrepreneurial University (Baltimore and London, The Johns Hopkins University Press).
59. Slaughter, S. & Rhoades, G. (2004) Academic Capitalism and the New Economy. Markets, State, and Higher Education (Baltimore and London, The Johns Hopkins University Press).
60. THE (Times Higher Education) (2013) World University Rankings 2011-2012 - Times Higher Education. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-12/world-ranking.
61. US News & World Report (2013) Education World's Best. http://www.usnews.com/education/worlds-best-universities-rankings/top-400-universities-in-the-world.
62. Viner, N., Powell, P. & Green, R. (2004) Institutionalized biases in the award of research grants: a preliminary analysis revisiting the principle of accumulative advantage, Research Policy, 33, pp. 443-454.
63. Washburn, J. (2005) University, Inc.: the corporate corruption of American higher education (New York, Basic Books).