University Rankings: Evidence and a Conceptual Framework

• Author: Jacob Fowles,H. George Frederickson,Jonathan G. S. Koppell
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12610
• Published date: 01 September 2016
• Date: 01 September 2016

790 Public Administration Review • September | October 2016

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 76, Iss. 5, pp. 790–803. © 2016 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12610.

Jonathan G. S. Koppell is dean

of the College of Public Service and

Community Solutions and Lattie and Elva

Coor Presidential Professor at Arizona State

University. He is author of

World Rule:

Accountability, Legitimacy and the Dynamics

of Global Governance

and

The Politics of

Quasi-Government.

He is a fellow of the

National Academy of Public Administration

and previously directed the Millstein Center

for Corporate Governance and Performance

at Yale University.

E-mail : koppell@asu.edu

H. George Frederickson is Emeritus

Distinguished Professor of Public Affairs

at the University of Kansas and President

Emeritus of Eastern Washington University.

He is former president of the American

Society for Public Administration and a

fellow of the National Academy of Public

Administration. He is founding editor of

Journal of Public Administration Research

and Theory

and coauthor of

The Public

Administration Theory Primer.

E-mail : gfred@ku.edu

Jacob Fowles is associate professor

in the School of Public Affairs and

Administration at the University of

Kansas. His research has appeared or is

in press in such journals as the

Journal

of Policy Analysis and Management,

American Review of Public Administration,

Administration & Society,

and

Journal of

Higher Education.

He received his PhD

from the Martin School of Public Policy and

Administration at the University of Kentucky.

E-mail : jacob.fowles@ku.edu

Abstract : University ranking has high public visibility, the ranking business has flourished, and institutions of higher

education have not been able to ignore it. This study of university ranking presents general considerations of ranking

and institutional responses to it, particularly considering reactions to ranking, ranking as a self-fulfilling prophecy, and

ranking as a means of transforming qualities into quantities. The authors present a conceptual framework of university

ranking based on three propositions and carry out a descriptive statistical analysis of U.S. and international ranking

data to evaluate those propositions. The first proposition of university ranking is that ranking systems are demarcated

by a high degree of stability, equilibrium, and path dependence. The second proposition links ranking to institutional

identity. The third proposition posits that rankings function as a catalyst for institutional isomorphism. The conclusion

reviews some important new developments in university ranking.

Practitioner Points

• Because rankings simplify, decontextualize, and magnify small differences, they can incentivize managers to

focus on relative positioning rather than improvement in absolute terms.

• Rankings, once established, become important components of identity, and those organizations privileged by

rankings strategically leverage them to shape their institutional identity.

• Ranking systems can function to inhibit diversity and promote uniformity and standardization.

A generation has passed since U.S. News & World

Report ( USNWR ) published its first newsstand

guidebook America ’ s Best Colleges in 1983 and

Best Graduate and Professional Schools in 1987. More

than a decade has passed since the Shanghai Jiao Tong

University Institute of Education first published the

Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) in

2003. In the ensuing years, the college and university

ranking business has flourished. “There are three

leading global ranking systems plus eight other global

rankers of varying significance, and there are over 50

national (U.S, Korea, Germany, Canada, etc.) ranking

systems” (Hazelkorn 2011 , 5). University ranking

systems have proven popular because they enable

and formalize comparison. At the university level, it

has been determined, for example, that a one-rank

improvement in the USNWR best colleges ranking

leads to a 1 percentage point increase in the number

of applicants the following year (Luca and Smith

2013 ). Because higher education is an important

driver of economic development, university rankings

also influence state and national competiveness

(Hazelkorn 2011 ).

As the university ranking business has flourished, so,

too, has the study of it. Research by university faculty

in the formative years of university rankings tended

to critique the endeavor (Diamond and Graham

2000 ; Dichev 2001 ; Frederickson 2001 ; Graham and

Diamond 1997 ). In recent years, the study of ranking

has become more longitudinally comparative, more

analytically sophisticated, and more global (Erkkilä

2013 ; Espeland and Sauder 2007 ; Frederickson and

Stazyk 2010 ; Hazelkorn 2011 ; Jones 2013 ; Sauder

and Espeland 2009 ). With the passage of time, it

is clear that ranking universities is not only here to

stay, it is proving to be both resilient and surprisingly

influential in university policy and practice.

The ranking of universities is not a distinct

phenomenon applicable only within the domain of

higher education. Rather, the evolving salience of

rankings in higher education is best viewed within a

broad context of modern demands for “accountability,

transparency, and efficiency … and social measures

designed to evaluate the performance of individuals

and organizations” (Espeland and Sauder 2007 ,

1). Indeed, rankings, ratings, and report cards are

established and prominent components of initiatives

to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of health

care providers (Dranove et al. 2003 ; Fung et al. 2008 ;

Mukamel, Haeder, and Weimer 2014 ), primary and

Jacob Fowles

H. George Frederickson

University of Kansas

Jonathan G. S. Koppell

Arizona State University

University Rankings: Evidence and a Conceptual Framework