Rankings, Diversity and the Power of Renewal in Science. A Comparison between Germany, the UK and the US

Rankings are part and parcel of the neoliberal agenda in science aiming at increasing the competitive allocation of funds among universities. This article focuses on the decreasing power of renewal in science as a result of this agenda particularly because of its increasingly consolidated stratification of the academic system into elite and mass institutions. A comparison based on data from the Academic Ranking of World Universities of the Shanghai Jiao Tong University between the less stratified German system, the more strongly stratified British system, and the most strongly stratified, though at its heart still diverse US-American system provides a first test of the hypotheses.

[1]  V. Burris.  The Academic Caste System: Prestige Hierarchies in PhD Exchange Networks , 2004 .

[2]  Lewis Elton,et al.  The UK Research Assessment Exercise: Unintended Consequences , 2000 .

[3]  Paul J. Curran.  Competition in UKHigher Education: Competitive Advantage in the Research Assessment Exercise and Porter's Diamond Model , 2000 .

[4]  E. Deci,et al.  A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. , 1999, Psychological bulletin.

[5]  A. Fontana,et al.  The Birth of Biopolitics , 2008 .

[6]  Wendy Nelson Espeland,et al.  How Rankings Affect Diversity , 2009 .

[7]  Andrea Scharnhorst,et al.  Competition in science and the Matthew core journals , 2001, Scientometrics.

[8]  Wendy Nelson Espeland,et al.  The Discipline of Rankings: Tight Coupling and Organizational Change , 2009 .

[9]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Potential sources of bias in research fellowship assessments: effects of university prestige and field of study , 2006 .

[10]  R. Merton.  The Matthew Effect in Science , 1968, Science.

[11]  Stephen J. McNamee,et al.  Stratification in Science , 1994 .

[12]  W. Espeland,et al.  Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds1 , 2007, American Journal of Sociology.

[13]  R. Green,et al.  Institutionalized biases in the award of research grants: a preliminary analysis revisiting the principle of accumulative advantage , 2004 .

[14]  John P. Walsh,et al.  Academic Entrepreneurship and Exchange of Scientific Resources , 2012 .

[15]  Jill Johnes,et al.  Performance assessment in higher education in Britain , 1996 .

[16]  P. Kruger.  The National Science Foundation (NSF), Research Applied to National Needs (RANN), Fiscal year 1975, program for geothermal resources research and technology , 1974 .

[17]  D. Campbell.  Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. , 1957, Psychological bulletin.

[18]  Dorothea Jansen,et al.  Drittmittel als Performanzindikator der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung , 2007 .

[19]  M. BONITZ,et al.  Characteristics and impact of the matthew effect for countries , 1997, Scientometrics.

[20]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Is Inequality Among Universities Increasing? Gini Coefficients and the Elusive Rise of Elite Universities , 2010, Minerva.

[21]  D. Helbing,et al.  Global Multi-Level Analysis of the ‘Scientific Food Web' , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[22]  Jack Andrew Goldstone.  A Deductive Explanation of the Matthew Effect in Science , 1979 .

[23]  P. Bourdieu.  The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason , 1975 .

[24]  Robert K. Merton,et al.  The Thomas Theorem and The Matthew Effect , 1995 .