Prestige Seeking in an Era of Globalized Third-Party Quality Assessment

• In Event: Advancing and Problematizing the Study of Prestige

Abstract

The pursuit of prestige has long been a hallmark of U.S. higher education. Most analysts view prestige as distinct from reputation (see Brewer, Gates, & Goldman, 2002) and much more closely tied to the knowledge-production dimension of institutional mission than to broader conceptions. As a result, prestige-holding and -seeking institutions typically link both claims of prestige and prestige ambitions to conventional markers of research achievement, such as aggregate research funding, publications, citations, prestigious academic awards (Nobel, Fields, etc.), and so on. Critics of this dynamic call attention to its consequences for other aspects of institutional mission and also for under-resourced institutions (O’Meara, 2007).

Markers of success in knowledge production are variously embedded in the Carnegie Classification as well as in rankings produced by the National Science Foundation and the National Research Council. From its first publication in 1973, the Carnegie Classification differentiated doctorate-granting universities according to government data on research funding, with other correlates of research activity added in 2005. Drawing on its annual data collections, NSF ranks institutions according to total monetary obligations of federal agencies, total research and development expenditures, and the number of doctorates awarded (NSF, n.d.). Since 1983 the National Academy of Sciences has produced occasional rankings of research-doctorate programs keyed to various markers of research success and esteem (NRC, 2011).

Prestige claims and prestige ambitions commonly invoke such sources. For example, a Google search on the term “carnegie classification” restricting results to the .edu domain returns titles such as “AU moves up in Carnegie Classification for research activity,” “Temple University reaches height of Carnegie research classification,” and “ULM earns elite doctoral designation by Carnegie Classification.” A similar search on “NSF ranking” returns articles such as “UC San Diego maintains No. 5 NSF ranking” and “Research momentum grows with new NSF ranking.”

These external markers of research prowess have two elements in common: they are produced in the United States by independent government agencies or not-for-profit organizations, and to varying degrees they are linked to academic norms such as peer review (albeit indirectly). Recent years have witnessed the emergence of new players in the domain of global rankings that also judge universities’ success in research and knowledge production. These include university-based or -grown efforts such as the Academic Ranking of World Universities (now an independent organization) and bibliometric rankings based at Leiden University, as well as rankings developed and promulgated by for-profit organizations such as THE World University Rankings (Times Higher Education) and QS World University Rankings (Quacquarelli Symonds). Google searches similar to those documented above reveal that these efforts also figure prominently in prestige claims.

This scholarly paper explores the recent globalization and commercialization of prestige measurement and its implications for scholarship on prestige seeking by examining questions such as: Do these developments signal a positive and globally relevant diversification of the prestige discourse? Do they unshackle university leaders by providing a more diverse set of goals and justifications, or do they further cement and institutionalize dominant conceptions?

Author

• Alexander C. McCormick, Indiana University - Bloomington