A power-critique of academic rankings: Beyond managers, institutions, and positivism

IF 0.8 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
John Welsh
{"title":"A power-critique of academic rankings: Beyond managers, institutions, and positivism","authors":"John Welsh","doi":"10.1177/1757743820986173","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The bulk of research on academic rankings is policy-oriented, preoccupied with ‘best practices’, and seems incapable of transcending the normative discourse of ‘governance’. To understand, engage, and properly critique the operation of power in academic rankings, the rankings discourse needs to escape the gravity of ‘police science’ and embrace a properly political science of ranking. More specifically, the article identifies three pillars of the extant research from which a departure would be critically fruitful – positivism, managerialism, institutionalism – and then goes on to outline three aspects of rankings that a critical political analysis should explore, integrate, and develop into future research from the discourses of critical theory – arkhè, dispositif, and dialectik.","PeriodicalId":37109,"journal":{"name":"Power and Education","volume":"429 ","pages":"28 - 42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1757743820986173","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Power and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1757743820986173","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

The bulk of research on academic rankings is policy-oriented, preoccupied with ‘best practices’, and seems incapable of transcending the normative discourse of ‘governance’. To understand, engage, and properly critique the operation of power in academic rankings, the rankings discourse needs to escape the gravity of ‘police science’ and embrace a properly political science of ranking. More specifically, the article identifies three pillars of the extant research from which a departure would be critically fruitful – positivism, managerialism, institutionalism – and then goes on to outline three aspects of rankings that a critical political analysis should explore, integrate, and develop into future research from the discourses of critical theory – arkhè, dispositif, and dialectik.
学术排名的权力批判:超越管理者、机构和实证主义
大部分关于学术排名的研究都是以政策为导向的,专注于“最佳实践”,似乎无法超越“治理”的规范性话语。为了理解、参与并正确地批评学术排名中的权力运作,排名话语需要摆脱“警察科学”的重力,并接受一种适当的排名政治学。更具体地说,本文确定了现有研究的三个支柱,从这些支柱出发将具有批判性的成果-实证主义,管理主义,制度主义-然后继续概述了批判性政治分析应该探索,整合和发展的排名的三个方面,并从批判理论的话语中发展到未来的研究- arkhè, dispositif和辩证法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Power and Education
Power and Education Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
44
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信