高等教育中的学术明星和大学排名:对政策和实践的影响

Michelle Stack
{"title":"高等教育中的学术明星和大学排名:对政策和实践的影响","authors":"Michelle Stack","doi":"10.1080/23322969.2019.1667859","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Drawing on the concepts of mediatisation and celebrification, this paper analyses how the Nobel Prize is used as a proxy of excellence by the ‘Big Three’ university rankers and top-ranked universities. Ranking advisories, university leadership at top-ranked institutions, and Nobel Prize adjudication committees are overwhelming from the same demographic: white men from the Global North. Who they deem ‘world class’ is overwhelmingly from the same demographic. Even though universities no longer have policies that keep out equity-seeking groups, the metrics used to determine world-classness re-entrench who is seen as a scholarly and administrative leader in higher education and what is considered world class knowledge. Drawing on social network analysis and multimedia critical discourse analysis, this paper argues that Nobel adjudication committees, ranking advisories and the leadership of top-ranked institutions form an echo chamber that conflates academic excellence with being white, male, wealthy, and famous. The paper concludes with the urgent need to address the cognitive dissonance of universities promoting spurious media-based metrics while at the same time claiming a commitment to equity policies and practices.","PeriodicalId":212965,"journal":{"name":"Policy Reviews in Higher Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Academic stars and university rankings in higher education: impacts on policy and practice\",\"authors\":\"Michelle Stack\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23322969.2019.1667859\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Drawing on the concepts of mediatisation and celebrification, this paper analyses how the Nobel Prize is used as a proxy of excellence by the ‘Big Three’ university rankers and top-ranked universities. Ranking advisories, university leadership at top-ranked institutions, and Nobel Prize adjudication committees are overwhelming from the same demographic: white men from the Global North. Who they deem ‘world class’ is overwhelmingly from the same demographic. Even though universities no longer have policies that keep out equity-seeking groups, the metrics used to determine world-classness re-entrench who is seen as a scholarly and administrative leader in higher education and what is considered world class knowledge. Drawing on social network analysis and multimedia critical discourse analysis, this paper argues that Nobel adjudication committees, ranking advisories and the leadership of top-ranked institutions form an echo chamber that conflates academic excellence with being white, male, wealthy, and famous. The paper concludes with the urgent need to address the cognitive dissonance of universities promoting spurious media-based metrics while at the same time claiming a commitment to equity policies and practices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":212965,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy Reviews in Higher Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy Reviews in Higher Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2019.1667859\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Reviews in Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2019.1667859","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

摘要

摘要:本文借鉴媒体化和名人化的概念,分析了“三大”大学排名和顶尖大学如何将诺贝尔奖作为卓越的代表。排名顾问、顶尖学府的大学领导以及诺贝尔奖评审委员会的绝大多数人都来自同一个群体:来自全球北方的白人男性。他们认为“世界级”的人绝大多数来自同一人群。尽管大学不再有将寻求公平的团体拒之门外的政策,但用来确定世界一流水平的指标重新确立了谁被视为高等教育领域的学术和行政领导者,以及被视为世界一流的知识。利用社会网络分析和多媒体批评话语分析,本文认为,诺贝尔评审委员会、排名顾问和排名靠前的机构的领导形成了一个回音室,将学术卓越与白人、男性、富有和著名混淆在一起。论文的结论是,迫切需要解决大学提倡虚假的基于媒体的指标的认知失调,同时声称对公平政策和实践的承诺。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Academic stars and university rankings in higher education: impacts on policy and practice
ABSTRACT Drawing on the concepts of mediatisation and celebrification, this paper analyses how the Nobel Prize is used as a proxy of excellence by the ‘Big Three’ university rankers and top-ranked universities. Ranking advisories, university leadership at top-ranked institutions, and Nobel Prize adjudication committees are overwhelming from the same demographic: white men from the Global North. Who they deem ‘world class’ is overwhelmingly from the same demographic. Even though universities no longer have policies that keep out equity-seeking groups, the metrics used to determine world-classness re-entrench who is seen as a scholarly and administrative leader in higher education and what is considered world class knowledge. Drawing on social network analysis and multimedia critical discourse analysis, this paper argues that Nobel adjudication committees, ranking advisories and the leadership of top-ranked institutions form an echo chamber that conflates academic excellence with being white, male, wealthy, and famous. The paper concludes with the urgent need to address the cognitive dissonance of universities promoting spurious media-based metrics while at the same time claiming a commitment to equity policies and practices.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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