The article "The University Ranking Game in East Asia: The Sensemaking of Academic Leaders Between Pressures and Fatigue" by ChangeSchool Higher Education Academic Lead Professor Marie Lall, along with Dr Licia Proserpio and Professor Camille Kandiko Howson, explores how university rankings shape academic leadership and policies in East Asian universities, particularly in Mainland China, South Korea, and Japan. This research focuses on the perspectives of middle-level academic leaders who are often tasked with implementing ranking-related policies. It reveals that while rankings have significantly influenced these institutions' policies, a pervasive sense of "ranking fatigue" has emerged.
Context
University rankings have become central to higher education, especially in East Asia, where governments have used rankings to measure institutional quality and national progress. The article underscores how rankings, originally designed as benchmarks for external stakeholders, have gradually influenced university internal governance and management. However, leaders in these institutions often view rankings as unreliable due to a lack of transparency and a Western bias, which doesn't always align with local educational needs and values.
The Rankings Dilemma
For middle-level academic leaders, rankings present a paradox. They don't always trust rankings but feel compelled to participate because of pressure from various stakeholders. These leaders believe that if their institutions do not perform well, they risk losing support from governments, donors, and even other universities. Leaders note that international rankings drive strategic decision-making around partnerships and resource allocation. Rankings have influenced decisions on funding allocation, research focus, and even curriculum development in some cases, often skewing priorities toward achieving a higher global rank.
Ranking Fatigue and Institutional Impact
The concept of "ranking fatigue" describes the emotional and professional exhaustion many leaders feel as they engage with ranking systems they find flawed. The study suggests that despite their initial enthusiasm, East Asian universities are now weary of the competitive "ranking game." Academic leaders feel that rankings, rather than enhancing institutional quality or helping universities address societal needs, often impose restrictive measures and create a narrow focus on research output and reputation.
Alternative Pathways and Future Directions
The article highlights a call among these leaders for alternatives to traditional ranking systems. Some leaders advocate for a shift from competitive ranking to metrics focusing on social impact and sustainable development. Such changes could allow universities to prioritise local and national goals rather than adhering strictly to metrics often shaped by Western standards. This exploration reflects a broader debate about the relevance of global ranking systems in a diverse educational landscape. It suggests a possible move toward a more collaborative and sustainable approach to measuring university success in East Asia.
Geopolitical Tensions and National Policies
The geopolitical implications of university rankings are also significant. The arms race to improve university standings has exacerbated competitiveness among countries rather than fostering regional cooperation. For instance, Japan's decline in global rankings has been attributed to the rise of Chinese and South Korean institutions. This situation illustrates how the zero-sum logic of rankings can create exclusivity among nations.
In China specifically, government initiatives like the 211 Project launched in the early 1990s aimed at establishing "world standard" higher education by funnelling substantial funding into select universities. The subsequent 985 Project targeted an even smaller group of elite institutions gaining international recognition. These efforts have dramatically increased research productivity in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), allowing Chinese universities like Peking University and Tsinghua University to solidify their positions among the best globally.
In summary, this exploration highlights how university rankings significantly affect academic leaders in East Asia while revealing the emotional toll associated with navigating these pressures. The findings underscore the need for a deeper understanding of how these dynamics operate within higher education systems. By advocating for alternative measures prioritising educational quality and social impact over numerical standings, stakeholders can work towards reshaping the future landscape of higher education in East Asia. This shift could lead to more collaborative approaches that better reflect local contexts and needs rather than adhering strictly to global ranking metrics.
You can download and read the full article here: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-024-10012-3.