Book section Open Access

University Rankings and Governance by Metrics and Algorithms

Chen, George; Chan, Leslie


DataCite XML Export

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<resource xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://datacite.org/schema/kernel-4" xsi:schemaLocation="http://datacite.org/schema/kernel-4 http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-4.1/metadata.xsd">
  <identifier identifierType="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.4730593</identifier>
  <creators>
    <creator>
      <creatorName>Chen, George</creatorName>
      <givenName>George</givenName>
      <familyName>Chen</familyName>
      <affiliation>JD Student at Harvard Law School</affiliation>
    </creator>
    <creator>
      <creatorName>Chan, Leslie</creatorName>
      <givenName>Leslie</givenName>
      <familyName>Chan</familyName>
      <nameIdentifier nameIdentifierScheme="ORCID" schemeURI="http://orcid.org/">0000-0001-7779-2059</nameIdentifier>
      <affiliation>University of Toronto Scarborough</affiliation>
    </creator>
  </creators>
  <titles>
    <title>University Rankings and Governance by Metrics and Algorithms</title>
  </titles>
  <publisher>Zenodo</publisher>
  <publicationYear>2021</publicationYear>
  <subjects>
    <subject>university rankings</subject>
    <subject>Knowledge infrastructure</subject>
    <subject>data analytics</subject>
    <subject>algorithmic governance</subject>
    <subject>platform society</subject>
    <subject>surveillance capitalism</subject>
  </subjects>
  <dates>
    <date dateType="Issued">2021-04-15</date>
  </dates>
  <resourceType resourceTypeGeneral="BookChapter"/>
  <alternateIdentifiers>
    <alternateIdentifier alternateIdentifierType="url">https://zenodo.org/record/4730593</alternateIdentifier>
  </alternateIdentifiers>
  <relatedIdentifiers>
    <relatedIdentifier relatedIdentifierType="DOI" relationType="IsVersionOf">10.5281/zenodo.4730592</relatedIdentifier>
    <relatedIdentifier relatedIdentifierType="URL" relationType="IsPartOf">https://zenodo.org/communities/kel</relatedIdentifier>
  </relatedIdentifiers>
  <version>Chen, George, &amp; Chan, Leslie. (2021). University Rankings and Governance by Metrics and Algorithms (This is an OA version of a chapter in the Research Handbook on University Rankings: Theory, Methodology, Influence and Impact, edited by Ellen Hazelkorn and Georgiana Mihut, 2021, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.). https://zenodo.org/record/4730593#.Y2Ls24LMLlw</version>
  <rightsList>
    <rights rightsURI="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International</rights>
    <rights rightsURI="info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess">Open Access</rights>
  </rightsList>
  <descriptions>
    <description descriptionType="Abstract">&lt;p&gt;This paper looks closely at how data analytic providers leverage rankings as a part of their strategies to further extract rent and assets from the university beyond their traditional roles as publishers and citation data providers. Multinational publishers such as Elsevier, with over 2,500 journals in its portfolio, has transitioned to become a data analytic firm. Rankings expand their abilities to monetize further their existing journal holdings, as there is a strong association between publication in high-impact journals and improvement in rankings.&amp;nbsp; The global academic publishing industry has become highly oligopolistic, and a small handful of legacy multinational firms are now publishing the majority of the world&amp;rsquo;s research output (See Larivi&amp;egrave;re et. al. 2015; Fyfe et. al. 2017; Posada &amp;amp; Chen, 2018). It is therefore crucial that their roles and enormous market power in influencing university rankings be more closely scrutinized. We suggest that due to a combination of a lack of transparency regarding, for example, Elsevier&amp;rsquo;s data services and products and their self-positioning as a key intermediary in the commercial rankings business, they have managed to evade the social responsibilities and scrutiny that come with occupying such a critical public function in university evaluation. As the quest for ever-higher rankings often works in conflict with universities&amp;rsquo; public missions, it is critical to raise questions about the governance of such private digital platforms and the compatibility between their private interests and the maintenance of universities&amp;rsquo; public values.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
  </descriptions>
</resource>
2,895
1,614
views
downloads
All versions This version
Views 2,8952,890
Downloads 1,6141,614
Data volume 819.8 MB819.8 MB
Unique views 2,4762,471
Unique downloads 1,4561,456

Share

Cite as