University rankings in the Nordic countries: impacts on policy and practice

ABSTRACT

There is already a substantial body of research on the use and shortcomings of global university rankings. Furthermore, policymakers have recently begun to question university rankings and advocate for alternative sustainable and equitable ways of improving the quality of higher education institutions and systems. Nonetheless, there is a lack of knowledge about the importance and impact of university rankings, as well as attitudes toward them, in Nordic policymaking and higher education. The purpose of this editorial is to set the context for the special issue “University rankings in the Nordic countries: impacts on policy and practice” and to demonstrate the relevance of university rankings in the Nordic setting.

KEYWORDS:

• Competition
• higher education
• league tables
• prestige
• quality
• university rankings

Much has already been written about university rankings. Nonetheless, there seems to be widespread agreement that university rankings have not only transformed the higher education landscape, but they have also become crucial tools for higher education institutions (HEIs) to measure their value in global higher education markets (Hazelkorn, 2011; Hazelkorn & Mihut, 2021). University rankings, according to Brankovic et al. (2023), are becoming institutionalized, that is, they are “embedded in a community’s belief systems, norms, and practices” (p. 721). As a result, it comes as no surprise that there are currently over 20 global university rankings as well as multiple regional and national rankings (Angelis et al., 2019). Although rankings such as the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings, Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings, and Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) are not the only indicators of a university's reputation and academic “excellence”, they do provide a quantitative and popular way to benchmark universities on a national, regional, and global scale. This is in the sense that rankings allow students and researchers – as well as governments, policymakers and investors – to compare universities internationally or within specific regions or globally, assisting them in identifying institutions that correspond with their goals and interests (Hazelkorn, 2023). In general, university rankings can be seen as an approximation of an institution's overall quality and reputation, taking elements such as academic success, research output, and faculty qualifications into account.

As institutions attempt to improve their rankings, they may be incentivized to boost their academic programs, research, and overall educational quality (Bernasconi & Knobel, 2021). High-ranking universities enjoy greater international recognition and attract a diverse and talented student body and faculty, fostering a global academic community as well as collaborative opportunities (Saisana et al., 2011). Indeed students can also benefit from the rankings. Prospective students can use rankings to make informed decisions about where to pursue their education, taking into account the reputation and strengths of different institutions (Broecke, 2015; Hazelkorn, 2008; Sauder & Lancaster, 2006). Students at highly-ranked universities may benefit from vast alumni networks and prestige of university, which in turn can aid in career development and job placement (Binder et al., 2015; Sauder & Espeland, 2009).

Nonetheless, the league tables of universities embody a plethora of social, ethical and methodological issues (e.g., Amsler & Bolsmann, 2012; Marginson, 2007; Shahjahan et al., 2022; Soh, 2017). Rankings are often based on subjective criteria, such as reputation surveys, which are susceptible to biases and preconceived notions about specific institutions (Altbach, 2006). Direct comparison is difficult since different ranking organizations employ different methodologies (Saisana et al., 2011). Many rankings emphasize specific attributes, such as research output and internationalization, which may not reflect the full breadth of a university's societal contributions, such as community involvement or teaching innovation (e.g., Erkkilä, 2014; Hazelkorn, 2007). Furthermore, rankings may stress short-term achievements while failing to capture universities’ long-term influence and contributions to society (Marginson, 2007). Rankings are based on data that may not be readily available for all universities, particularly those in developing countries, resulting in underrepresentation of certain regions and a manifestation of cultural imperialism (Ordorika & Lloyd, 2015). Some institutions may prioritize initiatives that boost their ranking but do not always promote education or research quality (Johnes, 2018). Overall, rankings do not take into account the diversity of educational missions, values, and goals among universities (Marginson, 2007), which can easily lead to a situation in which smaller or specialized institutions do not appear in global rankings, even if they excel in specific fields or provide unique educational experiences.

While the university rankings have become a key driver of institutional prestige and as a means to establish criteria of educational value in the countries such as United Kingdom and United States (Broecke, 2015; Pusser & Marginson, 2013), critical voices are rising (Brink, 2023). The US secretary of state, Miquel Cardona, called rankings “a joke”, urging prestige to be conferred on “colleges breaking cycles of poverty” (quoted in Hatch, 2022) while the 10th meeting of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) Ministers of Education adopted a Declaration proclaiming rankings “skewed” the values and priorities of universities, imposing “indefensible costs on developing country universities and detract[ing] from norms emphasizing cooperation, collaboration, sharing and solidarity” (BRICS Ministers of Education, 2023). See also statements by the European University Association (EUA, 2023), the Universities of the Netherlands (2023) and UNU based in Malaysia (IEG, 2023) in addition to well-publicized actions by individual universities. Against this background it is interesting to read the decision of China – the home of the influential ARWU – to shift away from global rankings due to their impact on the higher education system, diversity, and definitions of excellence (see Kang & Mok 2023).

Given all these developments from emergent influence to growing criticism, it is interesting to note the absence of information and/or analysis about the role and impact of, and attitudes to, university rankings across Nordic policymaking and higher education. Elken et al. (2016) discovered that global university rankings appear to have a minor impact on HEIs and their identities in the Nordic region. To what extent do university rankings matter in the Nordic context? How can we explain the relative dearth of critical inquiry? Was Nordic society effectively ahead of the posse given its strong social democratic value system where higher education is more likely to be considered a public good than a marketized commodity – or was it simply the lack of research?

This special issue attempts to answer these questions by featuring articles from not only the Nordic countries, but also from China and from the perspective of the global media landscape.

The opening article of the special issue maps the Nordic territory on what is already known on university rankings based on the research literature. In their scoping review Seyedeh Golafrooz Ramezani and Jani Ursin analyze how university rankings were addressed in research literature in the Nordic countries between 2003 and 2022. The review identified five intertwined research themes concerning university rankings, including those related to structural and governance reforms, educational affairs, funding and finances, research policies, and internationalization. The majority of the studies were conceptual in nature and were carried out using qualitative approaches. Furthermore, it appeared that there was a shift away from a narrow focus on international competitiveness and toward a more nuanced and critical view of university rankings. Mikko Kohvakka and Arto Nevala argue in their article on the role of university rankings in university mergers in Finland that when an idea of ranking is grounded in a particular place, it takes on hybrid forms due to individual agency as well as national and local contingencies found at that place. The authors use the concept of frictional translation to illustrate the translation process, “in which global university rankings are interpreted through nationally and locally specific assemblages of institutional forms that support, resist, or hybridize them”. The authors propose that analyzing actors’ translation practices allows us to acquire a better understanding of how competent individuals actively alter institutional dynamics in their organizational practice by mobilizing transnational moral orders.

Simon Warren examines the tension between two political rationalities in Danish higher education, a nativist politics of belonging and one of status competitiveness, using Gramscian conjunctural analysis. According to the author, Danish higher education has been structured as a nationalist public good with neoliberal elements, in the sense that Danish academics have been invited into a performative culture of world-class research (a feature associated with highly-ranked universities), with English dominating as the respected scientific language. Concurrently, a political consensus has emerged about the restriction of international student admission to Danish higher education and the reduction of English-medium education resulting in an ambivalent academic realm. In their case study Riyad A. Shahjahan and Naseeb K. Bhangal illustrate the roles of cultural producers and consumers in mediating the meaning of university rankings in the context of a global media landscape. The authors demonstrate how interactions between cultural producers and consumers affect a ranker's efforts to fix and diffuse meanings about higher education by using a cultural studies approach and multi-method analysis of the Quacquarelli Symonds’ (QS) digital texts.

Yuyang Kang and Ka Ho Mok analyze Chinese government's response to the challenges and policy changes concerning university rankings. The authors demonstrate that global university rankings have had a substantial impact on university governance in the context of globalization. The authors conclude that, rather than simply following the rules and criteria established by global university rankings, China is attempting to establish its own criteria and is beginning to distance itself from global rankings. Ulpukka Isopahkala-Bouret, Sonja Kosunen, and Nina Haltia examine how recent business graduates establish institutional hierarchies in Finland's national higher education landscape. The authors suggest, based on an interview study, that institutional hierarchies are created by the perceived selectivity of admissions, the future exchange value of education, and the competitiveness of student culture. According to the authors, Finnish students based their evaluations of the performance and quality of different business schools on the “ranking” of different admission thresholds rather than global rankings.

This collection of articles represents the first comprehensive examination of the impact of rankings on Nordic higher education. In so doing, it makes an important contribution to the international literature of rankings which has arguably played a significant role in shaping the discourse around rankings and university and governmental practice.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).