Scholars’ influence on their institutions: Reputation,prestige,and rankings

Abstract

This research article examines the relationship of individual scholars to overall research production and develops new ranking schema upon the absence of top individual scholarship as demonstrations of individual scholarship relative to total rankings. The study creates a ranking system focused on the impact of individual scholars in public administration research. The contributions of this ranking system are to provide a different view than traditional ranking schemas at the institutional and departmental level. In addition, questions about the significance of scholarship within the discipline and for academic institutions outlines the reinforcing nature of systems aimed at identifying a “best” within public administration. Comparisons of findings are discussed in contrast to reputational and prestige ranking systems. Subsequent discussion is focused on the importance of individual scholarship to the institutional rankings through evaluating individual movement between institutions.

Keywords

Prestige ranking system scholar mobility reputation institutions

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

(1983) Reputation, size, and student success in public administration/ affairs programs. Public Administration Review 43(5): 443–446.

Aldersley

(1995) Upward drift is alive and well: Research/ doctoral model still attractive to institutions. Change 27(5): 50–56.

Ammons

(2001) Municipal benchmarks: Assessing local performance and establishing community standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Ash

Urquiola

(2018) A Research-Based Ranking of Public Policy Schools (January 5, 2018). Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3096545 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3096545 (accessed 15 March 2019).

Baldwin

(1988) Comparison of perceived effectiveness of MPA programs administered under different institutional arrangements. Public Administration Review 48(5): 876–884.

Behn

(2003) Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review 63(5): 586–606.

Brewer

Gates

Goldman

(2001) In pursuit of prestige: Strategy and competition in U.S. higher education. Brunscwick: Transaction Publishers.

Burris

(2004) The academic caste system: Prestige hierarchies in PhD exchange networks. American Sociological Review 69(2): 239–264.

Charbonneau

Bernier

Bautista-Beauchesne

(2018) Punching below its weight: Canadian public administration scholarship on the world stage. Canadian Public Admin 61(3): 361–384.

10.

Cleary

(1990) What do public administration masters programs look like? Do they do what is needed? Public Administration Review 50(6): 663–673.

11.

Coe

(2003) A report card on report cards. Public Performance & Management Review 27(2): 53–76.

12.

Cutright

(2003) In pursuit of prestige: Strategy and competition in U.S. higher education (review). The Journal of Higher Education 74(2): 238–240.

13.

Dill

(2009) Convergence and diversity: The role and influence of university ranking. In Barbara

Bjørn

(eds) University rankings, diversity, and the new landscape of higher education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers 97–116.

14.

Ferris

Stallings

(1988) Sources of reputation among public administration and public affairs programs. American Review of Public Administration 18(3): 309–325.

15.

Finnegan

Gamson

(1996) Disciplinary adaptations to research culture in comprehensive institutions. Review of Higher Education: 19(2): 141–177.

16.

Fowles

Frederickson

Koppell

JGS

(2016) University rankings: Evidence and a conceptual framework. Public Administration Review 76(5): 790–803.

17.

Frederickson

(2001, January/February). Getting ranked. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 33(1): 48–55.

18.

Frederickson

Stazyk

(2016) Ranking public policy and administration graduate programs, 1995–2016: An analysis and discussion. American Review of Public Administration 46(5): 507–525.

19.

Gardner

(2010) Keeping up with the Joneses: Socialization and culture in doctoral education at one striving institution. The Journal of Higher Education 81(6): 658–679.

20.

Halamachi

(2002) Performance measurement, accountability, and improved performance. Public Performance & Management Review 25(4): 370–374.

21.

Hughes

(1925) A study of the graduate schools of America. Oxford, OH: Miami University Press.

22.

Jencks

Riesman

(1968) The academic revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

23.

Johnes

(1988) Research performance indications in the university sector. Higher Education Quarterly 42(1): 54–71.

24.

Jones

(1997) The changing politics and policies of higher education. International Higher Education 7(5): 16–17.

25.

Knepper

Scutelnicu

Tekula

(2019) Why gender and research productivity matters in academia: Exploring evidence from NASPAA-accredited schools. Journal of Public Affairs Education. DOI: 10.1080/15236803.2019.1565066.

26.

Koven

Goetzke

Brennan

(2008) Profiling Public Affairs Programs. Administration & Society 40(7): 691–710.

27.

Lashman

(2017) Ranking Research Productivity of the Arts and Science Colleges in Kerala. Gandhinagar, Gujarat: INFLIBNET Centre, 282–291.

28.

Lovett

(2005). The perils of pursuing prestige. The Chronicle of Higher Education 51(20): B20.

29.

Marsh

(1979) Annotated bibliography of research on the relationship between quality of teaching and quality of research in higher education. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Office of Institutional Studies.

30.

Marsh

(1984) Students evaluations of teaching: dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and utility. Journal of Educational Psychology (76)5: 707–754.

31.

Massy

Zemsky

(1994) Faculty discretionary time. Journal of Higher Education 65(1): 1–22.

32.

McCormick

Zhao

C-M

(2005) Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie classification. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 37(5): 51–57.

33.

McPherson

Schapiro

(1999) The future economic challenges to liberal arts colleges. Daedalus 128(1): 47–73.

34.

Meredith

(2004) Why do universities compete in the ratings game? An empirical analysis of the effects of the U.S. News and World Report College rankings. Research in Higher Education 45(5): 443–461.

35.

Michael

(2005) The cost of excellence: The financial implications of institutional rankings. International Journal of Educational Management 19(5): 365–382.

36.

Milem

Berger

Dey

(2000) Faculty time allocation: A study of change over twenty years. The Journal of Higher Education 71(4): 454–473.

37.

Morcol

Han

(2018) The National Research Council’s rankings of doctoral programs in public affairs. International Journal of Public Administration 41(8): 630–644.

38.

Morgan

Meier

(1982) Reputation and productivity of public administration/ public affairs programs: Additional data. Public Administration Review 42(2): 171–173.

39.

Morgan

Meier

Kearney

, et al. (1981) Reputation and productivity among U.S. public adminsitration and public affairs programs. Public Adminsitration Review 41(6): 666–673.

40.

Morphew

(2002) A rose by any other name: Which colleges became universities. Review of Higher Education 25(2): 207–224.

41.

Neave

(1979) Academic drift: Some views from Europe. Studies in Higher Education 4(2): 143–159.

42.

O’Meara

Bloomgarden

(2011) The pursuit of prestige: The experience of institutional striving from a faculty perspective. The Journal of the Professoriate 4(1): 39–73.

43.

Osborne

Gaebler

(1992) Reinventing government. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

44.

Osborne

Hutchinson

(2004) The price of government: Getting the results we need in an age of permanent fiscal crisis. New York: Basic Books.

45.

Perrow

(1961) Organizational prestige: Some functions and dysfunctions. The American Journal of Sociology 66(4): 335–341.

46.

Rodgers

(2000) Defining the boundaries of public administration: Undisciplined mongrels versus disciplined purists. Public Administration Review 60(5): 435–445.

47.

Scutelnicu

Knepper

(2019) A tale of two journals: Women’s representation in public administration scholarship. Public Integrity 21(1): 38–53.

48.

Shin

Toutkoushian

(2011) The past, present, and future of university rankings. In Shin

Toutkoushian

(eds) University Rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education. Dordrecht: Springer, 1–16.

49.

Shin

Harman

(2009) New challenges for higher education: Global and Asia-Pacific perspectives. Asia Pacific Education Review 10(1): 1–13.

50.

Stuart

(1995) Reputational rankings: Background and development. In Walleri

Moss

(eds) New Directions for Institutional Research No. 88: Evaluating and Responding to College Guidebooks and Rankings. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 633–661.

51.

Usher

Medow

(2009) A global survey of university rankings and league tables. In Barbara

Bjørn

(eds) University rankings, diversity, and the new landscape of higher education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 3–18.

52.

Uveges

(1987) Identifying the impacts of NASPAA’s MPA standards and peer review process of education for the public service: 1975–1985. International Journal of Public Administration 9(2): 193–227.

53.

Van de Walle

van Delft

(2015) Publishing in public administration: Issues with defining, comparing and ranking the output of universities. International Public Management Journal 18(1): 87–107.

54.

van Raan

(2007) Challenges in ranking universities. In Sadlack

Nian Cai

(eds) The world-class university and ranking: Aiming beyond status. Bucharest: UNESCO-CEPES, 87–121.

55.

Vazire

(2017a) Our obsession with eminence warps research. Nature 547(7661): 7.

56.

Vazire

(2017b) Against eminence. PsyArXiv. Available at: https://psyarxiv.com/djbcw (accessed 21 February 2019).

57.

Webster

(1992) Reputational rankings of colleges, universities, and individual disciplines and fields of study, from their beginnings to present. In Smart

(ed) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. New York: Agathon Press, 8: 234–304.

58.

Williams

Slagle

Wilson

(2014) Ranking universities for scholarship in public administration research, 2006–2010. Journal of Public Affairs Education 20(3): 393–412.

59.

Wholey

Hatry

(1992) The case for performance monitoring. Public Adminsitration Review 52(6): 604–611.

60.

Zemsky

Wegner

Massy

(2005). Today’s colleges must be market smart and mission centered. The Chronicle of Higher Education 51(45): B6–B8.