The Social Impact of University Rankings: Key Insights from the Keynote

That neatly set the scene for the day’s keynote speech, which was delivered by Professor Richard M. Walker, Chair Professor and Head of the Department of Government and International Affairs, as well as Director of the Lingnan University Institute of Advanced Study (LUIAS).  

Specifically, he spoke about the social impact of university rankings, how they are perceived in different quarters, and what effect this has. 

For instance, some universities appear to prioritise rankings in a bid to boost their reputation and funding. It is fair to assume that approach has a knock-on effect on everything from educational policy and approval of research projects to institutional behaviour and admissions guidelines.

Professor Walker considered both positives and negatives, drawing on relevant case studies to show how an increasing emphasis on comparative rankings influences university strategies, student demographics and, not surprisingly, the dynamics between members of faculty. 

While a university’s impact can be incredibly broad, including contributions to economic development, sustainability, health and well-being, he chose to focus mainly on the public management and social science perspectives.    

“Public organisations are typically seen as being very complex in nature, and there is a wide variety of stakeholders,” Professor Walker said. “But the complex nature of the goals often means there is not clarity about how to assess performance and there is often limited information. The remedy is to create competition – and rankings are competitive.”    

Providing context, he outlined principles and methodologies of performance management in public service which, in one form, can be judged by economy, efficiency and effectiveness.  

Another model measures inputs, outputs and outcomes in looking to identify value for money, as well as the quality, quantity and consequences of the services provided.   

Of necessity, a performance ranking for a university should draw data from many sources and consider factors extending from equity and citizen satisfaction to governance, accountability and probity.  

 
“Data can be from inside or outside the organisation, perceptual or archival,” Professor Walker said. “But any ranking system should speak to many stakeholders – current students and prospective applicants, businesses, government, donors and alumni – and take account of different expectations about the performance information they each like to receive.” 

For example, some will be looking for the number of academic citations, research grants, and evidence of social impact within the wider community. Others will be concentrating on the education aspects, knowledge transfer, equal access to places, and whether primary goals are being met. 

“The positive effect of performance indicators will be greater if they can be easily interpreted by internal and external stakeholders,” Professor Walker said. “And while the ranking itself is a summary device, but as we break down the categories, we add a little more complication and often find the devil is in the detail.”