Is Inequality Among Universities Increasing? Gini Coefficients and the Elusive Rise of Elite Universities.

IF 3.2 2区 哲学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Minerva Pub Date : 2010-03-01 Epub Date: 2010-03-20 DOI:10.1007/s11024-010-9141-3
Willem Halffman, Loet Leydesdorff
{"title":"Is Inequality Among Universities Increasing? Gini Coefficients and the Elusive Rise of Elite Universities.","authors":"Willem Halffman,&nbsp;Loet Leydesdorff","doi":"10.1007/s11024-010-9141-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>One of the unintended consequences of the New Public Management (NPM) in universities is often feared to be a division between elite institutions focused on research and large institutions with teaching missions. However, institutional isomorphisms provide counter-incentives. For example, university rankings focus on certain output parameters such as publications, but not on others (e.g., patents). In this study, we apply Gini coefficients to university rankings in order to assess whether universities are becoming more unequal, at the level of both the world and individual nations. Our results do not support the thesis that universities are becoming more unequal. If anything, we predominantly find homogenisation, both at the level of the global comparisons and nationally. In a more restricted dataset (using only publications in the natural and life sciences), we find increasing inequality for those countries, which used NPM during the 1990s, but not during the 2000s. Our findings suggest that increased output steering from the policy side leads to a global conformation to performance standards.</p>","PeriodicalId":47427,"journal":{"name":"Minerva","volume":"48 1","pages":"55-72"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2010-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11024-010-9141-3","citationCount":"106","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-010-9141-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2010/3/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 106

Abstract

One of the unintended consequences of the New Public Management (NPM) in universities is often feared to be a division between elite institutions focused on research and large institutions with teaching missions. However, institutional isomorphisms provide counter-incentives. For example, university rankings focus on certain output parameters such as publications, but not on others (e.g., patents). In this study, we apply Gini coefficients to university rankings in order to assess whether universities are becoming more unequal, at the level of both the world and individual nations. Our results do not support the thesis that universities are becoming more unequal. If anything, we predominantly find homogenisation, both at the level of the global comparisons and nationally. In a more restricted dataset (using only publications in the natural and life sciences), we find increasing inequality for those countries, which used NPM during the 1990s, but not during the 2000s. Our findings suggest that increased output steering from the policy side leads to a global conformation to performance standards.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大学之间的不平等正在加剧吗?基尼系数与精英大学难以捉摸的崛起。
人们常常担心,大学新公共管理(NPM)带来的一个意想不到的后果是,专注于研究的精英机构与肩负教学使命的大型机构之间出现了分歧。然而,制度同构提供了反激励。例如,大学排名侧重于某些产出参数,如出版物,而不是其他参数(如专利)。在这项研究中,我们将基尼系数应用于大学排名,以评估大学是否在世界和个别国家的水平上变得更加不平等。我们的研究结果并不支持大学正变得越来越不平等的论点。如果有什么区别的话,我们主要发现同质化,无论是在全球比较水平还是在国内比较水平上。在一个更有限的数据集中(仅使用自然和生命科学领域的出版物),我们发现那些在20世纪90年代使用NPM的国家的不平等日益加剧,而不是在21世纪初。我们的研究结果表明,从政策方面增加产出导向导致全球符合绩效标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Minerva
Minerva Multiple-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Minerva is devoted to the study of ideas, traditions, cultures and institutions in science, higher education and research. It is concerned no less with history than with present practice, and with the local as well as the global. It speaks to the scholar, the teacher, the policy-maker and the administrator. It features articles, essay reviews and ''special'' issues on themes of topical importance. It represents no single school of thought, but welcomes diversity, within the rules of rational discourse. Its contributions are peer-reviewed. Its audience is world-wide.
期刊最新文献
The EUropeanisation of Research Infrastructure Policy Between Delivery and Luck: Projectification of Academic Careers and Conflicting Notions of Worth at the Postdoc Level Benchmarking and the Technicization of Academic Discourse: The Case of the EU at-Risk of Poverty or Social Exclusion Composite Indicator Strategic Bureaucracy: The Convergence of Bureaucratic and Strategic Management Logics in the Organizational Restructuring of Universities The Therapeutic University
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1