Search

University rankings have raised huge interest in the social sciences because of their methodological foundations and impact. Rankings have also gained popularity in the media system. In this article we analyze the coverage offered by the media to the Italian Research Evaluation exercise-VQR 2004-2010. Even though this evaluation did not have university rankings as its main goal, it did include this kind of information in conformity with the law requirements and intention of the government to use the ranking for the purpose of funding allocation to universities. After the presentation of the results, we examined all the articles published in newspapers, magazines and specialized websites in order to understand what type of information had been extracted from the evaluation exercise and offered to readers. A set of descriptive hypotheses on the structure and dynamics of the media coverage of VQR information at the aggregate level was tested by a content analysis of the articles. We found that the enormous amount of information produced by the VQR project was virtually ignored and that ranking type is the only information that finds its way into the media. The article concludes by suggesting implications for future evaluation exercises and related communication strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Higher education institutions increasingly live in environments in which they are subject to evaluation and rankings. We examine the way in which Italian (mostly public) universities adapted to the new landscape created by the official research assessments, which have produced rankings at national level, published in 2013 and 2016. We compare the media coverage of rankings after the first research assessment (covering 2004–10) and the second one (2011–4). By examining the same type of media data longitudinally, replicating regression analysis, and using robustness checks, we discover a remarkable degree of organizational adaptation. After the initial shock following the first research assessment (2004–10), in which universities were mostly passive, universities rapidly learnt how to deal with rankings. After the second exercise, they actively and professionally communicated with the media, building up self-made rankings data aimed at protecting and enhancing their image, using a range of categorization tactics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]