Why Research Universities Should be Wary of Media Rankings

The Global Language Institute has started a new index that ranks universities by number of media mentions. Below is their top ten universities.

I have a few reservations and cautions about the significance of these rankings. At one level, having comparative benchmarks that provide at least some data about the media profile of the research conducted at universities is better than no data at all. However, there is the risk that these ranking reinforce the marketing and publicity trend among research universities, with science joining athletics as a part of the competitive branding of the university.

Instead of thinking of science communication as a publicity process, research universities need to make sure that they are instead thinking of science communication as an ongoing partnership and trust-building process. Science communication expert Rick Borchelt calls this process "managing the trust portfolio," a key approach he details in a recent book chapter in an excellent edited volume on science communication. (See also powerpoint).

1. Harvard University, MA
2 . Columbia University, NY
3 . University of Chicago, IL
4 . University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
5. Stanford University, CA
6. University of Wisconsin-Madison
7. Cornell University, NY
8 . Princeton University, NJ
9. Yale University, CT
10. University of California-Berkeley

Hat tip to Nanopublic.

More like this

there are many ways to rank a program: including its reputation, its performance, and more subtle quantitative indicators, some of which are contradictory and mutually inconsistent. Rankings are also generally lagging indicators and imperfect indicators of future performance, they are vulnerable to…
So, what do we make of the NRC Rankings? What drives the different rankings, and what are the issues and surprises? First, the R-rankings really are reputational - they are a bit more elaborate than just asking straight up, but what they reduce to is direct evaluation by respondents without…
Why stop now! The latest stats for you: Top 10 cities in university research spending in the US. [From Network Boston.] City -- R&D expenditures by the city's universities and colleges in 2004 (dollars in thousands)1 1. Baltimore, MD--1,750,9042 2. Los Angeles, CA--1,527,602 3. Boston, MA--1,…
The NRC rankings are out. Penn State Astronomy is ranked #3 - behind Princeton and Caltech. W00t! PSU doing the mostest with the leastest. The Data Based Assessment of Graduate Programs by the National Research Council, for 2010, is out, reporting on the 2005 state of the program. The full data…

No, bad data is worse than no data -- it positively corrupts your thinking process.

And I haaaate the concept of branding. It's about impressions rather than reality; as soon as someone is looking at their "branding", I know to immediately ignore them as grifters and cons.

I agree. I think the ranking are interesting and don't necessarily cause harm by themselves. However, when people start distorting behavior based on the ranking, in order to raise their rankings... then the rankings can lead to some very harmful behavior and more importantly reduce sensible action (as people focus on simplistic rankings instead of thinking about what they can do to make things better).