Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reputation — A hard-currency medium of interchange

A structural equation approach

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Within the theoretical framework of reputation as a social medium of interchange in the system of higher education this study analyses the institutional stratification of university departments in the field of economics and business administration. In contrast to the still prevailing normative idea of basic equality between academic institutions in the Federal Republic of Germany the empirical results indicate a stable hierarchy of reputation, very similar to the stratification pattern typical of the US American university system. Structural equation models show that the institutional hierarchy can be predicted with considerable accuracy with indicators of scientific activity and impact and structural characteristics of departments and universities. The analyses show both the performance-based validity of institutional reputation and the bias in access to the competitive academic markets due to structural differences of the universities and departments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes and references

  1. H.-J. Block, Wettbewerb und Differenzierung in den Hochschulen. Aspekte und Dimensionen einer stärkeren Differenzierung des Hochschulsystems unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Ressourcenmanagements, in:Zentralinstitut für Sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung, Freie Universität Berlin,Aspekte der Hochschuldifferenzierung (Ökonomische Theorie der Hochschule, Arbeitsheft, Nr. 2), Berlin, 1984.

  2. Wissenschaftsrat,Empfehlungen zum Wettbewerb im deutschen Hochschulsystem, Köln, 1985.

  3. W. O. Hagstrom,The Scientific Community, Basic Books, New York, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  4. N. Luhmann, Selbststeuerung der Wissenschaft,Jahrbuch für Sozialwissenschaft, 19 (1968) No.2, 147–170.

    Google Scholar 

  5. H. Zuckerman, R. K. Merton, Patterns of evaluation in science: institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system,Minerva, 9 (1971) No. 1, 66–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. N. Luhmann, 1968,Op. cit., note 4.

    Google Scholar 

  7. R. K. Merton, The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered,Science, 159 (1968), 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. J. Baumert, J. Naumann, P. M. Roeder, L. Trommer,Zur institutionellen Stratifizierung im Hochschulsystem der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Beiträge aus dem Forschungsbereich Schule und Unterricht, No. 16/SuU), Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung, Berlin, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  9. K. Hüfner, Th. Hummel, E. Rau,Forschungsproduktivität in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften. Eine Analyse wirtschaftswissenschaftlicher Fachbereiche in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1970–1984, Campus, Frankfurt a. M., 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  10. H. Heiber messung von Forschungsleistungen der Hochschulen. Ein empirischer Ansatz auf der Basis von Zitatenanalysen (Schriften zur öffentlichen Verwaltung und öffentlichen Wirtschaft, Bd. 66), Nomos, Baden-Baden, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  11. H. Wold, Soft Modeling. The basic design and some extensions, in:K. G. Jöreskog, H. Wold (Eds.),Systems Under Direct Observation. Causality, Structure, Prediction (Contributions to Economic Analysis, Vol. 139), 2 Vol., Amsterdam, 1982, 1–54.

  12. K. G. Jöreskog, H. Wold (Eds.),Systems Under Direct Observation. Causality, Structure, Prediction (Contributions to Economic Analysis, Vol. 139), 2 Vol., Amsterdam, 1982.

  13. J. B. Lohmöller,LVPLS 1.6 Program Manual: Latent Variables Path Analysis with Partial Leastsquares Estimation. (Forschungsbericht Nr. 81.04), 2 überarb. Aufl., Zentralinstitut für empirische Sozialforschung, Köln, Hochschule der Bundeswehr, München, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  14. L. V. Jones, G. Lindzey, P. E. Coggeshall (Eds.),An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States. 5 Vol., National Academic Press, Washington, D.C., 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  15. P. L. Dent, An analysis of reputational quality ratings in higher education,Educational Research Quarterly, 4 (1978) No. 3, 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  16. B. R. Martin, J. Irvine, Assessing basic research: some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy,Research Policy, 12 (1983), 61–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. B. J. Winer,Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  18. A. Bintig, The efficiency of various estimations of reliability of rating scales,Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40 (1980), 619–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. L. V. Jones et al., 1982.Op. cit., note 14.

    Google Scholar 

  20. W. M. Cox, V. Catt, Productivity ratings of graduate programs in psychology based on publication in the Journals of the American Psychological Association,American Psychologist, 32 (1977) No. 10, 793–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. N. S. Endler, Research productivity and scholarly impact of Canadian psychology departments,Canadian Psychological Review, 18 (1977) No. 2, 152–168.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. D. R. Morgan, M. R. Fitzgerald, Recognition and productivity among American political science departments,Western Political Quarterly, 30 (1977), 342–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. J. G. Bell, J. J. Seater, Publishing performance: departmental and individual,Economic Inquiry, 16 (1978), 599–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. N. S. Endler, J.P. Rushton, H.L. Roediger, Productivity and scholarly impact (citations) of British, Canadian, and U.S. departments of psychology (1975),American Psychologist, 33 (1978) No. 12, 1064–1082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. R. C. Anderson, F. Narin, P. McAllister, Publication ratings versus peer ratings of universities,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 29 (1978) No. 2, 91–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. D. E. Drew, R. Karpf, Ranking academic departments: empirical findings and a theoretical perspective,Research in Higher Education, 14 (1981) No. 4, 305–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. D. R. Morgan, K. J. Meier, R. C. Kearney, S. W. Hays, H. B. Birch, Reputation and productivity among U.S. public administration and public affairs programs,Public Administration Review, 41 (1981) No. 6, 666–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. L. V. Jones et al., 1982.Op. cit., note 14.

    Google Scholar 

  29. R. Roy, N. R. Roy, G. G. Johnson, Approximating total citation counts from first author counts and from total papers,Scientometrics, 5 (1983) No. 2, 117–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. S. Welch, J. R. Hibbing, What do the new rankings of political science departments measure?,PS Political Science, 16 (1983) No. 1, 532–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. I. Crewe, Reputation, research and reality: the publication records of UK departments of politics, 1978–1984,Scientometrics, 14 (1988) Nos. 3–4, 235–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. C. F. Elton, S. A. Rodgers, Physics department ratings: another evaluation,Science, 174 (1971), 565–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. J. M. Beyer, R. Snipper, Objective versus subjective indicators of quality in graduate education,Sociology of Education, 47 (1974), 541–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. D. R. Morgan, R. C. Kearney, J. L. Regens, Assessing quality among graduate institutions of higher education in the United States,Social Science Quarterly, 57 (1976), 670–679.

    Google Scholar 

  35. D. R. Morgan, M. R. Fitzgerald, 1977.Op. cit., note 22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. A. W. Astin, L. C. Solmon, Are reputational ratings needed to measure quality?,Change, 13 (1981) No. 7, 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. W. O. Hagstrom, Inputs, outputs, and the prestige of university science departments,Sociology of Education, 44 (1971) No. 4, 375–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. N. S. Endler, J. P. Rushton, H. L. Roediger, 1978.Op. cit., note 24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. D. R. Morgan, M. R. Fitzgerald, 1977.Op. cit., note 22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. S. Welch, J. R. Hibbing, 1983.Op. cit., note 30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. L. D. Brown, J. C. Gardner, Applying citation analysis to evaluate the research contributions of accounting faculty and doctoral programs,Accounting Review, 60 (1985) No. 2, 262–277.

    Google Scholar 

  42. J. B. Lohmöller, 1984.Op. cit., note 13.

    Google Scholar 

  43. S. Geisser, A predictive approach to the Random Effect Model,Biometrika, 61 (1974) No. 1, 101–107.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung, Lentzeallee 94, D-1000, Berlin 33, FRG

    J. Baumert, J. Naumann & P. M. Roeder

Authors
  1. J. Baumert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Naumann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. M. Roeder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baumert, J., Naumann, J. & Roeder, P.M. Reputation — A hard-currency medium of interchange. Scientometrics 19, 397–408 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02020702

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02020702

Keywords

Search

Navigation