journal of global research in education and social science

Journal of Global Research in Education and Social Science

ISSN: 2454-1834

Journal of Global Research in Education and Social Science ( ISSN: 2454-1834 ) aims to publish high quality papers in all areas of ‘Education and Social Science’. This journal considers following  types of papers  ( Link ). The journal also encourages the submission of useful reports of negative results. This is a peer-reviewed, open access INTERNATIONAL journal. This journal follows OPEN access policy. All published articles can be freely downloaded from the journal website.

Current Issue

2024 - Volume 18 [Issue 2]

Original Research Article

The impact of college students’ emotional intelligence and achievement motivation on test anxiety: a case of 3 colleges at chongqing.

Qingxiang Zhen , Xianwei Gao

Review Article

Bridging the cultural divides: the transformative power of cultural intelligence in global business leadership and negotiation.

Kavita Sharma, Tarun Kumar Makhija

Terms & Condition | Privacy Policy | Help  | Team | Advertising Policy Copyright @ 2000-2024 I.K. Press. All rights reserved.

Home > M3 Center > JGER

Journal Information

Journal of Global Education and Research (JGER) is an international non-profit, open access, double-blind peer-reviewed journal. JGER, as an interdisciplinary journal, aims to bring together researchers, scientists, scholars, and graduate students to exchange and share their experiences, new ideas, and research results about all aspects of global education and research and to discuss the practical challenges encountered and the solutions adopted.

JGER is published bi-annually by the University of South Florida (USF) M3 Publishing. USF M3 Publishing is a service of the USF M3 Center for Hospitality Technology and Innovation (M3 Center). We encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical research relating to global education in as much detail as possible to promote scientific predictions and impact assessments of global change and development in the field of education. Full experimental and methodical details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. The coverage of JGER includes the following areas as they apply to global education and research.

• Adult and Continuing Education
• Curriculum and Instruction Development
• Education in Other Specialties
• Educational Technology
• English as a Second Language (ESL)
• Global Competence
• Higher Education & Educational Leadership
• Human Resource Development
• Inclusive Education
• International Education
• Research Methods in Education

Benefits of publishing with JGER

• Open access: Completely free for readers and authors. There are no fees charged for submission, subscription, and article processing. All costs are absorbed by the University of South Florida M3 Center and USF Library.
• Fair Turnaround: JGER is committed to getting the manuscripts double-blind peer-reviewed, and a first decision is provided to authors approximately 6-8 weeks after submission.
• Recognition of reviewers: Reviewers who provide timely, thorough peer-review reports shall receive credits.
• Cabell's Journal Whitelist (Sign-in-required)
• Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
• Directory of Research Journal Indexing (DRJI)
• EBSCO (The list will be updated in January)
• Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)
• Google Scholar
• Index Copernicus International (ICI)
• Research Bib, Academic Resource Index
• Sherpa/Romeo
• Scientific Indexing Services (SIS)
• Under Review for multiple indexes and databases.

Browse past issues of JGER from the sidebar or at the following links:

• Issue 1 | Issue 2 | Issue 3
• Issue 1 | Issue 2

Current Issue

Volume 7 - issue 2.

• Nahid Golafshani
• Sonam Dhendup and Kezang Sherab
• Juyoung Lee, Caroline Kobia, and Jihyeong Son
• Doreen L. Mazzye, Michelle A. Duffy, and Richard L. Lamb
• Lester A. C. Archer and Ya-Hsin Hsiao
• Sally Knipe and Christine Bottrell

“In my blood”: External factors for international stem postdoctoral scholars’ career decisions Kathryn J. Watson and Sylvia L. Mendez

• Journal Home
• About This Journal
• Aims & Scope
• Editorial Board
• Author Guidelines
• Submit Article
• Most Popular Papers
• Receive Email Notices or RSS

Special Issues:

Advanced Search

ISSN: 2577-5081 (Print) ISSN: 2577-509X (Online)

Scholar Commons | About This IR | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Journal of Global Research in Education and Social Science  

Trace this journal

Citation Count

2  citations

Performance

Identifiers

Linking ISSN (ISSN-L): 2454-1834

URL http://www.ikpress.org/journal/46

Google https://www.google.com/search?q=ISSN+%222454-1834%22

Bing https://www.bing.com/search?q=ISSN+%222454-1834%22

Yahoo https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=ISSN%20%222454-1834%22

National Library of India http://nationallibraryopac.nvli.in/cgi-bin/koha/opac-search.pl?advsearch=1&idx=ns&q=2454-1834&weight_search=1&do=Search&sort_by=relevance

Resource information

Title proper: Journal of global research in education and social science.

Country: India

Medium: Online

Record information

Last modification date: 06/02/2021

Type of record: Confirmed

ISSN Center responsible of the record: ISSN National Centre for India

downloads requested

Discover all the features of the complete ISSN records

Display mode x.

Labelled view

MARC21 view

UNIMARC view

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 07 November 2017

Global science, national research, and the question of university rankings

• Ellen Hazelkorn 1 &
• Andrew Gibson 1  

Palgrave Communications volume  3 , Article number:  21 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

5316 Accesses

13 Citations

40 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

Science has always operated in a competitive environment, but the globalisation of knowledge and the rising popularity and use of global rankings have elevated this competition to a new level. The quality, performance and productivity of higher education and university-based research have become a national differentiator in the global knowledge economy. Global rankings essentially measure levels of wealth and investment in higher education, and they reflect the realisation that national pre-eminence is no longer sufficient. These developments also correspond with increased public scrutiny and calls for greater transparency, underpinned by growing necessity to demonstrate value, impact and benefit. Despite on-going criticism of methodologies, and scepticism about their overall role, rankings are informing and influencing policy-making, academic behaviour, stakeholder opinions—and our collective understanding of science. This article examines the inter-relationship and tensions between the national and the global in the context of the influences between higher education and global university rankings. It starts with a discussion of the globalisation of knowledge and the rise of rankings. It then moves on to consider rankings in the context of wider discourse relating to quality and measuring scholarly activity, both within academia and by governments. The next section examines the relationship and tensions between research assessment and rankings, in policy and practice. It concludes by discussing the broader implications for higher education and university-based research.

Similar content being viewed by others

Review of the Russian-language academic literature on university rankings and a global perspective

Dmitry Kochetkov

Relationship between bibliometric indicators and university ranking positions

Péter Szluka, Edit Csajbók & Balázs Győrffy

The effect of national higher education initiatives on university rankings

Congbin Guo, Xiaowei Hao, … Tizhen Hu

Introduction: state and higher education, from national to global

A number of trends are responsible for driving change across higher education and university-based research over recent decades. There are two broad dimensions: the changing social contract between higher education and society on the one hand, and increasing reliance of society and the economy on knowledge-production in a globally competitive world, and correspondingly, the geo-politics of knowledge. In the first instance, global competitiveness and the changing nature of the nation-state since the oil crises of the 1970s have helped alter the underlying reality of policy discourse around the social contract between science and society. At the same time, changes in the mode of production and technological progress have facilitated the shift in favour of those national economies predicated on knowledge towards the global, and being ever more interconnected. In so doing, globalisation has partially transformed higher education from an institution concerned primarily with matters of community and nation-building to an internationalised sector central to matters of competitiveness and reputation, for institutions, nations, and graduates. This tension between the “before” and “now” of higher education’s globalisation remains unresolved. The increasing reliance on knowledge for economic competitiveness has obliged the state to remain involved in higher education, even as it purports to withdraw from other spheres through privatisation and marketization (Strange, 1996 ). While science has always operated in a competitive environment, the emergence and increasingly persuasive role of global rankings has made the tension between national and global tensions ever more apparent.

Calls for science to have a clearer, more direct role with respect to the national project emerged Footnote 1 First in the United States during the Sputnik era, with growing concerns about harnessing US scientific strength to economic growth (Geiger, 1993 , pp 157–192). While Guston ( 2000 ) argues that science policy is concerned with matters of research integrity and productivity, it is the latter which is significant in this instance. 'Science, The Endless Frontier' ( 1945 ) by Vannevar Bush, Director of the US Office of Scientific Research and Development under Franklin D. Roosevelt, argued that social and economic progress was dependent upon 'continuous additions to knowledge of the laws of nature, and the application of that knowledge to practical purposes'. The subsequent 'golden' years were notable for free-flowing money and professorial self-governance, but the parameters began to change in later decades, ushering in new ground-rules for continued public endorsement and financial support for university-based research.

These developments were reflected in changes at the political level, not only as a reaction to the collapse of the post-WW2 Keynesian project and the growing fiscal crisis of the state (Castells, 2011 , 185; O’Connor, 1973 ). Wider public concerns about the value, relevance and affordability of public services began to surface; as Trow ( 1974 , 91) acknowledged, once matters come 'to the attention of larger numbers of people, both in government and in the general public…[they will] have other, often quite legitimate, ideas about where public funds should be spent, and, if given to higher education, how they should be spent'. In this context, higher education was 'no different from other publicly funded services (e.g., health care, criminal justice) where the State…[began to] put pressure on publicly funded providers to meet broad public policy goals (for example) to cut costs, improve quality or ensure social equity' (Ferlie et al., 2008 , p 328). As the role of the state changed, public involvement shifted from a hard or top-down command and control model towards a softer 'evaluation' model, with emphasis on measuring, assessing, comparing and benchmarking performance and productivity (Neave, 2012 ; Dahler-Larsen, 2011 ). A key element of this change was evidenced in a growing role for the market as a more effective means by which to drive change, efficiency and public benefit for customers and consumers. The rise of neo-liberalism and corresponding adoption of principles of new public management are credited with changing the relationship between higher education and the state, and between the academy and the state. This led to new forms of accountability focused on measurable outcomes, increasingly tied to funding through performance-based funding or performance agreements. The discourse around 'public good' and 'public value' and how that is demonstrated or valorised strengthened over the intervening years.

In the wake of the global economic crisis, higher education was a victim of considerable reductions in public funding along with other 'austerity' measures in many countries (OECD, 2014 ). That higher education had an important role to play was not in dispute. Indeed, in line with human capital theory (Becker, 1993 ), investment in 'high quality tertiary education [was considered] more important than ever before' (Santiago et al., 2008 , p 13) as competition between nations accelerated. Europe2020 (EC, 2010a ), the European Union’s growth strategy for the coming decade, identified higher education and research development (HERD) as critical to economic recovery and global positioning. It identified specific priorities for tertiary attainment (minimum 40% of 30–34-year olds) and investment in Research, Development and Innovation (3% of EU GDP). Footnote 2 Because higher education and university-based research is mutually linked with the economic fortunes of the nation, matters of governance and accountability inevitably began to take centre stage.

But the fact remains, there have been various trade-offs and accommodations between accountability and autonomy over the years, in other words between the state and higher education. If higher education is the engine of the economy—as the academy has regularly argued (Baker, 2014 ; Lane and Johnstone, 2012 ; Taylor, 2016 )—then its productivity, quality and status is a vital indicator of sustainability and a nation’s competitiveness (Hazelkorn, 2015 , p 6)—and no more so than when many nation-states were faced with the spectre of economic/financial collapse. Delanty ( 2002 , p 185) put it as follows: 'the question of the governability of science cannot be posed in isolation from the question of the governance of the university'.

The birth of global rankings is marked by the advent of Shanghai Jiao Tong 'Academic Ranking of World Universities' in 2003. Footnote 3 But, their true origins lie in the growing tension between the role of knowledge in/for global competitiveness and correspondingly, the national social contract between higher education and science—the twin dynamics aforementioned. Global rankings are a product of an increasingly globalised economy and an internationalised higher education landscape. By placing higher education and university-based research within an international and comparative framework, rankings affirm that in a globalised world, with heightened levels of capital and talent mobility, national pre-eminence is no longer sufficient. Despite considerable scrutiny and criticism over the years, rankings have persisted in informing and influencing policy-making, academic behaviour, and stakeholder opinion. This is due to the former’s simplicity as well as resistance to and absence of alternatives (Coates, 2016 ). In fact, the manner by which rankings have become a key driver of global reform of higher education highlights their significance for building strategies for competitive advantage. In this respect, rankings have significantly challenged and helped change the conversation around HERD performance and productivity, quality and value, and impact and benefit.

Their choice of indicators emphasises inputs, and reward wealth garnered due to institutional age, endowments, tuition or government investment. In so doing, they 'facilitate competition, define competitiveness, [and] normalise and celebrate competition' (Cantwell, 2016 ), legitimising inequities and widening the gap between winners and losers (Hazelkorn, 2016 ). They have managed to successfully challenge assumptions and perceptions of quality and status. As discussed below, assuring quality has hitherto been a basic tenet of academic self-regulation, usually at the programmatic or institutional level and through professional organisations by way of peer review. Over recent years, monitoring quality has become the concern of national agencies and is now gradually being taken up at the international level (Eaton, 2016 ). This trend towards greater steering and governance instruments has been matched by growing dissatisfaction with the robustness of traditional collegial mechanisms, twinned with an increasing requirement for international comparative and benchmarking data.

While nation states remain the primary field of authority and contestation over and about higher education and research policy, 'they no longer have full command over their destinies' (Marginson and van der Wende 2007 , p 13). Individual higher education institutions (HEIs) and governments may choose to ignore rankings and the noise they generate; indeed, reactions to rankings often differ depending upon whether emanating from a developed or emerging economy. The former regard 'global rankings as an affirmation of or an outright challenge to their (perceived) dominance within the global geography of higher education and knowledge production', and the latter view them as a judgement on their state of development (Hazelkorn, 2016 ; Cloete et al., 2016 ), as the two examples below illustrate.

[A]mid today’s acute competition on the international scene, universities are a major factor affecting a country’s key competitive ability. Thus, creating and running world-class universities [in China] should be one of the strategic foci of building up a country (Min Weifang, Party Secretary of Peking University quoted in Ngok and Guo, 2008 , p 547).

The most important natural resource Texas has is Texans. Unfortunately, our state suffers from a “brain drain” as many of our best and brightest students leave to further their education. A contributing cause is a lack of “tier one” universities in Texas (CPPP, 2009 , p 1).

Evidence strongly suggests that even where and when institutional or policy responses are not slavish, rankings have significant influence. As illustrated by the growing use of 'international education statistics, performance indicators and benchmarks', rankings play an agenda-setting role, over-determining the 'rules of the game' (Dale, 2005 , p 131; see also Henry et al., 2001 , pp 83–105). They have become a de facto (research) assessment exercise, and an indicator of global competitiveness within 'world-science'.

This paper will examine some of these tensions, looking at the implications of rankings for and on research and our understanding of science, for the organisation and management of research, and for national policy. The paper will discuss the inherent contradictions between pursuing indicators favoured by rankings and national policy objectives, and the unintended consequences. Briefly, part (I) will set the argument in context by reviewing the literature around the globalisation of knowledge; part (II) will consider the rise of rankings in the context of the wider discourse around quality, and measuring scientific endeavour; part (III) will look at the relationship between rankings on research assessment policy and practice, and part (IV) will discuss the broader implications for higher education and university-based research.

Globalisation of knowledge and the rise of rankings

Recent decades have borne witness to the intensification of competition at the global level driven by a shift from physical capital to knowledge as the source of wealth creation. The advent of the post-industrial information-society beginning in the 1970s, followed by the rise of the knowledge-economy paradigm beginning in 1990s (OECD, 1996 ), transformed debates around higher education. These developments, in turn, parallel changes at the global level, marked by an increasingly integrated global-economy and shifts in the world-order often characterised as the transition from the British 19th to the American 20th to the proposed Asian 21st century. The completeness of these movements can be debated (Cox, 2012 ; Cantwell, 2016 ), but the OECD ( 2014 , p 2) contends that the coming decades will continue to see a 'major shift of economic balance towards the non-OECD area, particularly to Asian and African economies'. In fact, if anything, the 2008 Global Financial Crisis and resulting Great Recession demonstrated the depth of interconnectivity and interdependency of the global economy, as individual nations struggled to insulate themselves from such phenomena. National policy instruments proved insufficient against global pressures, and attention turned to supra-national organisations, inter alia the European Union, International Monetary Fund and World Bank, to intervene (Drezner, 2014 a, b). Globalization has been one the most significant influences on theinternational higher education landscape over recent decades, exerting considerable conceptual, competitive and strategic pressure. The term itself is used in multiple ways; nonetheless, it is useful to make some distinctions. On the one hand, there are quantitative increases in 'trade, capital movements, investments and people across borders'. On the other side, there are political changes “in the way people and groups think and identify themselves, and changes in the way states, firms, and other actors perceive and pursue their interests” (Woods, 2000 , pp 1–2). Central to the concept of globalisation “is the sense that activities previously undertaken within national boundaries can be undertaken globally or regionally” (ibid., p 6). Whereas previously knowledge creation might have been confined (if not restricted) largely within national borders, globalisation encourages a view of borders that are necessarily permeable. Footnote 4

Involvement in science and international collaboration is the sine qua non of national competitiveness. Contrary to globalisation’s critics (Waters, 2001 , pp 222–230), it has provided the opportunity for developing economies to gain a foot-hold in the world economy (Moyo, 2009 , pp 114–125), although it remains insufficient (Stiglitz, 2003 , 2016 ). Rankings capture some of the changes that affect national economies and international knowledge flows, though they are themselves part of the global knowledge race (Altbach, 2012 ). While the dominant countries in the top-100 or top-200 are likely to remain developed economies for the next while, there is strong evidence of other countries – most significantly China—having an ever-greater presence in the top-500. The knowledge economy paradigm is universally accepted, across all policy circles, in the wake of its promotion by the OECD ( 1996 ). Likewise, despite the Great Recession (Pew Research Global Attitudes project, quoted in Drezner, 2014b , pp 148–150), debates about GATS and TPP, and recent social-political movements in the US and across Europe (Inglehart and Norris, 2016 ), the tenets of globalisation remain supported internationally.

There has been a transition away from 'tangible created assets' (i.e., physical capital and finance) in developed economies to 'intangible created assets' in the shape of knowledge and information in various forms (Dunning, 1999 , p 8), which has put technological innovation (in the form of Research, Development and Innovation) at the heart of globalisation (Black, 2014 , pp 364–365; Narula, 2003 ). This transformation connects directly with the increase in expenditure on all kinds of research and development in OECD economies between 1975 and 1995, which rose at three times the rate of output in manufacturing over the same period (Dunning, 1999 , p 9). That said, higher education is not simply a passive recipient of the effects of globalisation. Universities are crucial to the process as 'strong primary institutions' Footnote 5 (Baker, 2014 , p 59), producers of the 'knowledge spillovers' (Audretsch, 2000 , p 67), necessary for economic growth and competitiveness; they are also the primary component of trans-national education (Huang, 2007 ). OECD data suggest that, in 2014, HERD accounted for almost 23% of gross expenditure on research and development in EU28 countries, and 18% in OECD countries (OECD, 2016 ). Its role has been theorised extensively through notions of the triple, quadruple, and quintuple helices (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 1999 ; Etzkowitz et al., 2000 ; Carayannis and Rakhmatullin, 2014 , p 219, 236), and the co-production of knowledge (Cherney, 2013 ; Gibbons et al., 1994 ). As well as this, research itself has become globalised, with increases in academic mobility and international scholarly collaboration, and with branch campuses increasingly focussing on research. Research productivity itself now strongly correlates with international collaboration, and is central to augmenting national research competitiveness (Kwiek, 2015 ).

Looking at the social and political aspects of globalisation, there is a changing relationship between 'states, firms, and other actors'. One of the initial fears relating to globalisation was the perceived threat of a homogenising effect in these changing relationships, a so-called 'McDonaldization' (Waters, 2001 , p 222) of cultural convergence where the pressures of the international market would lead to a sameness in societies and cultures. There was fear of an erosion of national distinctiveness, but concerns of global convergence have proved exaggerated and are by no means a homogeneous or one-way process; 'in the case of multinational enterprises, firms are making more nuanced and complex calculations about how to organise and where to produce' (Woods, 2000 , p 17; see also Nye, 2006 , pp 78–81). Firms, multinational and transnational, have sought to use national/regional and cultural diversity as assets. Governments and universities have also applied the logic of competitive advantage to their higher education and research landscapes. For example, Japan, Russia, Vietnam, France, China and over 30 other countries have pursued excellence initiatives (Salmi, 2016 ; Yonezawa and Yung-chi Hou 2014 ; Shin, 2009 ). These have emphasised the policies of institutional selection, e.g., 'picking winners', in order to concentrate capacity and capability, intensify research activity and promote 'excellence'. Likewise, research prioritisation has been undertaken; in these instances, national governments, as the primary funder of higher education research, has set high-level goals aligning research and resource allocation with economic priorities (Gibson and Hazelkorn 2017 ).

The changing relationship between different societal actors is evident also at the regional level. The European Union is a good example, but ASEAN is also beginning to explore these geopolitical potentialities (Robertson et al., 2016 ). The EU identified higher education across its member states as requiring 'in depth restructuring and modernisation if Europe is not to lose out in the global competition in education, research and innovation' (EC, 2006 , p 11). Thus, it set out a strategy of capacity building as a key plank of the modernisation agenda recasting 'research in Europe' as 'European research', i.e., as taking place within the European context, rather than in disparate, national contexts. More recently, it has pursued the Smart Specialisation Strategy, whereby European regions have been encouraged to build up their own strengths, and manage their priorities, in line with national and regional strategies. The intention is to maximise collaboration and leverage expertise across higher education and science, enterprise, local/regional government and civil society (EC, 2012 ; Carayannis and Rakhmatullin, 2014 , p 213; EUA, 2014 ).

Yet, despite these developments, many of the fundamental structures at the national level remain unchanged. Nayyar ( 2002 , p 368) writes that while economic globalisation has been a challenge to the 'existing systpem' of supranational and international institutions (e.g., United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, etc.), 'there is virtually no institutional framework for this task, which is left almost entirely to the market' (Nayyar, 2002 , p 368) Similarly, the diversity of education systems and standards across Europe have made it difficult to make comparisons or talk about different countries in the same breath. This began to change with the introduction of policies and frameworks such as Bologna and then the European Qualifications Framework and European Standards and Guidelines—initiatives which are now influencing practice in different world regions. Accordingly, they go some way towards creating a 'metastructure' (Maassen and Stensaker, 2011 , p 262) that makes comparison, and mobility, possible. The initial requirement for such a metastructure was simply to allow people to say 'this qualification X is equivalent to that qualification Y.' It allows for comparison across institutions, systems, and countries, and provides information about quality and standards. Over the years, these initiatives have coincided with the formalisation of the European Higher Education Area and the European Research Area.

Traditionally is has been the role of government to provide goods for the public benefit—such as education. However, the current phase of globalisation means this may be understood differently by different governments, and there may be a requirement for some actions to be undertaken at the global level. Information about higher education is one such good, and its provision to citizens in a globalised context requires 'the strengthening of existing institutions in some areas and the creation of new institutions in other areas' (Nayyar, 2002 , p 374). Achieving this is easier said than done. There have been attempts to address gaps in the form of the OECD AHELO (Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes) initiative, and the EU 'U-Multirank project', Footnote 6 but the later was dropped after its feasibility study raised hackles and the latter’s success has been mixed at best. Rankings have emerged to fill this gap, initially enabling students to make more informed decisions. As with economic globalisation, university ranking companies have filled the space left by what Nayyar terms 'missing institutions' (Nayyar, 2002 , p 375) of globalisation, providing information about the nature and quality of research and higher education, and correspondingly about national competitiveness.

Rankings and measuring scholarly scientific endeavour

Peer review is a prized function of the academy—a symbol of academic-professional self-regulation, which acknowledges academic achievement and contribution. It has been a cornerstone of the academy since the 17th century although 'prior to the Second World War the process was often quite uncodified' (Rowland, 2002 , p 248). It is based upon the principle that only people with expertise in a particular scientific field can assess, evaluate and judge the quality of academic scholarship and the resultant publication. The latter is generally used in the context of peer-reviewed articles for academic journals, but usually extends to monographs, and other forms of academic/scientific writing.

Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won….When something is peer reviewed it is in some sense blessed (Smith, 2006 ).

Rowland concurs, saying that while there are four main functions assigned to peer review, including 'dissemination of current knowledge, archiving of the canonical knowledge base, quality control of published information, and assignment of priority and credit for their work to authors,' (2002, p 247) quality control is the primary purpose. Over the years, a widely accepted process has grown up around peer-review whereby the author’s name is withheld, and the review is conducted by people unknown to or unconnected with the author (i.e., 'double blind' review) to avoid any possibility of conflict of interest. The process has been further strengthened by being 'informed' by bibliometric and other sources.

Dill and Beerkens ( 2010 , p 2) place academic quality assurance within this lineage, identifying 'subject examinations, external examiners, as well as review processes for professional meetings, academic journals, and the award of research grants.' At the nation-state level, academic quality assurance is associated with and provides the bedrock for accreditation, which authenticates an institution’s right to operate and/or offer qualifications. It 'is best defined as equivalent to academic standards—the level of knowledge and skill achieved by graduates as a result of their academic program or degree' (Dill and Beerkens, 2010 , pp 2–3). Accordingly, a whole panoply of 'systematic and rigorous approaches' processes and procedures (Harman, 2011 , p 40), and national as well as cross-border organisations have grown-up around quality assurance. In Europe, the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) has developed 'an agreed set of standards, procedures and guidelines on quality assurance' and explored 'ways of ensuring an adequate peer review system for quality assurance and/or accreditation agencies or bodies' (ENQA, 2005 ). To insulate these processes from political or other interference, these organisations tend to be (semi-)independent from government and/or regulatory authorities. In this respect, academic quality assurance and academic accreditation now hold a similar place in the canon of academic professionalism as that of peer review.

Peer review is not, however, without its critics. As Smith ( 2006 ) points out, 'People have a great many fantasies about peer review, and one of the most powerful is that it is a highly objective, reliable, and consistent process.' However, the situation can be the opposite, because peer-review is based on assessment and judgement. There is always room for 'professional' disagreement about the quality, value, significance, etc. of scholarly work. This may be affected by the choice of reviewers, their own experience, expertise or context. Indeed, the choice of reviewers may reflect other (hidden) biases with respect to membership of informal networks, gender, race, geography, non-English-speaking countries, etc. (Adler and Harzing, 2009 ; Davenport and Snyder, 1995 ; Altbach 2006 ). Becher and Trowler ( 2001 , p 81) refer to problems associated with 'subtle' forms of elitism and bias, and the way in which academics attach a prestige hierarchy to various attributes or characteristics, such as the university qualification, journals in which papers have been published, references used, scientific/methodological approach, etc. The type of academic training and/or seniority can significantly influence a reviewer’s judgement. Bias can also arise from professional jealousy. Quality assurance can be subject to similar limitations because the panel of reviewers often share common 'assumptions and informal networks and procedures' (Becher and Trowler, 2001 , p 87). Cost can be another problem especially with academic quality review or research evaluation processes; costs associated with teams of internationally mobile academics can influence who is chosen to participate or can restrict the process. Thus, peer review can be a 'gate-keeper', controlling innovation as well as new ideas and methodologies, discouraging 'intellectual risk taking' Marginson ( 2008 , p 17), and/or 'freezing-out contributions that are seen as in some way threatening (usually because they purport to undermine an established ideology or school of thought)' (Becher and Trowler, 2001 , pp 89–90).

Perhaps, the fundamental drawback of any qualitative process beyond the disciplinary and institutional issues outlined here, however, is the difficulty making cross-border comparisons (which circles back to aforementioned issue of 'missing institutions' at the global level). This is true for academic quality assurance as well as for research assessment. Not only can the process be constrained by the types of issues identified above, but the process itself is likely to be confined and defined by its context. In addition, the ensuing reports and write-ups of results are usually lengthy, and written in 'opaque academic language, making it difficult to understand or compare performance between institutions, especially internationally' (Hazelkorn, 2013a ). Their purpose is usually to aid quality improvement or enhancement rather than compare performance or measure quality. Academic peer-review has a similar role wherein reviewers are often asked to offer suggestions for improvement to authors. Where the process is aligned with funding decisions—i.e., used to aid resource allocation—the final decision tends to be written in a more definitive manner.

Arguably and ironically, the attributes which have underpinned peer review’s value to the academic community are those which have contributed to something of a breakdown in trust between higher education and students, policy makers and civil society, and has undermined the social contract (Hazelkorn, 2012a , 2012b ; Harman, 2011 ). This has resulted in accreditation becoming a huge political topic in the US (Camera, 2016 ; Eaton, 2011 ), even at the level of the presidential campaign, similar to the level of discourse in the UK and Australia, and many other countries (Middlehurst, 2016 ; Dill and Beerkens, 2010 ). Politically, there is a growing desire to move beyond assessing quality only within the academy, to linking quality to relevance and resources (OECD, 2010 ). Global rankings claim to help in this regard, and speak to this policy and political agenda. They are also seen as an important and independent interlocutor between higher education and society. These developments have moved assessment beyond the purview of the academy.

Rankings (global and national) work by comparing HEIs using a range of different indicators as an overall proxy for quality. They produce an abundance of quantitative information, aggregated to a final score, and placed in an ordinal format, which is simple and easy to read and understand. Most criticism of rankings focuses on the arbitrariness of the choice of indicators, which are each weighted according to 'some criterion or set of criteria which the compiler(s) of the list believe … measure or reflect … academic quality' (Webster, 2001 , p 5). In this way, rankings claim to describe the quality of a HEI while in reality they say little about educational quality, teaching and learning, quality of the student experience, or about the contribution or impact of higher education on society or the region. The results can vary annually, usually due to small methodological changes, which undermines their comparability value. Indeed, often changes in a HEI’s position are relational in that it has more to do with changes in other HEIs’ position, rather than any actual change within the institution itself, a fact of rankings which usually goes unremarked in the annual media frenzy attached to their release. Moreover, using the same set of indicators to measure and compare different HEIs meeting diverse needs in different social, economic and geographic contexts, can lead to simplistic comparisons based on insignificant differences.

Because of difficulties identifying and sourcing meaningful, reliable and verifiable international comparative indicators and data, global rankings give preferential weight to research. They use the standard international bibliometric practice of counting peer-reviewed publications and citations to measure academic output and productivity as a proxy for faculty or institutional quality. This methodology tends to favour the physical, life and medical sciences, benefits countries where English is the native language, and emphasises international impact. There is heavy reliance on Web of Science (WoS) which collects data on ~12,000 publications, and Scopus which has information on ~21,500—although these indices capture only a proportion of published international scholarly activity. Recent efforts to include books and book chapters may begin to rebalance the in-built bias and thus benefit the humanities and social sciences (THE Reporters, 2016 ). To get around this, WoS has joined forces with 'Google Scholar' to connect researchers’ WoS and Google Scholar identities, as well as capturing grey-literature through GreyNet, Footnote 7 and capture the published research of Latin American authors through SciELO Footnote 8 and RedALyC. Footnote 9 Scopus is developing techniques to capture AHSS research, while 'THE' is examining options for including research impact, innovation and knowledge transfer. There are some exceptions, most notably CWTS Leiden Ranking which uses its own bibliometric indicators to assess the scientific output of over 800 universities worldwide according to size of publication output, collaboration and impact, while 'SCImago' Footnote 10 calculates publication over a five-year period and reflects scientific, economic and social characteristics of institutions. 'U-Multirank', developed by the European Union and based on principles of user-driven, multi-dimensional, peer-group comparability, and multi-level (Van Vught and Ziegele, 2012 ), relies on Leiden data (CWTS, 2016 ).

The true picture of research-bias is demonstrated when research and research-dependent indicators are combined (e.g., academic reputation, PhD awards, research income, citation, academic papers, faculty and alumni medals and awards, and internationalisation). When this is done, the research component rises significantly, for example: 'Academic Ranking of World Universities' (100%), 'Times Higher Education World Rankings' (93.25%), and 'QS Top Universities' (70%) (Hazelkorn, 2015 , pp 55–57). This over-emphasis on research is the rankings’ Achilles’ heel. However, the effect on/for scholarly scientific endeavour goes much further with broader implications for research assessment.

Rankings and research assessment policy and practice

Connections between global university rankings and research assessment can be considered in terms of: (i) whether there is a direct relationship whereby rankings have been drivers of research evaluation; or (ii) whether rankings and research assessment have an indirect association, with the former being an influencer of the latter.

Evidence in the first instance is relatively slim. Systematic research evaluation pre-dated rankings in many instances. The UK Research Assessment Exercise originated in 1986, and with other evaluations in Australia and Italy following and building on the UK’s approach (Geuna and Piolatto, 2016 , p 264; Hicks, 2012 , p 251). Research evaluation and assessment in countries such as Argentina, Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, South Africa and Spain also predate rankings (Guthrie et al., 2013 , pp 51–121; Hicks, 2012 , p 252). On the other hand, some governments do use ranking as a simple evaluation tool especially in countries which have had a weak quality assurance system, for example Malaysia, Nigeria, Indonesia, and Tunisia (Hazelkorn, 2015 , p 169).

National research evaluations and global rankings differ considerably with respect to data collection, usage, interpretation and format. They may use similar bibliometric sources, but—in contrast to global rankings—national rankings, like national research evaluations, may be able to generate and have access to significant nationally specific data which can involve peer review as an element of the evaluation in terms of review panels etc. State involvement usually requires the participation of HEIs and academics, in return for which some degree of institutional autonomy is granted. This grounds the legitimacy of the exercise, and is integral to qualitative national research evaluations such as the UK’s REF, Australia’s ERA, Canada’s Canada Research Chairs and the Netherlands’ Standard Evaluation Protocol (see Hazelkorn et al., 2013 , pp 93–95 for an overview of these and other national research evaluations).

In contrast, global rankings rely on internationally available data which has already been collected, either by the state or by data companies such as Elsevier or Thomson Reuters. Where rankings, such as 'U-Multirank' or 'THE', request institutional data, this usually constitutes a smaller proportion of the overall data set. The academy has occasionally sought to boycott providing data in order to undermine rankings; notable examples are in Canada with Maclean’s (Alphonso, 2006 ), in the US with USNWR (Jaschik, 2007 ), and League of European Research Universities with regard to U-Multirank (Grove, 2013 ). Similar action is perhaps less likely in a national, governmental process, especially if connected with funding allocation.

Global rankings and national research evaluation also differ with respect to format. Whereas rankings reduce complex and myriad activities of HEIs to a single number, research evaluations tend to present a more nuanced, complex picture. On the other hand, it can be argued that once research evaluation results are communicated, media companies—which are the primary producer of rankings—can be quick to convert research evaluations into a ranking format. There are examples of this, for example: the UK’s 'REF' (Jump, 2014 ; Guardian, 2014 ) Australia’s Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) (AEN, 2015 ), and Italy’s VQR (Abramo and D’Angelo, 2015 ). These are suggestive of a desire, stoked or encouraged by discussion in the media, Footnote 11 for the simplicity of rankings, rather than fidelity to the complexity of university research that government research assessments aim to deliver.

While rankings did not 'originate' research evaluation, there is evidence that global rankings have subsequently influenced such assessments, and their successors. The strongest influence of rankings is on national policy evidenced by the multiplicity of excellence initiatives, arguably the latest manifestation of a broader research evaluation discourse. The term is associated with the German Excellence initiative of 2006 —although Chinese, Canadian, Japanese, and South Korean initiatives predate the actual birth of global rankings—these initiatives have been adopted by over thirty countries around the world. That they are influenced by rankings is suggested by the 'dramatic increase in excellence initiatives since the publication of the Shanghai 'ARWU' and 'THE' global rankings in 2003 and 2004, respectively, reflecting the growing interest of national governments in the development of world-class universities' (WCU) (Salmi, 2016 , p 217). Many of them state openly their objective to improve the standing of universities within the rankings and/or use the indicators of rankings. For example, the Russian 5–100 plan, as its name suggests, intends to get five universities into the top-100 by 2020 (Grove, 2015 ), while Nigeria aims to have “at least two institutions among the top 200 universities in the world rankings by 2020 – the so-called 2/200/2020 vision” (Okebukola, 2010 ; see further examples in Hazelkorn, 2015 , pp 173–178, 181–198). While these initiatives tend to focus on building up WCUs, they are predominantly about research capacity because in the global knowledge economy the assumption is that research (production of intellectual property and commercialisation into new goods and services) matters more than teaching.

The exact nature of the relationship between global rankings and different policies remains difficult to pin down. Explicit mentions of rankings in policy are rare albeit of-the-record conversations or speeches are not. One such example is the Stern review of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) which asked '[h]ow do such effects of the REF compare with effects of other drivers in the system (e.g., success for […] universities in global rankings)?' (BIS, 2016 , p 4). Similarly, worth noting is that excellence initiatives (such as the Chinese 211 and 985) often contain indicators that are nowhere to be found in any of the rankings, e.g., interdisciplinarity. This may be a result of balancing the needs of different constituencies within a policy context in order to maintain legitimacy, and resisting the appearance that a public system is the dog-being-wagged-by-the-tail of private ranking companies. Whatever the reason, rankings feature implicitly rather than prominently helping to shape the policy discourse by playing a powerful hegemonic function (see Hazelkorn, 2015 , pp 11–15). Lim and Oergberg ( 2016 , p 2) refer to rankings as an 'accelerator' of higher education reform. As such, rankings are a prominent part of a 'policy assemblage' through which a 'mix of policies, steering technologies, discursive elements, human and social agents, among others, that constitute the spaces of reform in higher education in which rankings are employed' can be understood (ibid., p 4). A similar effect has been described by HE leaders, one of whom declared that rankings 'allows management to be more business-like ” ; not so much a management tool but “ a rod for management’s back' (quoted in Hazelkorn, 2015 , p 107).

One sees this manifested in different countries, through the often-adventitious use of rankings by policymakers. In Denmark, successive Prime Ministers have referred to rankings to call for improved performance and international competitiveness. In 2009, Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen declared that Denmark should have one HEI in the European top ten of the 'THE-QS', a desire subsequently complicated by those two companies going their separate ways to create two different rankings in following years (Lim and Oergberg, 2016 , pp 5–6). Separately, Danish immigration policy had proposed using rankings as a means of ascertaining the quality of higher education attainment of applicants in the migration system, with points given if their degree had been granted by a HEI in the top-100 of the 'THE-QS' or 'ARWU' (Hazelkorn, 2013b ). Elsewhere in Europe, while Germany had a national ranking since 1998 with the 'CHE Hochschulranking', the history of its universities and assumptions of their quality, was severely tested by the advent of global rankings. By 2005 the first excellence initiative was launched 'in an effort to reclaim Germany’s historic leadership position in research' as a response to this rude awakening prompted by global rankings (Hazelkorn, 2015 , pp 181–182). Japan similarly had a number of national rankings, but it was the advent of global rankings highlighted areas of risk, e.g., weak levels of internationalisation and competition from China as an educational hub in east-Asia, prompting a period of national reform in higher education. The importance of increasing incoming international students and concentrating 'excellence' in global research centres have formed a key part of government policy; the correlation of both factors with global rankings has not been accidental (ibid., pp 188–191).

Implications for higher education research and development

Once research is seen to have value and impact beyond the academy, there are implications for the organisation and management of research, which research is funded, how it is measured and by whom. What is the balance between HEIs producing a cohort of skilled knowledge workers who can catalyse the adoption of research, conduct further research and be smart citizens able to engage actively in civil society vs. HEIs as producers of new knowledge and innovations to underpin economic growth and competitiveness? What is the balance between researcher curiosity vs. national priorities, and between selectivity (funding excellence wherever it exists) vs. concentration (targeted funding to strengthen capability and build critical-mass)? If the former, policy decisions might spotlight the importance of research in HEIs for undergraduate as well as post-graduate students, and support and encourage new and emerging fields rather than prioritising research students and existing strengths. Likewise, the emphasis might be on supporting university-based research to enhance the learning environment rather than building-up independent centres and/or research-enterprise organisations which can have a tendency to over-rely on narrowly defined technology-driven innovation (BIAC, 2008 ; Lundvall, 2002 ; Arai et al., 2007 ). In contrast, if the latter, research assessment might prioritise relevance, alignment with national and/or regional objectives. It might be even more instrumentalist in terms of emphasising particular fields of science, and specify particular outcomes and impacts, such as patents, licences, high performance start-ups, etc.

Assessment methodologies can similarly send important signals. There are, for example, differences between whether emphasis is placed on peer review vs. stakeholder esteem, and on whether impact and benefit is assessed in terms of knowledge, business and enterprise or society. Defining and inserting the “end user” into the process has become increasingly important, not just as a reviewer or assessor of the outcome but as an active contributor to the origination and design of the research idea, methodology and process. These ideas have been around for a while (see Gibbons et al., 1994 ) but have now been taken up by the EU via its responsible research and innovation strategy (EC, n.d.).

This discussion underlies the mutual inter-dependency between higher education and research eco-systems and society, whereby emphasis on and/or changes to one part of the system independently of the other can produce adverse and unintended results across the whole eco-system. In the rush to harness higher education and university-based research to economic recovery and growth, often unrealistic expectations are placed on higher education on the basis that it can and should produce more spin-off companies, direct jobs, patents with licensing income etc. (as per Baker’s [ 2014 ] notion of HEIs as 'secondary institputions' noted above). Few HEIs do this very well because the output rarely happens at the level of expected success. In fact, “research may now be emerging as the enemy of higher education rather than its complement” (Boulton, 2010 , p 6). While it is not wrong to develop an infrastructure that supports this activity, it is unlikely to produce miracles in most cases. Instead, attention should be placed on research-related education and the overall capacity and capability of the higher education and research eco-system.

Rankings have had an impact on the way in which we understand the higher education and research ecosystem, by effectively proclaiming some knowledge is more important than other knowledge. This comes about by using methodologies which benefit the sciences, and as a result, insufficient attention is being given to the arts, humanities and social sciences (Hazelkorn, 2015 ; Benneworth et al., 2017 ). New research fields and inter-disciplinary research are also under-represented. Heavy reliance is placed on that which can be easily measured rather than what may be novel or innovative. At the same time, emphasis is put on research which has global impact in terms of citation count rather than research, which may feature in national goals or policy-related publications which may have regional or culturally relevant outcomes. By measuring 'impact' in terms of interactions between academics, rankings undermine the wider social and economic value and benefit of research. There is a breadth of outputs and outcomes, hidden beneath the journal article and citation iceberg, and effectively discounted; these derive from and include research which benefits society and underpins social, economic and technological innovation in its broadest sense. Instead, rankings entrench a traditional understanding of knowledge production and traditional forms of research activity. This in turn reinforces a simplistic 'science-push' view of innovation, and the view that research achieves accountability within the academy rather than within society (Hazelkorn, 2009 ).

Problems associated with rankings is not simply the prioritisation of research or focus on particular scientific disciplines. It is not a question of whether 'ARWU' is more scientifically rigorous than either 'THE' or 'QS', the latter coming in for considerable criticism as bad social science (Marginson, 2014 ). Rather, the way in which rankings conceptualise, measure and assess scientific endeavour runs counter to everything we have learned about the dynamism of the research and innovation eco-system. Instead of knowledge being (co)produced with an array of other 'knowledge creators' and with value to society, rankings perpetrate a traditional, elite view of the academy standing aloof, pushing out knowledge in a uni-directional flow. Fixated on the basic/fundamental end of the research spectrum as the only plausible type and measure of knowledge, they fail to recognise and account for the fact that the process of discovery is truly dynamic, inclusive of curiosity-driven and user-led, and blue-sky and practice-based (Hazelkorn, 2014b ).

There are difficulties also with the way in which rankings conceptualise impact in terms of a singular focus on citations. Instead, there is a need to go beyond direct 'tangible' impact (e.g., output, outcome) to include much broader range of impact parameters, including scientific human capital, skill sets, etc. This includes outcomes and consequences emerging from collaborative team working, and from learning and knowledge exchanges, that underpin open innovation processes which emerge from and co-exist with educational and pedagogical processes. This learning dynamic is the fundamental role for higher education—or that which puts the 'higher' into higher education. Consideration should also distinguish between short-term and long term, and between planned/unplanned, and intended/unintended impact. Some of these problems derive from reliance on traditional bibliometric indicators, and the fact that bibliometrics offers an relatively simple codification of research activity. By measuring 'knowledge production and dissemination in limited fields and in traditionalist ways, they provide competitive advantage to elite universities and nations which benefit from accumulated public and/or private wealth and investment' (Hazelkorn, 2016 ), rankings take on all the attributes of the 'gate-keeper' they arguably sought to challenge. There is added significance because most rankings are commercial operations.

Ironically, at a time when society is increasingly reliant on higher education to play a major role directly through the quality of graduates and indirectly through scientific endeavour, the indicators of quality and excellence prominent in rankings are promoting the virtues of the self-serving, resource-intensive WCU. The question of what the academy can do for its country is being replaced by what the university can do for the world—or the global elite. The more the WCU engages globally, recruits talent internationally, and is unfettered by national boundaries and societal demands, the more it wins praise. The WCU has been encouraged to lose its 'sense of territorial identity and […] ties to local and regional public support for […] educational, research and civic missions' as it seeks global recognition (Christopherson et al., 2014 , p 4; Marginson, 2013 , p 59). However, the academy is not an innocent bystander in this process, as its core values are wrapped up in the academic-professional practices discussed above. Because competing in the global reputation race is costly, many governments are aggressively restructuring their systems, in the belief that elite research universities have a bigger impact on society and the economy, or have higher quality.

There are emergent alternatives to this reputation race (see Hazelkorn, 2015 , pp 214–227). One is found in Douglas’s ( 2016 ) formulation of the 'flagship university', in explicit opposition to the self-serving WCU. Douglas describes the flagship institutions by referencing the history of the US public university, conceived as comprehensive institutions rather than simply polytechnics, and with a tripartite mission of teaching, research, and public service. A related concept is the 'civic university' (Goddard et al., 2016 ) which, like the flagship university, has a history long predating the advent of rankings and the WCU. It formed the foundation of an expansion of higher education in the north and midlands of Britain in the Victorian period, serving a purpose similar to the land grant universities of the US which Douglas’s idea also draws upon. Similarly, the civic university amplifies the public mission of higher education, setting up a bulwark against the innate propensity for HEIs to be concerned with their reputation, given that 'prestige is to higher education as profit is to corporations' (Toma quoted in Crow and Dabars, 2015 , p 123). In both of these conceptualisations of the university, there are on-going tensions between national and globally predicated forms of excellence.

Another alternative to the WCU takes a more macro perspective, by suggesting a 'world-class system' (WCS) that seeks to maximise the benefit and collective impact for society over all (Lane and Johnstone, 2013 ). In the age of massification, the research university is no longer the sole provider of new ideas or innovation; indeed, as more graduates are produced, there are more alternative sites of knowledge production (Gibbons et al., 1994 ). Open innovation involves multiple partners inside and outside the organisation; boundaries are permeable and innovations can easily transfer inward and outward. The WCS recognises this, emphasising mission differentiation with respect to field specialisation. Different institutions serve as knowledge producers aligned to their expertise and regional/national capacity. Accordingly, the higher education and research eco-system is enriched by having a diverse set of HEI, interacting with other educational providers, to provide a wide range of differentiated outputs, outcomes, impacts and benefits for society over-all. Importantly, the concept of the WCS implicitly notes the rhetorical power of the WCU discourse, and accepts that rankings and discourses of reputation and prestige are not going away. However, it turns the discourse on its head. But, such a policy paradigm runs counter to rankings which focuses on hierarchical or vertical rather horizontal differentiation. With distinctive missions, HEIs complement each other in order to maximise capacity beyond individual capability (see Hazelkorn, 2015 , pp 216–227).

This article set out to discuss some interrelating threads of the globalisation of knowledge, rankings and research quality, assessment and policy, and their implications for HEIs. There are multiple overlapping and conflicting priorities and responsibilities for the state and HEIs, and this article has given an overview of these. Rankings have decisively changed the nature of the conversation around higher education, and how higher education is discussed by government, in policy, and through the media (see also Hazelkorn, 2017 ). The years since their appearance at the turn of the millennium have shown rankings’ staying power – as an instrument for assessing university activities but also as a signifier of highlighting higher education’s importance for national prestige and competitiveness. The conflict between the national and global that rankings have exposed has not been resolved, but there are responses developing that go some way to mitigating the excesses of this tension.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

One can say re - emerged here, as after World War II there was some attempt to assert civilian, professional academic values in fundamental research (Geiger 1993 , pp 332–333). Universities nevertheless remained key to the US federal research agenda, in a manner probably not paralleled in other countries where the “national infrastructure for research and development consists of public and private research laboratories that are largely disconnected from universities” (Vest, 2007 , p 25).

This had also been the target for 2010 as set out in the Lisbon Strategy, but Europe’s R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP didn’t increase between 2000 and 2008, even before the Global Financial Crisis (EC, 2010b , p 13).

A history of rankings is beyond the scope of this paper, but see Usher ( 2017 ) for a narrative of their development, and Hazelkorn ( 2015 , pp 26–37) for a detailed overview of their main features.

A caveat here is, of course, that there has long been international scholarly connections, e.g., in terms of Victorian globalisation which saw the relations between the institutions of the 'settler colonies' of the British Empire and home universities creating a 'British academic world' beyond the British Isles (Pietsch, 2013 ). Nevertheless, the novel aspect in this new phase of academic globalisation is how structural it is, with research projects and funding programmes as well as researchers now transcending borders.

Baker distinguishes between strong primary institutions which effect change (i.e., they are active), and secondary institutions which are affected by change with external causes (reactive). One could thus distinguish between higher education as a primary institution in terms of research and international knowledge circulation and the effects this has on globalisation, but also as a secondary institution in terms of 'internationalisation' of student and staff.

http://www.umultirank.org/

http://www.greynet.org/

http://www.scielo.org/

http://www.redalyc.org/

http://www.scimagojr.com/

Who take these rankings at face value (Saisana et al., 2011 ).

Abramo G, D’Angelo CA (2015) The VQR, Italy’s Second National Research Assessment: Methodological Failures and Ranking Distortions. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66(11):2202–2214

Adler NJ, Harzing AW (2009) When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Acad Manag Learn Educ 8(1):72–95. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2009.37012181

Article   Google Scholar  

Australian Excellence Network (AEN) (2015) ERA research excellence rankings. http://www.universityrankings.com.au/research-excellence-rankings.html

Alphonso C (2006) Universities boycott Maclean’s rankings. In: The globe and mail. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/universities-boycott-macleans-rankings/article1102197/ . Accessed 14 Oct 2016

Altbach PG (2006) The dilemmas of ranking, International Higher Education, 42 https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ihe/article/download/7878/7029 . Accessed 2 Sept 2016

Altbach PG (2012) The Globalization of college and university rankings, change: The magazine of higher learning, 44 (1):26–31. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ953463 . Accessed 2 Sept 2016

Arai K, Cech T, Chameau J-L, Horn P, Mattaj I, Potocnik J, Wiley John (2007) The future of research universities. Is the model of research-intensive universities still valid at the beginning of the twenty-first century? EMBO Rep 8(9):804–810

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Audretsch DB (2000) Knowledge, globalization, and regions. In: Dunning JH (ed) Regions, globalization, and the knowledge-based economy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 63–81

Google Scholar  

Baker DP (2014) The schooled society: The educational transformation of global culture. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA

Becher T, Trowler PR (2001) Academic tribes and territories, 2nd ed., SRHE/Open University Press, Buckingham

Becker GS (1993) Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. 3rd ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago,

Book   Google Scholar  

Benneworth P, Gulbrandsen M, Hazelkorn E (2017) The impact and future of arts and humanities research. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) to the OECD (2008) Comments on the OECD project on trade, innovation and growth. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris

BIS (2016) Lord Stern’s review of the research excellence framework call for evidence. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, London, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/500114/ind-16-1-ref-review-call-for-evidence.pdf . Accessed 2 Sept 2016.

Black J (2014) The power of knowledge: how information and technology made the modern world. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT

Boulton G (2010) University Rankings: Diversity, Excellence and the European Initiative. Advice Paper, 3, League of European Research Universities (LERU) http://www.leru.org/files/publications/LERU_AP3_2010_Ranking.pdf . Accessed 16 June 2010

Bush V (1945) Science, the Endless Frontier. United States Government Printing Office, Washington DC. https://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm

Cantwell B (2016) The geopolitics of the education market. In: Hazelkorn E (ed) Global rankings and the geopolitics of higher education. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 309–323

Camera L (2016) Democrats Look to Increase Federal Role in College Accreditation, US News and World Report http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-22/democrats-look-to-increase-federal-role-in-college-accreditation Accessed 30 Sept 2016

Carayannis EG, Rakhmatullin R (2014) The quadruple/quintuple innovation helixes and smart specialisation strategies for sustainable and inclusive growth in Europe and beyond. J Knowl Econ 5(2):212–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-014-0185-8

Castell M (2011) The crisis of global capitalism: toward a new economic culture? In: Calhoun C, Derluguian G (eds) Business as usual: The roots of the global financial meltdown. SSRC and NYU Press, New York, NY, pp 185–210

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) (2016) Computions and Bibliometric Indicators Information source: bibliographic records of research publications and patents. http://www.umultirank.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Bibliometric-Analysis-in-U-Multirank-2016.pdf . Accessed 2 Sept 2016

Cherney A (2013) Academic-industry collaborations and knowledge co-production in the social sciences. J Sociol 51(4):1003–1016. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783313492237

Christopherson S, Gertler M, Gray M (2014) Universities in crisis. Camb J Reg Econ Soc 7(2):209–215

Cloete N, Langa P, Nakayiwa-Mayega F, Ssembatya V, Wangenge-Ouma G, Moja T (2016) Rankings in Africa: Important, interesting, irritating, or irrelevant? In: Hazelkorn E (ed) Global Rankings and the Geopolitics of Higher Education: Understanding the influence and impact of rankings on higher education, policy and society. Routledge, London, pp 128–143

Coates H (2016) Reporting alternatives: Future transparency mechanisms
for higher education. In: Hazelkorn E (ed) Global rankings and the geopolitics of higher education. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 277–294

Cox M (2012) Power shifts, economic change and the decline of the west? Int Rel 26(4):369–388. doi.org/10.1177/0047117812461336

CPPP (2009) On the november ballot – proposition 4: Creating more tier one universities in Texas. Centre for Public Policy Priorities, Austin, TX, http://library.cppp.org/files/2/415_TierOne.pdf . Accessed 2 Sept 2016

Crow M, Dabars WM (2015) Designing the New American University. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD

Dahler-Larsen P (2007) Evaluation and public management. In: Ferlie E, Lynn Jr. LE, Pollitt C (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Public Management (pp 615–639). Oxford University Press, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199226443.003.0027

Dahler-Larsen P (2011) The Evaluation Society. Stanford University Press, Stanford

Dahler-Larsen P (2015) The evaluation society: critique, contestablility and Skepticism. Spazio Filosofico 13:21–36

Dale R (2005) Globalisation, knowledge economy and comparative education. Comp Educ 41(2):117–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050060500150906

Davenport E, Snyder H (1995) Who cites women? Whom do women cite?: An exploration of gender and scholarly citation in sociology. J Doc 51(4):404–410. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1650200&show=abstract . Accessed 2 Sept 2016

Delanty G (2002) Governance of universities. Can J Sociol 27(2):185–198

Dill DD, Beerkens M (eds) (2010) Public Policy for Academic Quality: Analyses of Innovative Policy Instruments. Springer, Dordrecht

Douglas JA (ed) (2016) The New Flagship University: Changing the paradigm from global ranking to national relevancy. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

Drezner D (2014a) The system worked: global economic governance during the great recession. World Politi 66(66):123–164. doi:10.1017/

Drezner D (2014b) The system worked: How the world stopped another great depression. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Dunning JH (1999) Globalization and the knowledge economy. In: Dunning JH (ed) Regions, globalization, and the knowledge-based economy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 7–41

Eaton JS (2011) U. S. accreditation: meeting the challenges of accountability and student achievement. High Educ 1:1–20

ADS   Google Scholar  

Eaton JS (2016) The quest for quality and the role, impact and in uence
of supra-national organisations. In: Hazelkorn E (ed) Global Rankings and the Geopolitics of Higher Education. Routledge, Abingdon, p 324–338

European Commission (EC) (2006) Delivering on the modernisation agenda for universities: Education, research and innovation (COM(2006) 208 final). European Commission, Brussels

European Commission (EC) (2010a) Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (COM(2010) 2020 final).. European Commission, Brussels, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:2020:FIN:EN:PDF . Accessed 30 Aug 2016

European Commission (EC) (2010b) Lisbon Strategy Evaluation Document (SEC(2010) 114 final). European Commission, Brussels

European Commission (EC) (2012) Guide to research and innovation strategies for smart specialisations (RIS3). European Union, Brussels

European Commission (EC) (n.d.) Responsible research and innovation”. https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/responsible-research-innovation . Accessed 11 Oct 2016

European Association for Quality Assurance (ENQA) in Europe (2005) Standards and Guidelines for quality assurance in the European higher education area. http://www.iheqn.ie/_fileupload/Publications/ENQABergenReport_tabfig43799078.pdf . Accessed 26 Aug 2011

ESF (2012) Evaluation in research and research funding organisations: European practices.. European Science Foundation, Strasbourg

Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (1999) The future location of research and technology transfer. J Technol Transf 24(2):111–123. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1007807302841

Etzkowitz H, Webster A, Gebhardt C, Terra BRC (2000) “The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm”. Res Policy 29(2):313–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00069-4

European Universities Association (EUA) (2014) The role of univerisites in Smart Specialisation Strategies. European Universities Association, Brussels, http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publication/EUA_Seville_Report_web.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Accessed 14 Oct 2016

Eurostat (2015) Tertiary education statistics http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Tertiary_education_statistics#Teaching_staff_and_student.E2.80.93academic_staff_ratios Accessed 2 Sept 2016

Ferlie E, Musselin C, Andresani G (2008) The steering of higher education systems: a public management perspective. High Educ 56(3):325–348

Geiger RL (1993) Research and relevant knowledge: American research universities since world war II. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Geuna A, Piolatto M (2016) Research assessment in the UK and Italy: Costly and difficult, but probably worth it (at least for a while). Res Policy 45(1):260–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.004

Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. SAGE, London

Gibson AG, Hazelkorn E (2017) Arts and humanities research, redefining public benefit, and research prioritization in Ireland. Research Evaluation 26(3):199–210

Goddard J, Hazelkorn E, Kempton L, Vallance P (2016) The Civic University: The policy and leadership challenges. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

Gornitzka Å, Maassen P, Olsen JP, Stensaker B (2007) “Europe of Knowledge”: Search for a new pact. In: Maassen P, Olsen JP (eds) University Dynamics and European Integration. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 181–214. http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-1-4020-5971-1_9.pdf

Grove J (2013) Leru pulls out of EU’s U-Multirank scheme. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/leru-pulls-out-of-eus-u-multirank-scheme/2001361.article . Accessed 14 Oct 2016

Grove J (2015) Russia’s universities: rebuilding ‘collapsed starts’, Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/russias-universities-rebuilding-collapsed-stars/2018006.article . Accessed 23 Oct 2016

Guardian (2014) University research excellence framework 2014 – the full rankings, the Guardian Higher Education Network Datablog. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/ng-interactive/2014/dec/18/university-research-excellence-framework-2014-full-rankings . Accessed 2 Sept 2016

Guston DH (2000) Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Guthrie S, Wamae W, Diepeveen S, Wooding S, Grant J (2013) Measuring research: A guide to research evaluation frameworks and tools. RAND, Cambridge, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1217.html . Accessed 2 Sept 2016

Harman G (2011) Competitors of rankings: new directions in quality assurance and accountability. In: Shin JC, Toutkoushian RK, Teichler U (eds) University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education. Springer, Dordrecht, p 35–54

Hazelkorn, E (2009) The impact of global rankings on higher education research and the production of knowledge, UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge Occasional Paper N°16. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001816/181653e.pdf . Accessed 26 May 2017

Hazelkorn E (2012a) European “transparency instruments”: Driving the modernisation of european higher education. Curaj A, Scott P, Vlăsceanu L, Wilson L (eds) European higher education at the crossroads: between the Bologna Process and national reforms, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht

Hazelkorn E (2012b) Understanding rankings and the alternatives: implications for higher education. In: Bergan S, Egron-Polak E, Kohler J, Purser L, Vukasović M (eds) Handbook Internationalisation of European Higher Education. Raabe Verlag, Stuttgart, p A2.1–5

Hazelkorn E (2013a) Has higher education lost control over quality? In: Chronicle of higher education. Washington D.C. http://chronicle.com/blogs/worldwise/has-higher-education-lost-control-over-quality/32321 . Accessed 17 Aug 2016

Hazelkorn E (2013b) Reflections on a decade of global rankings: what we’ve learned and outstanding issues. Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung 2:8–33

Hazelkorn E, Ryan M, Gibson A, Ward E (2013) Recognising the Value of the Arts and Humanities in a Time of Austerity. Dublin. http://arrow.dit.ie/cserrep/42

Hazelkorn E (2014a) “Making an impact: New directions for arts and humanities research”. Arts Humanit High Educ 14(1):25–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022214533891

Hazelkorn E (2014b) Rankings and the reconstruction of knowledge in the age of austerity. In: Fadeeva Z, Galkute L, Madder C, Scott G (eds.) Assessment for sustainable transformation: Redefining quality of higher education. Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke, p 25–48

Hazelkorn E (2015) Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence, 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

Hazelkorn E (2016) Introduction: the geopolitics of rankings. In: Hazelkorn E (ed) Global rankings and the geopolitics of higher education. Routledge, Abingdon, p 1–20

Hazelkorn E (2017) Rankings and higher education: reframing relationships with and between states, Burton R Clark Annual Lecture, CGHE Working Paper 19. http://www.researchcghe.org/perch/resources/publications/wp19.pdf ; http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20170508230619552

Henry M, Lingard B, Rizvi F, Taylor S (2001) The OECD, Globalisation and Education Policy. Pergamon, Oxford

Hicks D (2012) Performance-based university research funding systems. Res Policy 41(2):251–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.007

Huang F (2007) Internationalization of higher education in the developing and emerging countries: a focus on transnational higher education in Asia. J Stud Int Educ 11(3–4):421–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307303919

Inglehart RF, Norris P (2016) Trump, Brexit, and the rise of populism: Economic have-nots and cultural backlash, Faculty Research Working Paper Series. Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, MA

Jaschik S (2007) Battle lines on ‘U.S. News’. Inside Highered. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/05/07/usnews . Accessed 14 Oct 2016

Jump, Paul (2014) REF 2014 results: table of excellence, Times Higher Education , December 18. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/ref-2014-results-table-of-excellence/2017590.article . Accessed 2 Sept 2016

Kwiek M (2015) The internationalization of research in Europe: A quantitative study of 11 national systems from a micro-level perspective. J Stud Int Educ 19(4):341–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315315572898

Lane J, Johnstone DB (eds) (2013) Higher education systems 3.0: Harnessing systemness, delivering performance. SUNY Press, New York, NY

Lane J, Johnstone DB (eds) (2012) Universities and colleges as economic drivers: Measuring higher education's role in economic development. SUNY Press, New York, NY

Lim MA, Oerberg JW (2016) Active instruments: on the use of university rankings in developing national systems of higher education. Policy Reviews in Higher Education

Lundvall B-Å (2002) Growth, innovation and social cohesion: The Danish model. Edward Elgar Publishing, London

Maassen P, Stensaker B (2011) The knowledge triangle. European higher education policy logics and policy implications. High Educ 61(6):757–769.

Marginson S (2008) The Knowledge Economy and the Potentials of the Global Public Sphere”, Paper to the Beijing Forum, 7–9 November http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/people/staff_pages/Marginson/Beijing%20Forum%202008%20Simon%20Marginson.pdf . Accessed 8 Oct 2010

Marginson S (2013) Nation-states, educational traditions and the WCU project. In: Shin JC, Kehm BM (eds) Institutionalization of world-class university in global competition. Springer, Dordrecht, p 59–77

Marginson S (2014) University rankings and social science. Eur J Educ 49(1):45–59. doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12061

Marginson S, van der Wende M (2007) Globalisation and higher education, OECD Education Working Papers No. 8. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris

Middlehurst R (2016) UK teaching quality under the microscope: What are the drivers? Int High Educ 84:27–29

Morgan B (2014) Research impact: Income for outcome. Nature 511(7510):S72–S75. https://doi.org/10.1038/511S72a

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Moyo D (2009) Dead aid. Penguin, London

Narula R (2003) Globalization and technology: Interdependence, innovation systems and industrial policy. Polity Press, Oxford

Nayyar D (2002) The existing system and the missing institutions. In: Nayyar D (ed) Governing globalization: Issues and institutions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 356–384

Neave G (2012) The evaluative state, institutional autonomy and re-engineering higher education in Western Europe: The prince and his pleasure. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

Nelson LA (2011) Examining the AAU gatekeepers. In: Chronicle of Higher Education, 11 May. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/05/11/remaining_60_institutions_mull_aau_criteria_after_syracuse_nebraska_leave . Accessed 2 Sept

Ngok, K, and Guo, W (2008) The quest for world class universities in China: Critical reflections. Policy Futur Educ. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2008.6.5.545

Nye DE (2006) Technology matters: Questions to live with. MIT Press, London

O’Connor J (1973) The fiscal crisis of the state. Transaction Publishers, Piscataway, NJ

OECD (1996) The Knowledge-Based Economy. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris

OECD (2010) Performance-based funding for public research in tertiary education institutions. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264094611-en

OECD (2013) Assessment of higher education learning outcomes (AHELO), Feasibility Study Report Volume 1 - executive summary. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris

OECD (2014) Shifting gear: Policy challenges for the next 50 years. OECD Economics Department Policy Notes, No. 24, vol 24. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, p 17

OECD (2016) Main Science and Technology Indicators. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=MSTI_PUB . Accessed 31 Aug

Okebukola, P (2010). Trends in academic rankings in the Nigerian University system, Paper to International Rankings Exert Group (IREG) 5 Conference. IREG, Berlin

Pietsch T (2013) Empire of Scholars: Universities, networks and the British academic worlds 1850-1939. Manchester University Press, Manchester

Research Excellence Framework (REF) (2014) Research Excellence Framework. http://www.ref.ac.uk/ 2016 . Accessed 4 Oct

Robertson SL, Olds K, Dale R, Dang QA (eds) (2016) Global regionalisms and higher education: Projects, processes, politics. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

Rowland F (2002) The peer-review process. Learn Publ 15:247–258

Saisana M, D’Hombres B, Saltelli A (2011) Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings and policy implications. Res Policy 40(1):165–177

Salmi J (2016) Excellence strategies and world class universities. In: Hazelkorn E (ed) Global rankings and the geopolitics of higher education. Routledge, Abingdon, p 216–243

Santiago P, Tremblay K, Basri E, Arnal E (2008) Tertiary education for the knowledge society, vol 2. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris

Shin JC (2009) Building world-class research university: The Brain Korea 21 project. High Educ 58(5):669–688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9219-8

Smith R (2006). Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178

Stiglitz J (2003) Globalization and its discontents. Penguin Books, London

Stiglitz J (2016). Globalization and its new discontents, project syndicate. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/globalization-new-discontents-by-joseph-e--stiglitz-2016-08 . Accessed 31 August

Stockmann R, Meyer W (eds) (2016) Evaluation between science and utility. In: The future of evaluation: global trends, new challenges, shared perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, p 238–251

Strange S (1996) The retreat of the state: the diffusion of power in the world economy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Taylor MZ (2016) The politics of innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

THE (2016) World reputation rankings 2016 methodology. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/world-reputation-rankings-2016-methodology . Accessed 2 Sept 2016

THE Reporters (2016) Books to be included in World University Rankings analysis for first time, Times Higher Education https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/books-be-included-world-university-rankings-analysis-first-time . Accessed 4 Oct

Tremblay K, Lalanclette D, Roseveare D (2012) Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO) Feasibility Study Report, vol 1. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris

Trow M (1974) Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education. In: General report on the conference on future structures of post-secondary education. OECD, Paris, pp 55–101

Usher A (2017) A short global history of rankings. In: Hazelkorn E (ed) Global rankings and the geopolitics of higher education. Routledge, London and New York, NY, p 23–53

Van Vught F, Ziegele F (eds) (2012) Multidimensional ranking: The design and development of U-multirank. Springer, Dordrecht

Vest CM (2007) The American Research University from world war ii to world wide web. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA

Waters M (2001) Globalization. Routledge, London

Webster T (2001) A principal component analysis of the U.S. news & world rpoert tier rankings of colleges and universities. Econ Educ Rev 20:235–244

Woods N (2000) The political economy of globalization. In: Woods N (ed) The political economy of globalization. Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 1–19

Yonezawa A, Yung-chi Hou A (2014) Continuity and transformation: Continuous challenges for world-class status among universities in Taiwan and Japan as aging societies. In: Cheng Y, Wang Q, Liu NC (eds) Global influences and responses: How world-class universities affect higher education systems. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp 85–101

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Higher Education Policy Research Unit, Dublin, Ireland

Ellen Hazelkorn & Andrew Gibson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ellen Hazelkorn .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note : Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hazelkorn, E., Gibson, A. Global science, national research, and the question of university rankings. Palgrave Commun 3 , 21 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0011-6

Download citation

Received : 27 October 2016

Accepted : 25 September 2017

Published : 07 November 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0011-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Territorial bias in university rankings: a complex network approach.

• Loredana Bellantuono
• Alfonso Monaco
• Roberto Bellotti

Scientific Reports (2022)

Stakeholder pressure to obtain world-class status among Indonesian universities

• Badri Munir Sukoco
• Mohammad Fakhruddin Mudzakkir
• Bambang Tjahjadi

Higher Education (2021)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Journal of Global Education and Research Latest Publications

Total documents, published by university of south florida libraries.

• Latest Documents
• Most Cited Documents
• Contributed Authors
• Related Sources
• Related Keywords

Reflection in alignment to professional standards: What did the student teachers highlight?

This study investigates the professional development of elementary student teachers in a teacher education program. Student teaching is a process for pre-service teachers to apply learning in an authentic school context, and one critical aspect of professional development is through reflection. The participants were primarily examined through their weekly reflections on teaching and learning experiences over an eight-week period. Using the state Standards for the Teaching Profession as a framework, the student teachers chose to reflect on topics they were most interested in exploring. Results indicated that the participants gave predominant attention to classroom management; the standards that received the least reflection were organizing curriculum and planning instruction. Analysis of the reflection journals also revealed how the student teachers grew as individuals and in interaction with others in a learning community. Based on the results, implications for teacher education are proposed. Limitations are also discussed.

Valuing the local within the global: A discourse analysis of professional development in a U.S.-Kurdish transnational university partnership

In an effort to support higher education in developing countries, partnerships between U.S. and international universities have surged, raising questions concerning the social equity of such linkages. Using a New Literacy Studies approach to discourse analysis, online transcripts from one such university partnership were analyzed to determine how language was used to negotiate a more equitable partnership through the adaptation of the social context of professional development activities. Discourse analysis of three relevant linguistic markers in the data suggests that cultural perspectives on professional development influenced the language choices made by university partners, reshaping the power structure toward greater social equity, and aiding in the completion of joint professional development goals. Findings underscore the importance of drawing on local knowledges in planning for and conducting transnational university partnerships.

Global learning: Definition, assessment, and approaches

Global learning has become a fundamental aspect of international education. Yet, a clear understanding of global learning and how to develop it remain unclear. Using the dynamic systems approach, this paper analyzed the reasons, methods, and knowledge, skills, and attitudes(KSA) of global learning in higher education. Global learning is the higher education institutions’ critical response to globalization. It is the essential learning outcome of comprehensive internationalization of curriculum requiring students to develop KSA about the external world and their internal selves in their daily lives across local and global communities. With survey results from 142 undergraduate students in one U.S. university and a global learning rubric and publication, this paper demonstrated how global learning is interpreted and approached differently at various levels and further proposed pedagogical approaches to enhance global learning in higher education.

Teaching inequality in Brazil: A study abroad exploration of race, class, gender, sexuality, and geography

This paper presents and analyzes a case study of a five-week study abroad course called Inequality in Brazil: An exploration of race, class, gender, sexuality, and geography. The course was constructed to teach social inequality in the context of Brazil by using place-based and experiential learning within the framework of critical pedagogy (Freire, 1989). By examining inequality through the lens of culture and geography, students were empowered to become student-teachers in their explorations of race, class, gender, and sexuality as they linked theory to practice and lived experience. This paper provides an example of how study abroad can be used to teach about issues of inequality by partnering with community members to build learning environments where students and community members can all benefit.

Self-segregation, sense of belonging, and social support: An inquiry into the practices and perceptions of Chinese graduate students at an American Mid-Atlantic University

Chinese students studying in the United States face great challenges when adapting to cultural, linguistic, and pedagogical differences. Although discouraged in the literature, self-segregation is a practice common among some international students and is especially prevalent in the Chinese community. This qualitative study explored the motivation and frequency of this practice vis-à-vis social support, and its effect on the participants’ sense of belonging. Insider status was employed to conduct focus groups of mainland Chinese students currently enrolled in graduate programs at a Mid-Atlantic University in the United States. Findings from the study explore how administrators, educators, and the students themselves view the practice of self-segregation and its consequences.

Implementing global citizenship education policy: The bargaining process of NGOs in some European Countries

This research looked at the growing space that Global Citizenship Education (GCE) is gaining in educational policy worldwide, and at the role Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) played in GCE agenda setting and policy implementation. Based on a comparative policy analysis carried out in 10 European countries, the political agency of NGOs was explored, underlining opportunities, tensions, and challenges, especially in their contribution to national strategies to integrate GCE into national educational systems.

The impact of grade inflation on teachers’ evaluation: A quantitative study conducted in the context of five Lebanese universities

Asking students to evaluate teaching faculty by every ending semester in modern education is an established trend. In the higher education circles, it is validated based on a large body of research showing a relationship between these evaluations and students’ achievement. The arising problem is whether this relation is positively associated or not, and the presence of a growing debate pertaining to the many factors influencing this correlation. Most of the cited research shows a link between the attitude of students and their achievement. This research studies the effect of students’ grade point average (GPA), together with the type of university as public or private, and students’ major, on their attitude towards faculty teaching evaluations. The results of the multiple regression show a strong relationship between GPA and students’ attitude towards faculty evaluations, suggesting an ethical duality affecting grade inflation.

Global citizenship development in higher education institutions: A systematic review of the literature

Institutions of higher education continue to emphasize the need to create and develop global citizen graduates who will face challenging global issues in the workforce. A systematic literature review of empirical studies on global citizenship in higher education was conducted to understand the various ways this term is being studied, measured, and operationalized. The process of inclusion and exclusion criteria identified 57 studies. A content analysis revealed global citizenship is being included into higher education through scales of measurement, studying abroad, faculty and student perceptions, coursework, and university programs. The results are discussed in relation to the current literature on global citizenship along with future avenues of research.

Determinants of e-learning acceptance amongst Iranian postgraduate students

E-learning can address some of the unmet needs of learners and educational communities; however, not all learners and educators accept e-learning as a delivery modality. This research endeavored to study the factors which affect e-learning acceptance among Iranian post-graduate students using the Davis Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and to identify the changes which would facilitate their improved acceptance and subsequent wider use of e-learning. This descriptive-correlation study was conducted by surveying 320 Iranian postgraduate students using a self-reporting questionnaire. Structural equation modeling was used for data analysis through LISREL software. Results revealed sufficient validity and reliability of the TAM among Iranian postgraduate medical students. Perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness of e-learning, students’ attitudes toward e-learning, and the intention to use e-learning positively affected e-learning’s acceptance (p < 0.05) among Iranian postgraduate students. According to the results, attitudes toward e-learning have more predictive power than other TAM constructs. Therefore, emphasis on students’ favorable attitudes toward e-learning can be effective in accelerating its acceptance and will progress students’ learning outcomes.

Encountering American higher education: First-year academic transition of international undergraduate students in the United States

This study explored how international undergraduate students perceive their academic transition into American higher education. Schlossberg’s (1984) 4S Transition Theory served as the framework for exploring what academic challenges, if any, international students experience during their first year of undergraduate studies in a new cultural and educational setting. The findings revealed that students’ academic transition into the U.S. higher education was characterized by difficulties in understanding the academic system of their new environment; overcoming educational, instructional and pedagogical differences; building social relationships with domestic students; and receiving the support necessary from the appropriate institutional services.

Export Citation Format

Share document.

The Evolution of the Social Sciences and Global Academic Relations: A Theoretical Reflection

• First Online: 11 March 2022

Cite this chapter

• Meng Xie 3  

Part of the book series: East-West Crosscurrents in Higher Education ((EWCHE))

174 Accesses

The internationalization of higher education is a major theme in higher education research. This book focuses on the impacts of dynamic HE internationalization on the evolution of the social sciences. In this book, the social sciences is a term that encapsulates a category of academic disciplines of modern universities. The social science disciplines originated and became institutionalized in the late nineteenth century in Europe, and now flourish at higher education institutions (HEIs) worldwide. This chapter begins with an overview of studies on the internationalization of HE, in which the distinction between internationalization and globalization is revealed. This is followed by a brief explanation of the connotations and classifications of academic disciplines. This chapter then revisits some theoretical underpinnings of academic disciplines. In particular, a theoretical underpinning contributed by Wallerstein is adopted to examine three essential dimensions of disciplinary development—organizational, intellectual, and cultural.

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

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Wallerstein ( 1998 ) specifically pinpointed that the social sciences were invented between 1850 and 1914.

Chapter 3 maps the historical trajectory of the evolution of Chinese social sciences.

Alatas, S. F. (1993). On the indigenization of academic discourse. Alternatives, 18 (3), 307–338.

Article   Google Scholar  

Alatas, S. F. (2000). Academic dependency in the social sciences: Reflections on India and Malaysia. American Studies International, 38 (2), 80–96.

Google Scholar  

Alatas, S. F. (2001). The study of the social sciences in developing societies: Towards an adequate conceptualization of relevance. Current Sociology, 49 (2), 1–19.

Alatas, S. F. (2003). Academic dependency and the global division of labor in the social sciences. Current Sociology, 51 (6), 599–613.

Alatas, S. F. (2006). Alternative discourses in Asian social science: Responses to eurocentrism . Sage Publications.

Altbach, P. G. (1998). Comparative higher education: Knowledge, the university, and development . Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.

Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education & Management, 10 (1), 3–25.

Altbach, P. G. (2007). Globalization and the university: Realities in an unequal world. In J. Forest & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher education (pp. 121–139). Springer.

Altbach, P. G. (2013). The humanities and social sciences in Asia. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.), The international imperative in higher education (pp. 149–152). Sense Publishers.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Altbach, P. G. (2015). Perspectives on internationalizing higher education. International Higher Education, 27 , 6–8.

Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11 (3–4), 290–305.

Altbach, P. G., & Teichler, U. (2001). Internationalization and exchanges in a globalized university. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5 (1), 5–25.

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity al large: Cultural dimensions of globalization . University of Minnesota Press.

Appadurai, A. (2000). Grassroots globalization and the research imagination. Public Culture, 12 (1), 1–19.

Arnove, R. F. (1980). Comparative education and world-systems analysis. Comparative Education Review, 24 (1), 48–62.

Arnove, R. F. (2009). World-systems analysis and comparative education in the age of globalization. In R. Cowen & A. M. Kazamias (Eds.), International handbook of comparative education (pp. 101–119). Springer.

Arum, S., & Van de Water, J. (1992). The need for a definition of international education in US universities. In C. B. Klasek (Ed.), Bridges to the future: Strategies for internationalizing higher education (pp. 191–203). Association of International Education Administration.

Ashby, E. (1967). The future of the nineteenth century idea of a university. Minerva, 6 (1), 3–17.

Bao, R. (2002). On the origin and development of disciplinarity. Journal of Higher Education, 23 (4), 102–106.

Batur, S. (2014). Center and periphery. In T. Toe (Ed.), Encyclopedia of critical psychology (pp. 212–215). Springer.

Becher, T. (1981). Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures. Studies in Higher Education, 6 (2), 109–122.

Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (1989). Academic tribes and territories. Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines . The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines . SRHE and Open University Press.

Bhambra, G. (2007). Rethinking modernity: Postcolonialism and the sociological imagination . Palgrave Macmillan.

Book   Google Scholar  

Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57 (3), 195–203.

Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57 (3), 204–213.

Brown, B. C. (2016). What are academic disciplines? Department of History, Bradley University. Retrieved from https://www.bradley.edu/academic/departments/history/documents/Disciplines%20Pub.pdf

Bueno, C. (2013). Knowledge production: A perspective from the periphery. In M. Kuhn & K. Okamoto (Eds.), Spatial social thought: Local knowledge in global science encounters (pp. 111–128). ibidem Press.

Chakkarath, P. (2010). Internationalization education and the social sciences: Reflections on the Indian context. In M. Kuhn & D. Weidemann (Eds.), Internationalization of the social sciences (pp. 87–114). Transaction Publishers.

Chen, H. (2004). Higher education internationalization, Westernization, and Americanization. Fudan Education Forum, 2 (2), 52–54.

Chen, L. H. (2008). Internationalization or international marketing? Two frameworks for understanding international students’ choice of Canadian universities. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 18 (1), 1–33.

Chen, W. (1999). Internationalization and indigenization of social science research. Journal of Jiangxi Normal University, 32 (2), 25–34.

Chen, X. (1997). Internationalization of higher education: History, theories and strategies. Shanghai Higher Education Research, 11 , 57–61.

Cheung, A. B. (2012). How Hong Kong universities balance the global and the regional. In B. Adamson, J. Nixon, & S. Feng (Eds.), The reorientation of higher education: Challenging the east-west dichotomy . Springer.

Chiang, Y. C. (2001). Social engineering and the social sciences in China, 1919–1949 . Cambridge University Press.

Clark, B. R. (1986). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective . University of California Press.

Clark, B. R. (1987). The academic life: Small worlds, different worlds . Princeton University Press.

Clayton, T. (2000). Education and the politics of language: Hegemony and pragmatism in Cambodia, 1979–1989 . Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.

De Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: A historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis . Greenwood Publishing Group.

Deacon, R. (2006). Michel Foucault on education: A preliminary theoretical overview. South African Journal of Education, 26 (2), 177–187.

Deng, Z. (2010). Westernization of the Chinese social sciences: the case of legal science (1978–2008). In: UNESCO & ISSC (Eds.), World social science report 2010 (pp. 182–185). UNESCO Publishing.

Dirlik, A. (2012). Zhongguohua: Worlding China the case of sociology and anthropology in twentieth century China. In A. Dirlik, G. Li, & H.-P. Yen (Eds.), Sociology and anthropology in twentieth-century China: Between universalism and indigenism (pp. 1–39). Chinese University Press.

Cohen, H. F. (1994). The scientific revolution: A historiographical inquiry . University of Chicago Press.

Doherty, C., & Singh, P. (2005). How the West is done: Simulating Western pedagogy in a curriculum for Asian international students. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellstén (Eds.), Internationalizing higher education (pp. 53–73). Springer.

Duan, D. (2013). Differentiation on the concept of internationalization and globalization of higher education. Journal of Henan Institute of Education, 1 , 57–59.

Ellingboe, B. J. (1998). Divisional strategies to internationalise a campus portrait: Results, resistance and recommendations from a case study at US universities. In J. A. Mestenhauser & B. J. Ellingboe (Eds.), Reforming the higher education curriculum: Internationalising the campus (pp. 198–228). American Council on Education & Oryx Press.

Enders, J., & Fulton, O. (2002). Blurring boundaries and blistering institutions. In J. Enders & O. Fulton (Eds.), Higher education in a globalizing world. International trends and mutual observations . Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison . Vintage Books.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 . Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Foucault, M. (1985). The history of sexuality: The use of pleasure . Vintage Books.

Freidman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty first century . Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Frenken, K., Hoekman, J., & Hardeman, S. (2010). The globalization of research collaboration. In UNESCO & ISSC (Eds.), World social science report 2010 (pp. 144–148). UNESCO Publishing.

Gareau, F. H. (1988). Another type of third world dependency: The social sciences. International Sociology, 3 (2), 171–178.

Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity . Polity Press.

Gingras, Y., & Natanson, S. (2010). Where are social sciences produced? In UNESCO & ISSC (Eds.), World social science report 2010 (pp. 149–153). UNESCO Publishing.

Gransow, B. (2008). The social sciences in China. In T. M. Porter & D. Ross (Eds.), The Cambridge history of science: The modern social sciences (pp. 498–514). Cambridge University Press.

Gosovic, B. (2000). Global intellectual hegemony and the international development agenda. International Social Science Journal, 52 (166), 447–456.

Gordon, E. W., Miller, F., & Rollock, D. (1990). Coping with communicentric bias in knowledge production in the social sciences. Educational Researcher, 19 (3), 14–19.

Gunaratne, S. A. (2010). De-Westernizing communication/social science research: Opportunities and limitations. Media, Culture & Society, 32 (3), 473–500.

Hall, B. L., Dei, G. J. S., & Rosenberg, D. G. (Eds.). (2000). Indigenous knowledges in global contexts: Multiple readings of our world . University of Toronto Press.

Harman, G. (2005). Internationalization of Australian higher education: A critical review of literature and research. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellstén (Eds.), Internationalizing higher education (pp. 119–140). Springer.

Hayhoe, R. (1996). China’s universities, 1895–1995: A century of cultural conflict . Garland Publishing.

Hayhoe, R. (2001). Lessons from the Chinese academy. In R. Hayhoe & J. Pan (Eds.), Knowledge across cultures: A contribution to dialogue among civilizations (pp. 323–347). Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.

He, X. (2006). The sinolization and internationalization of the social science research. Journal of Art College of Inner Mongolia University, 3 (3), 3–11.

Healey, N. M. (2008). Is higher education in really ‘internationalising’? Higher Education, 55 (3), 333–355.

HESA. (2013). Joint academic classification of subjects 3.0: Principal subject codes . Retrieved from https://www.hesa.ac.uk/support/documentation/jacs/jacs3-principal

Hopkins, A. G. (2011). Globalisation in world history . Random House.

Huang, F. (2003). Policy and practice of the internationalization of higher education in China. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7 (3), 225–240.

Huang, H. (2010). China’s historical encounter with Western sciences and humanities. In M. Kuhn & I. Wallerstein (Eds.), Internationalization of the social sciences (pp. 21–43). Transaction Publishers.

Huntington, S. P. (1996). The west unique, not universal. Foreign Affairs, 75 (6), 28–46.

Israel, J. I. (2001). Radical enlightenment: Philosophy and the making of modernity, 1650–1750 . Oxford University Press.

James, P. (2005). Arguing globalizations: Propositions towards an investigation of global formation. Globalizations, 2 (2), 193–209.

Jokila, S. (2015). The internationalization of higher education with Chinese characteristics: Appadurai’s ideas explored. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 35 (1), 125–139.

Keim, W. (2010). The internationalization of social sciences: distortions, dominations and prospects. In UNESCO & ISSC (Eds.), World social science report 2010 (pp. 169–170). UNESCO Publishing.

Keim, W. (2011). Counterhegemonic currents and internationalization of sociology: Theoretical reflections and an empirical example. International Sociology, 26 (1), 123–145.

Keim, W., Çelik, E., & Wöhrer, V. (Eds.). (2016). Global knowledge production in the social sciences: Made in circulation . Routledge.

Kerr, C. (2001). The uses of the university . Harvard University Press.

Khorsandi Taskoh, A. (2014). A critical policy analysis of internationalization in postsecondary education: An Ontario case study . Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. The University of Western Ontario. Toronto, Canada.

King, I. (2000). Social science and complexity: The scientific foundations . Nova Science Publishers.

Klein, J. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice . Wayne State University Press.

Klein, J. (1999). Mapping interdisciplinary studies . Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Knight, J., & De Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for internationalization of higher education: Historical and conceptual perspectives. In H. De Wit (Ed.), Strategies for internationalization of higher education: A comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States of America (pp. 5–32). EAIE.

Knight, J. (1997). Internationalization higher education: a conceptual framework. In J. Knight & H. De Wit (Eds.), Internationalisation of higher education in Asia pacific countries . EAIE/IDP.

Knight, J., & De Wit, H. (Eds.). (1997). Internationalization of higher education in Asia Pacific countries . European Association for International Education.

Knight, J. (2003). Updated internationalization definition. International Higher Education, 33 , 2–3.

Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8 (1), 5–31.

Knight, J. (2007). Internationalization: Concepts, complexities and challenges. In J. Forest & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher education (pp. 207–227). Springer.

Knight, J. (2008). Higher education in turmoil: The changing world of internationalisation . Sense Publishers.

Knight, J. (2012). Concepts, rationales, and interpretive frameworks in the internationalization of higher education. In H. Wit & J. D. Heyl (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of international higher education (pp. 27–42). SAGE.

Krishnan, A. (2009). What are academic disciplines? Some observations on the disciplinarity vs. interdisciplinarity debate. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, Working paper 03/09. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/783/

Kundu, M. (2007). Review alternative discourses in Asian social science: Responses to Eurocentrism. Social Scientist, 35 (5/6), 73–76.

Kuhn, M., & Weidemann, D. (2010). Internationalization of the social sciences: Introduction. In M. Kuhn & D. Weidemann (Eds.), Internationalization of the social sciences (pp. 11–19). Transaction Publishers.

Kuhn, M., & Yazawa, S. (2013). Theories about and strategies against hegemonic social sciences . Center for Glocal Studies, Seijo University.

Lauer, M., & Aswani, S. (2009). Indigenous ecological knowledge as situated practices: Understanding fishers’ knowledge in the western Solomon Islands. American Anthropologist, 111 (3), 317–329.

Lewis, C. T., & Short, C. (1879). A Latin dictionary . Clarendon Press.

Li, Q. (2011). “Semi-integration” and “non-integration” in the process of urbanization in China. Hebei Journal, 31 (5), 106–114.

Li, Q. (2015). The indigenization and development of Chinese Sociology. People’s Daily, 05–11.

Li, Q. (2016). How far is China from an olive-type society? A sociological analysis of the development of the middle class. Exploration and Debate, 8 , 4–11.

Ling, B. (2009). A citation study on Chinese humanities and social sciences thirty years scholarship: 1978–2007. Journal of Tsinghua University (philosophy and Social Sciences), 24 (1), 32–50.

Liu, H. (2001). Internationlization and indigenization of higher education. Chinese Higher Education, 2 , 22–29.

Marginson, S. (2000). Rethinking academic work in the global era. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 22 (1), 23–35.

Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Power, governance and reinvention in Australia . Cambridge University Press.

Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43 (3), 281–309.

Marginson, S., & Van der Wende, M. (2007). To rank or to be ranked: The impact of global rankings in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11 (3–4), 306–329.

MOE. (2020). Overview of educational achievements in China in 2020 . Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/sjzl_fztjgb/202005/t20200520_456751.html

MOE. (2020). Notification of the establishment of interdisciplinary categories: “integrated circuit science and engineering” and “national security” as the first-level disciplines. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/sjzl_fztjgb/202108/t20210827_555004.html

Mohrman, K. (2008). The emerging global model with Chinese characteristics. Higher Education Policy, 21 (1), 29–48.

Mohsin, A., & Zaman, K. (2014). Internationalization of universities: Emerging trends, challenges and opportunities. Journal of Economic, 3 (1), 1–21.

Mosbah-Natanson, S., & Gingras, Y. (2014). The globalization of social sciences? Evidence from a quantitative analysis of 30 years of production, collaboration and citations in the social sciences (1980–2009). Current Sociology, 62 (5), 626–646.

Ninnes, P., & Hellstén, M. (2005). Internationalizing higher education: Critical explorations of pedagogy and policy . Springer Science & Business Media.

OED Online. (2018). Discipline, n. January 2018. Oxford University Press . Retrieved from http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/53744 (accessed February 21, 2018)

Okamoto, K. (2010). Internationalization of Japanese social sciences: Importing and exporting social science knowledge. In M. Kuhn & I. Wallerstein (Eds.), Internationalization of the social sciences (pp. 21–43). Transaction Publishers.

Ou, Y., Zhu, H., & Liao, Z. (2005). The localization of the social sciences of China in time of globalization. Lanzhou Xuekan, 2 , 57–59.

Plaatjie, S. R. (2013). Beyond Western-centric and Eurocentric development: A case for decolonizing development. Africanus, 43 (2), 118–130.

Porter, S. L. (2010). Theology as queen and psychology as handmaid: The authority of theology in integrative endeavours. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 29 (1), 3–15.

Qi, X. (2013). Guanxi, social capital theory and beyond: Toward a globalized social science. The British Journal of Sociology, 64 (2), 308–324.

Qi, X. (2014). Globalized knowledge flows and Chinese social theory . Routledge.

Rashdall, H. (1895). The universities of Europe in the middle ages . Clarendon Press.

Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2009). Globalizing education policy . Routledge.

Rosa, M. C. (2014). Theories of the South: Limits and perspectives of an emergent movement in social sciences. Current Sociology, 62 (6), 851–867.

Roulleau-Berger, L. (2016). Post-Western revolution in sociology: From China to Europe . Brill Publishers.

Scholte, J. A. (2017). Globalization: A critical introduction. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Scott, J. C. (2006). The mission of the university: Medieval to postmodern transformations. Journal of Higher Education, 77 (1), 1–39.

Scott, P. (2000). Globalisation and higher education: Challenges for the 21st century. Journal of Studies in International Education, 4 (1), 3–10.

Seeber, M., Cattaneo, M., Huisman, J., & Paleari, S. (2016). Why do higher education institutions internationalize? An investigation of the multilevel determinants of internationalization rationales. Higher Education, 72 (5), 685–702.

Shen, C. (2014). Differentiation and analysis of several analogical concepts with the concept of internationalization of higher education. Global Education, 43 (6), 45–53.

Shields, C. (Ed.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of Aristotle . Oxford University Press.

Slater, D. (1995). Challenging Western visions of the global: The geopolitics of theory and North-South relations. The European Journal of Development Research, 7 (2), 366–388.

Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution . Cambridge University Press.

Solovey, M., & Cravens, H. (2012). Cold war social science: Knowledge production, liberal democracy, and human nature . Palgrave Macmillan.

Szostak, R., Gnoli, C., & López-Huertas, M. (2016). Interdisciplinary knowledge organization . Springer.

Taylor, J. (2004). Toward a strategy for internationalisation: Lessons and practice from four universities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8 (2), 149–171.

Tuinamuana, K. (2005). International policy convergence in higher education: An analysis from the periphery. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellstén (Eds.), Internationalizing Higher Education (pp. 199–214). Springer.

UNESCO & ISSC. (1999). World social science report 1999 . UNESCO Publishing.

UNESCO & ISSC. (2010). World social science report 2010 . UNESCO Publishing.

UNESCO. (2015). International standard classification of education . Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of-education-fields-of-education-and-training-2013-detailed-field-descriptions-2015-en.pdf

UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education . Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707.locale=en

Vaira, M. (2004). Globalization and higher education organizational change: A framework for analysis. Higher Education, 48 (4), 483–510.

Várnagy, T. (2010). The Americanization of Argentine and Latin American social sciences. In M. Kuhn & D. Weidemann (Eds.), Internationalization of the social sciences . Transaction Publishers.

Vessuri, H. (2010). The current internationalization of the social sciences in Latin America: Old wine in new barrels. In M. Kuhn & D. Weidemann (Eds.), Internationalization of the social sciences (pp. 135–157). Transaction Publishers.

Wallerstein, I. (1974a). The modern world-system I: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century . Academic.

Wallerstein, I. (1974b). The rise and future demise of the world capitalist system: Concepts for comparative analysis. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 16 (4), 387–415.

Wallerstein, I. (1996). Open the social sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian commission on the restructuring of the social sciences . Stanford University Press.

Wallerstein, I. (1998). The time of space and the space of time: The future of social science. Political Geography, 17 (1), 71–82.

Wallerstein, I. (2008). What is historical social science? Paper presented at the contention, change, and explanation: A conference in Honor of Charles Tilly .

Wang, J. (2002). Conception of the internationalization of higher education. Modern University Education, 1 , 5–8.

Weidemann, D. (2010). Challenges of international collabor presented at the contention, change, and explanation: A Conference in Honor of Nation in the social sciences. In M. Kuhn & D. Weidemann (Eds.), Internationlization of the social science (pp. 353–378). Transaction Publishers.

Welch, A. (2002). Going global? Internationalizing Australian universities in a time of global crisis. Comparative Education Review, 46 (4), 433–471.

Wittrock, B., Wagner, P., & Wollmann, H. (1991). Social sciences and the modern state: Policy knowledge and political institutions in Western Europe and the United States. In P. Wagner, C. H. Weiss, B. Wittrock, & H. Wollmann (Eds.), Social sciences and modern states: National experiences and theoretical crossroads (pp. 28–85). Cambridge University Press.

Wu, H. (2021). China’s outward-oriented higher education internationalization . Springer.

Yang, R. (2000). Tensions between the global and the local: A comparative illustration of the reorganisation of China’s higher education in the 1950s and 1990s. Higher Education, 39 (3), 319–337.

Yang, R. (2002). Third delight: The internationalization of higher education in China . Routledge.

Yang, R. (2003). Globalisation and higher education development: A critical analysis. International Review of Education, 49 (3), 269–291.

Yang, R. (2013). Indigenised while internationalised? Tensions and dilemmas in China’s modern transformation of social sciences in an age of globalisation. In M. Kuhn & K. Okamoto (Eds.), Spatial social thought: Local knowledge in global science encounters . ibidem Press.

Yang, R. (2014). China’s strategy for the internationalization of higher education: An overview. Frontiers of Education in China, 9 (2), 151–162.

Yang, R. (2015). Reassessing China’s higher education development: A focus on academic culture. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16 (4), 527–535.

Yang, R. (2017). The cultural mission of China’s elite universities: Examples from Peking and Tsinghua. Studies in Higher Education, 42 (10), 1825–1838.

Yang, R. (2020). Schooling in China. In K. Latham (Ed.), Routledge handbook of Chinese culture and society (pp. 34–49). Routledge.

Zha, Q. (2003). Internationalization of higher education: Towards a conceptual framework. Policy Futures in Education, 1 (2), 248–270.

Zha, Q., Wu, H., & Hayhoe, R. (2019). Why Chinese universities embrace internationalization: An exploration with two case studies. Higher Education, 78 (4), 669–686.

Zheng, H. S. (2009). Cujin Zhongguo Shehuixue De Lilunzijue: Women Xuyao Shenmeyang De Zhongguo Shehuixue? [Promoting the theory consciousness of Chinese sociology: What kind of Chinese sociology do we need?]. Jiangsu Social Sciences, 5 , 1–7.

Zhu, J. (2009). Academic appraisal, periodical and internationalization: A proper thought over the upsurge of internationalization of humanities and social sciences. Journal of Tsinghua University (philosophy and Social Sciences), 24 (5), 126–137.

Zuo, Y. (2004). The transformation of disciplinary system from traditional to modern . Shanghai Bookstore Publishing House.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meng Xie .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Xie, M. (2022). The Evolution of the Social Sciences and Global Academic Relations: A Theoretical Reflection. In: Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China. East-West Crosscurrents in Higher Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0163-8_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0163-8_2

Published : 11 March 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-19-0162-1

Online ISBN : 978-981-19-0163-8

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Paper Archives
• Journal Indexing
• Research Conference
• Add Journal

Searching By

• Search More ...

Description

Last modified: 2020-09-29 06:00:28

Advertisement

JSSE - Journal of Social Science Education

Current Issue

Articles are published as Advance Access when they have successfully passed the review process and a final version is available. This is initially placed in the Advance Access Articles issue of the current volume and will later appear in a regular JSSE issue.

Situationality in teaching controversial topics: (When) does controversial equal difficult?

Current news.

We are very happy to inform you about our new issue of the  Journal of Social Science Education  (JSSE):  JSSE 1-2024 edited by Reinhold Hedtke, Johan Sandahl and Andrea Szukala

Italy: JSSE listed as A Level Journal  at  National Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research Institutes .

Make a submission.

• All subject areas
• Agricultural and Biological Sciences
• Arts and Humanities
• Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
• Business, Management and Accounting
• Chemical Engineering
• Computer Science
• Decision Sciences
• Earth and Planetary Sciences
• Economics, Econometrics and Finance
• Engineering
• Environmental Science
• Health Professions
• Immunology and Microbiology
• Materials Science
• Mathematics
• Multidisciplinary
• Neuroscience
• Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
• Physics and Astronomy
• Social Sciences
• All subject categories
• Anthropology
• Communication
• Cultural Studies
• Development
• Gender Studies
• Geography, Planning and Development
• Health (social science)
• Human Factors and Ergonomics
• Library and Information Sciences
• Life-span and Life-course Studies
• Linguistics and Language
• Political Science and International Relations
• Public Administration
• Safety Research
• Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
• Social Work
• Sociology and Political Science
• Transportation
• Urban Studies
• All regions / countries
• Asiatic Region
• Eastern Europe
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Northern America
• Pacific Region
• Western Europe
• ARAB COUNTRIES
• IBEROAMERICA
• NORDIC COUNTRIES
• Afghanistan
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Brunei Darussalam
• Czech Republic
• Dominican Republic
• Netherlands
• New Caledonia
• New Zealand
• Papua New Guinea
• Philippines
• Puerto Rico
• Russian Federation
• Saudi Arabia
• South Africa
• South Korea
• Switzerland
• Syrian Arab Republic
• Trinidad and Tobago
• United Arab Emirates
• United Kingdom
• United States
• Vatican City State
• Book Series
• Conferences and Proceedings
• Trade Journals

• Citable Docs. (3years)
• Total Cites (3years)

Follow us on @ScimagoJR Scimago Lab , Copyright 2007-2024. Data Source: Scopus®

Cookie settings

Cookie Policy

Legal Notice

Privacy Policy

• Sub Journals
• Peer Review Policy
• Short Guide to New Editors
• Retraction Guidelines
• Research Institute
• Recommendations for the Board of Directors
• Editor Research Audit and Service Assessments
• Guidelines for Journals Publishers
• Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers
• Commandment in Social Media
• Suggestions
• Authorship Disputes
• Rights and Responsibilities
• About the Publisher
• Call for Papers
• Editorial Team
• Submissions

Ph.D., Department of Economics Florida International University USA

Federal University of Tocantins - UFT, Brazil

Ph.D. School of Economics and Management University of Florence, Italy

Ph.D., Department of Social Science, JH University USA

BSc Geography, LSE, 1970 Ph.D. Geography (Geomorphology) Kings College London 1980 Ordained Priest, Church of England 1988 Taunton, Somerset, United Kingdom

Ph.D. (Edu.Policy) UUM Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia M.Ed (Curr. & Inst.) University of Houston, US

Ph.D., Sociology, University of Essex, UK Associate Professor City University of Hong Kong, China

Ph.D. in Sociology (Decisional Risk sector), Master MU2, College Teacher, in Philosophy (Italy), Edu-Research Group, Zrich/Lugano

Ph.D. University of Tbingen, Germany Honorary President of German Athletic Federation (DLV), Germany

Roma Tre University Rome, 00145, Italy

Ph.D. in Doctorate of Philosophy in Education, King Abdul Aziz University, Saudi Arabia

Ph.D in Sport Sciences, University Castilla La Mancha, Spain

Ph.D in Statistics, Faculty of Economics & Administrative Sciences / AL-Zaytoonah University of Jordan, Jordan

Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania, Master of Arts in Ottawa University, USA

Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania, MS Columbia University, USA

Ph. D. Philosophy Zagreb, Croatia Rusveltova, Skopje Macedonia, Senior Research Associate at the Institute for Political Studies in Belgrade, Serbia.

Associate Professor, PhD in Philosophical Sciences, Social Philosophy, International law, Politics, Culturology of Bukhara State university, Uzbekistan

Ph.D in Social Sciences, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina, Adjunct Researcher and Professor at UBA and Conicet.

Ph.D, M. Phil., M. A., B. A in English Literature, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, India

Ph.D. Rand Corporation and University of California, Los Angeles, USA Dep. of Human Services, University of Haifa

Ph.D.in Anthropological Sciences, Universidad of Buenos Aires, Argentina, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina

Ed.D., Ph.D. in Physical Education Professor at University of Murcia, Spain

Golittomer LETG UMR 6554 CNRS (Universit de Nantes) Institut de Gographie et dAmnagement Rgional de lUniversit de Nantes. Chemin de la Censive du Tertre BP Rodez

Ph. D. Philosophy Zagreb, Croatia Rusveltova, Skopje Macedonia

B.com., M.com., MBA, PhD (Pursuing), Assistant Professor, Parul Institute of Business Administration, Parul University, Baroda, India

Associate Professor, Ph.D., University of Toronto MA - Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

Ohio State University M.S. Kansas State University B.E. Zhejiang University

Ph.D., M.S., B.A in Library and Information Management, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman

Ph.D, MA in Linguistics, BA & Education in English, Department of English, Faculty of Education, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.

Ph.d in Candidate (Social Development), MA. in Social Development, BS. in Sociology and Anthropology, Naresuan University, Thailand

Doctorate in Geology, PhD in Geosciences and Environment, Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho, UNESP, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Postgraduate Degree

Doctor of Philosophy in Language Education, Isabela State University, Philippines

Doctor of Philosophy

DEGREE IN POLITICAL SCIENCE

Reviewers in Social-Science

BRIEF RESEARCH REPORT article

How social background and interest in science are linked to junior high school students’ perceptions of the ecological transition.

• 1 Laboratoire de Recherche sur les Apprentissages en Contexte (LaRAC), Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France
• 2 Laboratoire de Psychologie: Cognition, Comportement, Communication (LP3C), Psychology, Rennes 2 University, Rennes, France
• 3 Laboratoire Inter-Universitaire de Psychologie, Personnalité, Cognition, Changement Social (LIP/PC2S), Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Univ. Savoie Mont Blanc, Grenoble, France

Junior high school students are tomorrow’s key protagonists in the ecological transition. They need enlightened education to face the uncertainty and challenges of climate change. The development of climate change education programs requires a clear understanding of how young people perceive the issue. This study deals with social representations. Its aim was to understand how social background and interest in science are linked to the way young people perceive the concept of the ecological transition. Four hundred twenty-nine junior high school students took part in this study. Data were collected and subjected to prototypical analysis and factorial correspondence analysis. Three main findings emerged from the analysis: (1) the participants had significant knowledge of the ecological transition, (2) their awareness of the social aspects of climate change was limited, and (3) their representations of the ecological transition were linked to their interest in science and their parents’ social background. To conclude, these results underline the importance of educating all social classes about effective solutions for the ecological transition. Our findings also highlight the need to consider existing representations and prior knowledge when designing educational programs on climate change issues.

1 Introduction

Climate change is defined “ as the shift in climate patterns mainly caused by greenhouse gas emissions” ( Fawzy et al., 2020 , p. 2,070). There are multiple consequences for humans and our ecosystems: extreme weather events, species extinction, food shortages, population displacement, and increased health risks, etc. (e.g., Pachauri et al., 2014 ; Haines and Ebi, 2019 ). To tackle these consequences, governments have repeatedly pledged to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., Kyoto Protocol; 21st Conference of the Parties), undertaking to keep temperature rises below 2°C. These commitments have led to the choice of an ecological transition which, although based on ecological, economic, regulatory and social issues ( Geels, 2011 ), has mainly focused on scientific and technological solutions in favor of ecology in Europe (e.g., Kemp et al., 2007 ; Kreinin, 2020 ). This choice necessarily involves developing scientific knowledge in order to encourage individual commitment to climate change (e.g., Fouad and Smith, 1996 ; Ojala, 2021 ), especially as 2,100, the impacts of climate change will have profoundly altered the health of the planet ( Whitmee et al., 2015 ). Children born today will suffer the consequences of climate change throughout their lives ( Watts et al., 2019 ), so they need to be given the scientific and technological tools that will enable them to adapt to tomorrow’s world ( Lopoukhine et al., 2014 ).

The young people of today will be the main actors of tomorrow’s ecological transition (e.g., Kagawa and Selby, 2012 ; Burke et al., 2018 ; O’Brien et al., 2018 ; Cianconi et al., 2020 ). A study of 10,000 young people aged 16 to 25 in 10 countries (i.e., Australia, Brazil, Finland, France, India, Nigeria, Philippines, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States) found that they questioned the consequences of climate change and seemed particularly uncertain about the future ( Hickman et al., 2021 ). To overcome the inaction of previous generations and tackle the problem of climate change ( Lee, 2013 ), they will need to be well informed ( United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2015 ). Karsgaard and Davidson (2023) suggest that school is the place for the “ development of youth knowledge, creativity, efficacy and collective action skills in the face of climate change ” (p. 4). Educating young people about the challenges of climate change can give them the skills to cope with the forthcoming disruption and the power to act ( Schreiner et al., 2005 ; Cambers and Diamond, 2010 ). However, as pointed out by Rousell and Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles (2020) , climate change education is a field that is in its infancy. While it is clear that young people today have strong feelings and considerable knowledge of climate change ( Lee et al., 2020 ), little is known about how they perceive the ecological transition. According to the National Research Council (2012) , developing climate change education “ begins with a clear picture of how students currently understand the issue ” (2012, p. 11).

Social Representation Theory (SRT; Moscovici, 1961 ) can help us to analyze the social construction of perceptions. This theory explains how individuals and groups give meaning to an issue, a risk or a social object ( Höijer, 2011 ). In other words, how people build naive theories about their social environment ( Jodelet, 1984 ), in order to attribute meaning to their world. These naïve theories are constructed around opinions, attitudes, beliefs and information related to an object or situation ( Rateau et al., 2011 ), and their representations are linked to people’s social affiliations ( Doise, 1990 ; Wagner et al., 1999 ; Joffe, 2003 ; Rateau et al., 2012 ). As social agents ( Beauvois, 1984 ; Dubois and Pansu, 2021 ), individuals have a relationship with objects according to their cultural values ( Howarth, 2006 ). This in turn gives them their social anchorage ( Palmonari and Emiliani, 2016 ). These socially constructed representations can be studied according to their internal structures, in particular using the structural approach to social representations ( Abric, 1994 , 2003 ). According to this approach, social representations are made up of peripheral elements (i.e., dependent on the social contexts in which the individual evolves) organized around central elements (i.e., stable elements resulting from the history and ideology of the collective). Central elements have three functions: (1) signifying (i.e., the meaning given collectively by the group); (2) organizing (i.e., by repercussion on all the contents of the representation) and (3) stabilizing (subject to a strong consensus). Peripheral elements are based on the core consensus elements and express the variability of individual experiences in different social contexts. SRT therefore provides an understanding of how communication conveying scientific knowledge is transformed into common sense ( Moscovici and Hewstone, 1984 ). SRT is an interpretative framework which may help to understand the representations of young people ( Parrott et al., 2023 ) especially when it comes to environmental issues ( Buijs et al., 2012 ).

The objective of this study was to: (1) analyze the representations of junior high school students (14–15 years old) in France with regard to the ecological transition; (2) understand how social and psychological filters structure the way they perceive the ecological transition. As socioeconomic status is a predictor of educational achievement ( von Stumm et al., 2020 ), it has been hypothesized that the structuring of representations may depends on social determinants: such as parents’ socio-professional categories. Since scientific knowledge plays a central role in the ecological transition ( Kreinin, 2020 ), it is also hypothesized that the participants’ interest in science contributes to the structuring of representations ( Fouad and Smith, 1996 ). Finally, this paper aims to provide a stronger understanding of how young people’s representations of the ecological transition are structured.

2.1 Participants and procedure

The study proposal was reviewed and approved by the “Research Ethics Committee, Grenoble Alpes” (CERGA) of the University of Grenoble Alpes – Ethical approval number: Grenoble CERGA-Avis-2023-09. The study was carried out in partnership with the territorial services of the French Ministry of Education and conducted between May 2023 and October 2023. Four Hundred Thirty-nine junior high school students from 11 schools in the Auvergne Rhone Alpes region took part in the study (M age  = 14.1, SD age  = 0.619, range = 12–16, 53% female). Students were divided into three categories based on the socio-professional categories (SPC) of the first parent mentioned in the questionnaire. If the parents belonged to two different categories, participants were placed in the category corresponding to the higher SPC: SPC+ (self-employed trades professions; engineers; teachers; managers – 52.6%); SPC- (agricultural, factory and office workers – 37.8%); Inactive (students; retirees; unemployed – 6.4%). The three categories were based on information from the INSEE, which is the French Office for National Statistics and Economic Studies (see Supplementary materials for further details).

A few weeks before the study was carried out, the parents were asked to read an information leaflet and fill in the consent form to authorize (or not) their children’s participation. The researcher then visited the schools volunteering to carry out the study. The study took place in a computer room at predefined time slots. After presenting the study, the first author asked each pupil to go to a computer to complete an online ecological transition questionnaire on the Limesurvey © platform.

2.2 Measures

2.2.1 perceptions of ecological transition.

A free association task was used to collect perceptions of the ecological transition (e.g., Lo Monaco et al., 2016 ; Moliner and Lo Monaco, 2017 ). In this task, the junior high school students were presented with the stimulus words: “ecological transition.” On the basis of this induction, participants were free to associate four words or phrases that came to mind. This methodology yielded spontaneous associations from the participants.

2.2.2 Interest in science

Fourteen items were used to measure interest in science adapted from Fouad and Smith (1996) . This scale was originally developed for secondary school students to assess their interest in mathematics and science. Here, the mathematics items have been removed. Students were asked how much they liked to do certain things (e.g., Visit a science museum), rated from 0 (“I do not like it at all”) to 10 (“I like it very much”). The scores were aggregated. Internal consistency was satisfactory (α = 0.93).

2.3 Results

The corpus was composed of productions from 439 participants. A total of 1,578 verbal associations were collected from all participants, some of whom did not provide the expected 4 words. The corpus was cleaned up by the use of Excel ® (version 16.74) and Python ® (version 3.11), and then categorized by the authors, independently, using standard content analysis rules ( Jones and Rosenberg, 1974 ; Dl Giacomo, 1980 ). 288 different words were obtained (167 are hapax, 57.98% of this corpus). Data were analyzed using JAMOVI ® (version 2.3.18), R ® (version 4.1.3), FactoshinySR (version 1.1 – Brosset and Delouvée, 2022 ) and two analyses were carried out.

Firstly, a prototypical analysis ( Lo Monaco et al., 2016 ; Moliner and Lo Monaco, 2017 ; Delouvée et al., 2021 ), traditionally used in the structural approach to social representations, was conducted on the words given by the participants. This analysis was used to highlight the salience of elements in the representation by producing a table cross-referencing word frequency (i.e., below and above 10% of the number of evocations excluding hapaxes) and the order in which the word was produced, i.e., average occurrence rank (i.e., based on 2.5, the median of the four numbers of ranks – see Table 1 ).

Table 1 . Prototypical analysis: results in terms of frequency and average importance associated with the categories of words reported by the participants for the stimulus words “ecological transition.”

Cross-referencing the evocations with the highest frequency and rank of appearance revealed three sub-categories (i.e., top left cell). The first category describes the causes and consequences of climate change (i.e., pollution, global warming). The second category describes the idea of moving toward a more ecological model (i.e., ecology, change, transition). Finally, the third sub-category expresses some of the best-known responses to the problem of climate change that have already been widely implemented (i.e., recycling, waste sorting, wind turbines). Moreover, for these young people, the main challenge of the ecological transition is to respond to climate change issues for the “planet” and its “flora.” These descriptive elements constitute the core representations of the ecological transition (e.g., Abric, 2003 ; Galli and Fasanelli, 2020 ). This suggests that young people are aware of the issues at stake in the ecological transition, both in terms of the problems it seeks to solve and the ways of achieving it.

The top right cell (peripheral; Abric, 2003 ) contains the frequent words, which do not appear quickly in the associative chain. Elements in this cell clarify the content evoked for the core. In fact, 2 categories can be identified. The first one concerns elements which refer to the idea of preserving natural environments for the future (i.e., nature, future, good for the planet, preserving the environment). The second category mentions solutions that are harder to implement in response to the consequences of climate change (i.e., water management, alternative transport, dams). Finally, it seems that for these young people, the “economy” is fundamental to the ecological transition.

The bottom left cell represents the contrasting elements that may not reach a consensus, but appear quickly in the associative chain, and are therefore considered very important by certain minority groups ( Pianelli et al., 2010 ). Also, some individuals will emphasize the idea of turning to more virtuous models (i.e., transformation, evolution, consuming less and better). Participants also mentioned alternative solutions (e.g., tidal turbines, electric cars or solar energy, etc.). Finally, for the words in the second periphery (i.e., bottom right cell), i.e., the least salient of the peripheral system of representation that could be described as contextual (e.g., Delouvée et al., 2021 ), participants mention energy sources that produce greenhouse gasses (fossil fuels), and nuclear power, and their associated uses (i.e., plastics). Finally, participants express the idea of a better world as a possible consequence of the ecological transition. Although these elements are infrequent and unimportant, they seem to emerge in the content of the representation and are linked to the social context in which these young people evolve.

Secondly, a correspondence factor analysis (CFA; Benzécri, 1976 ) was carried out on participants’ evocations. This descriptive analysis was conducted to study how the words given by young people are associated with the parents’ socio-professional categories and the participants’ interest in science ( Mouret et al., 2013 ; Nadarajah et al., 2022 ). In accordance with the work of Piermattéo et al. (2014) and the recommendations of Deschamps (2003) , evocations whose frequency was greater than or equal to 6 were selected ( n  = 42 categories, 89.50% of the corpus without hapax). The relationship of these evocations with two variables was studied: (1) Interest in science was divided into two categories (“weak” and “strong”), which were defined with a distribution by the median 5; and (2) parents’ socio-professional categories were separated into 3 categories in accordance with the SPC groupings used for economic analyses by the French Office for National Statistics: SPC +, SPC −, and Inactive.

The CORR. F. A. highlights two factors that explain 75.70% of the table’s inertia (Factor 1 = 43.29%; Factor 2 = 32.41%). Factor 1 has a contribution from the terms of the variables “Socio-Professional Category”: CF (SPC+) = 0.07, CF (SPC−) = 0.10 “Science Interest”: CF (Science.Interest.Strong) = 0.37 + CF (Science.Interest.Weak) = 0.45, i.e., a contribution of 99%, to the formation of the factor. Factor 2 has a contribution from the terms of the variables “Socio-Professional Category”: CF (SPC+) = 0.36, CF (SPC-) = 0.47 “Science Interest”: CF (Science.Interest.Strong) = 0.07 + CF (Science.Interest.Weak) = 0.08, i.e., a contribution of 99%, to the formation of the factor. Figure 1 illustrates this configuration.

Figure 1 . Graphical representation of the results produced by the factorial correspondence analysis for Factor 1 (Solid line block) and 2 (Dotted line block) concerning the “ecological transition” stimulus term. Shaded blocks refer to experimental conditions. The “Socio-Professional Category and Interest in Science variables” contribute to the formation of Factor 1; the “ Socio-Professional Category and Sciences Interest variables ” refer to the variables and measures that contribute to the formation of Factor 2; the “Socio-Professional Category and Interest in Science variables” refer to the variables and measures that contribute to the formation of Factors 1 and 2. “Perceptions” refers to perceptions that contribute to the formation of Factor 1; “ Perceptions ” refers to perceptions that contribute to the formation of Factor 2; “ Perceptions ” refers to perceptions that contribute to the formation of both Factors 1 and 2.

The vertical axis (factor 1) draws a distinction between young people according to their interest in science. Factor 1 indicates that the perceptions of participants with a strong interest in science differ from those of young people with a weak interest in science. Participants with a strong interest in science associate the ecological transition with the idea of evolution and the preservation of the environment. They also mention the changes in habits that are needed in order to achieve this (e.g., alternative transport). Finally, they mention “nuclear power,” probably because of its resurgence in the media as a “clean” energy that could enable the ecological transition. At the bottom of the vertical axis, the participants with a weak interest in science refer to individual actions to talk about the ecological transition (e.g., sorting waste). They are aware of the problem of climate change (e.g., planet) through the issue of fossil fuel scarcity. They also mention the “solar panel” as a technology that could play a part in the energy mix. However, they remain rather vague and descriptive when it comes to characterizing types of energy (e.g., electricity). Finally, they mention “ecologists” as being a category of the population that does not include themselves.

The horizontal axis (factor 2) shows young people according to their parents’ socio-professional category. Factor 2 indicates that the perceptions of participants whose parents belong to a high socio-professional category differ from those of young people whose parents belong to a low socio-professional category. Thus, participants whose parents belong to a high socio-professional category associate the ecological transition and the resolution of climate change with strategies or technologies to be implemented (i.e., water management, wind turbines, dams), or specific energy sources (i.e., renewable energy). Finally, these participants also refer to the idea of cutting through the old system of over-consumption to move toward more environmentally-friendly consumption (i.e., consuming less and better). On the other side of the axis, participants whose parents are in lower socio-professional categories use more general terms to refer to the ecological transition (i.e., change, nature, transformation, good for the planet). Furthermore, the “economy” takes on a predominant character for these participants when they think of the ecological transition.

3 Discussion

The aim of this study was to clarify the way the junior high school students perceive the ecological transition and to analyze their representations. Three mains’ results were obtained: the participants (1) have significant knowledge of the ecological transition and its underlying principles, (2) have little awareness of the social aspects linked to climate change, and (3) their representations of the ecological transition are structured by their interest in science and the socio-professional categories to which their parents belong.

Young people perceive the causes and consequences of climate change and link them to the need to switch to a more ecological model, through individual behaviors and technological solutions in favor of ecology ( Kemp et al., 2007 ; Kreinin, 2020 ). Some research has shown that young people have misconceptions about climate change that persist despite the emphasis placed on climate change education ( Jeffries et al., 2001 ). In this study, no misconceptions were observed. On the contrary, their representations of the ecological transition provide the foundations upon which learning in the classroom can be built. These results support the findings of Corner et al. (2015) showing that today’s 18-25-year-olds are probably the most well-informed age group. Nevertheless, in the corpus of this study, the social aspects inherent to climate change are barely mentioned. Indeed, the representations of the participants are oriented toward causes and consequences and have a technocentric vision of the ecological transition. For example, factors such as social justice, inclusion, citizen participation do not feature in the participants’ responses (e.g., Favreau, 2017 ; Huntjens, 2021 ). Another explanation for this technocentric vision could come from the chosen inductor term. The term “ecological transition” immediately implies thinking about the methods and technologies that could make this transition possible. However, other terms such as “sustainable development,” anchored in the three pillars: economic, environmental and social, could have enabled students to produce words related to social aspects ( Mensah, 2019 ). Nevertheless, these factors should be considered when designing education programs for the ecological transition. As such, the concept of socio-ecological transition could provide an interesting theoretical foundation, while opening up a research program to study how it is perceived in non-scientific contexts ( Larocque, 2023 ). Additionally, our results show that differences in the representational content are mainly linked to interest in science and the parents’ socio-professional category. Indeed, participants with a strong interest in science tend to describe the ecological transition by placing it in the broader context of environment preservation, while those whose interest in science is weaker only evoke solutions. Similarly, young people whose parents are in the low socio-professional category contrast with those whose parents are in the high socio-professional category. The former mentions a change for a better world, but remains relatively vague, whereas the latter develops strategic orientations and suggests technologies to break with an old system rooted in over-consumption. In both groups, the principles of objectification (transforming an abstract object to make it concrete), and anchoring (integrating the object into a pre-existing thought system), do not seem to have operated identically ( Doise, 1990 ; Moliner, 2015 ). It is as if the objectifying and anchoring processes rely on psychological and social affiliations to elaborate the content of their representations of the ecological transition.

These results must be interpreted with the limitations in mind. First, the fact that there was only one time point of measurement calls for caution. Second, only 11 schools agreed to take part (out of 389). As a result, there may have been a sampling bias due to the school selection. To reduce this bias, we made sure that the schools were located in both urban and rural areas. Future studies could endeavor to recruit a greater number of schools in a wider geographical area.

To conclude, the ecological transition is a major issue for junior high school students, even if it manifests itself differently depending on their interest in science and the social group to which their parents belong. These results are important because new knowledge is embedded in a pre-existing system of representations. They can help us build a new way of designing educational programs by taking account of young people’s representations and prior knowledge of climate change issues. Today, young people do not need to be convinced of the reality of climate change, but it is essential to educate all social classes toward the development of a common knowledge base that will foster the implementation of solutions for the ecological transition. The ultimate goal is to educate all young people so that they are able to debate climate change issues in an organized and structured way, which would mean that they can (1) listen to each other’s differing viewpoints, and (2) work together constructively to develop strategies for the ecological transition. The principles of cooperative learning could be applied in order to facilitate productive ecological transition debates, thereby improving the knowledge acquisition process.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by Research Ethics Committee, Grenoble Alpes. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin. Written informed consent was obtained from the minor(s)’ legal guardian/next of kin for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.

Author contributions

KN: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AS: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. CB: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. PP: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Research supported by the French government as part of the “Territoires d’Innovation Pédagogique” program of the “Programme d’investissements d’avenir,” operated by Caisse des Dépôts (La Banque des Territoires).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the partners in this project for their collaboration: la caisse des dépôts; la banque des territoires; l’académie de Grenoble; l’académie de Lyon; L’Université Grenoble Alpes; Le Campus des Métiers et des Qualifications d’excellence Smart Energy Systems; La Région Auvergne Rhône Alpes; and Engie. The authors would also thank, the colleges and young people who volunteered to take part in this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1360166/full#supplementary-material

Abric, J.-C. (1994). Pratiques sociales et représentations . Paris, France: Presses universitaires de France.

Google Scholar

Abric, J.-C. (2003). Méthodes d’étude des représentations sociales . Toulouse: Eres.

Beauvois, J.-L. (1984). La Psychologie quotidienne . Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.

Benzécri, J. P. (1976). L’analyse des correspondances [the correspondence analysis] . Paris, France: Dunod.

Brosset, F., and Delouvée, S. (2022). Facto shiny SR. R code for factorial analysis of social representations. Cutxan: CERISE (Collaborativ E info Rmat Ion on Social rEpresentations) Version: 1.1.

Buijs, A., Hovardas, T., Figari, H., Castro, P., Devine-Wright, P., Fischer, A., et al. (2012). Understanding people’s ideas on natural resource management : research on social representations of nature. Soc. Nat. Resour. 25, 1167–1181. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2012.670369

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Burke, S. E. L., Sanson, A. V., and Van Hoorn, J. (2018). The psychological effects of climate change on children. Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 20:35. doi: 10.1007/s11920-018-0896-9

Cambers, G., and Diamond, P. (2010). Sandwatch: adapting to climate change and educating for sustainable development . Paris, France: UNESCO.

Cianconi, P., Betrò, S., and Janiri, L. (2020). The impact of climate change on mental health: a systematic descriptive review. Front. Psych. 11:74. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00074

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Corner, A., Roberts, O., Chiari, S., Völler, S., Mayrhuber, E. S., Mandl, S., et al. (2015). How do young people engage with climate change? The role of knowledge, values, message framing, and trusted communicators. WIREs Clim. Change 6, 523–534. doi: 10.1002/wcc.353

Delouvée, S., Moloney, G., McColl, K., and Lo Monaco, G. (2021). Mosquito-borne diseases: social representations of a University Community in Endemic Outbreaks. Infect. Dis. Rep. 13, 486–493. doi: 10.3390/idr13020047

Deschamps, J.-C. (2003). “Analyse des correspondances et variations des contenus de représentations sociales” in Méthodes d’étude des représentations sociales . Ed. C. Abric (Toulouse: Érès), pp. 179–199.

Dl Giacomo, J.-P. (1980). Intergroup alliances and rejections within a protest movement (analysis of the social representations). Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 10, 329–344. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420100402

Doise, W. (1990). “Les représentations sociales” in Trait. de Psychologie Cognitive . eds. R. Ghiglione, C. Bonnet, and J.-F. Richard (Paris, France: Dunod, Paris).

Dubois, N., and Pansu, P. (2021). Jean-Léon Beauvois (1943–2020): a key Figure in social psychology. Int. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 34:e550. doi: 10.5334/irsp.550

Favreau, L. (2017). Mouvement communautaire et État social: Le défi de la transition sociale-écologique . Presses universitaires du Québec.

Fawzy, S., Osman, A. I., Doran, J., and Rooney, D. W. (2020). Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 18, 2069–2094. doi: 10.1007/s10311-020-01059-w

Fouad, N. A., and Smith, P. L. (1996). A test of a social cognitive model for middle school students: math and science. J. Couns. Psychol. 43, 338–346. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.43.3.338

Galli, I., and Fasanelli, R. (2020). Public understanding of science and common sense: social representations of the human microbiome among the expert and non-expert public. Health Psychol. Open 7:1323. doi: 10.1177/2055102920913239

Geels, F. W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to seven criticisms. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 1, 24–40. doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002

Haines, A., and Ebi, K. (2019). The imperative for climate action to protect health. N. Engl. J. Med. 380, 263–273. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1807873

Hickman, C., Marks, E., Pihkala, P., Clayton, S., Lewandowski, R. E., Mayall, E. E., et al. (2021). Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: a global survey. Lancet Planet. Health 5, e863–e873. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00278-3

Höijer, B. (2011). Social Representations Theory. Nordicom Rev. 32, 3–16. doi: 10.1515/nor-2017-0109

Howarth, C. (2006). A social representation is not a quiet thing: exploring the critical potential of social representations theory. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 45, 65–86. doi: 10.1348/014466605X43777

Huntjens, P. (2021). Towards a natural social contract: Transformative social-ecological innovation for a sustainable, Healthy and Just Society . Cham: Springer Nature.

Moscovici, S. (1961). La représentation sociale de la psychanalyse. Bulletin de Psychologie 14, 807–810.

Jeffries, H., Stanisstreet, M., and Boyes, E. (2001). Knowledge about the “greenhouse effect”: have college students improved? Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 19, 205–221. doi: 10.1080/02635140120087731

Jodelet, D. (1984). Réflexions sur le traitement de la notion de représentation sociale en psychologie sociale. Commun. Inform. Médias Théories 6, 14–41. doi: 10.3406/comin.1984.1284

Joffe, H. (2003). Risk: from perception to social representation. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 42, 55–73. doi: 10.1348/014466603763276126

Jones, R. A., and Rosenberg, S. (1974). Structural representations of naturalistic descriptions of personality. Multivar. Behav. Res. 9, 217–230. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr0902_8

Kagawa, F., and Selby, D. (2012). Ready for the storm: education for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation and mitigation 1. J. Educ. Sustain. Dev. 6, 207–217. doi: 10.1177/0973408212475200

Karsgaard, C., and Davidson, D. (2023). Must we wait for youth to speak out before we listen? International youth perspectives and climate change education. Educ. Rev. 75, 74–92. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2021.1905611

Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., and Rotmans, J. (2007). Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 14, 78–91. doi: 10.1080/13504500709469709

Kreinin, H. (2020). Typologies of “just transitions”: towards social-ecological transformation. Available at: http://www.beigewum.at/kurswechsel/jahresprogramm-2020/heft-12020-climate-change-and-beyond/

Larocque, E. (2023). Co-envisioning the social-ecological transition through youth eco-activists’ narratives: toward a relational approach to ecological justice. J. Community Pract. 31, 127–151. doi: 10.1080/10705422.2023.2208577

Lee, N. (2013). Childhood and biopolitics . London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Lee, K., Gjersoe, N., O’Neill, S., and Barnett, J. (2020). Youth perceptions of climate change: a narrative synthesis. WIREs Clim. Change 11:e641. doi: 10.1002/wcc.641

Lo Monaco, G., Piermattéo, A., Rateau, P., and Tavani, J. L. (2016). Methods for studying the structure of social representations: a critical review and agenda for future research. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 47, 306–331. doi: 10.1111/jtsb.12124

Lopoukhine, N., Wheeler, K., Keenleyside, K., Charles, C., Koss, R., and Nicoll, R. (2014). Empowering the next generation to connect with nature: a global movement. Parks 20, 49–60. doi: 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2014.PARKS-20-2.NL.en

Mensah, J. (2019). Sustainable development: meaning, history, principles, pillars, and implications for human action: literature review. Cogent Soc. Sci. 5:1653531. doi: 10.1080/23311886.2019.1653531

Moliner, P. (2015). Objectivation et ancrage du message iconique. Propositions théoriques et pistes de recherche. Sociétés 130, 81–94.

Moliner, P., and Lo Monaco, G. (2017). Méthodes d’association verbale pour les sciences humaines et sociales . Fontaine: Presses universitaires de Grenoble.

Moscovici, S., and Hewstone, M. (1984). De la science au sens commun Paris, PUF.

Mouret, M., Lo Monaco, G., Urdapilleta, I., and Parr, W. V. (2013). Social representations of wine and culture: a comparison between France and New Zealand. Food Qual. Prefer. 30, 102–107. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.04.014

Nadarajah, K., Bordel, S., David, J.-C., Jammes, L., Rayssac, G.-L., and Somat, A. (2022). Stakeholders’ perceptions of Helium and Carbon Dioxide risks in a subsurface engineering project in France. Energy Reports 8, 14009–114019. doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2022.10.123

National Research Council (2012). Climate change education in formal settings, K-14: A workshop summary . United State, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

O’Brien, K., Selboe, E., and Hayward, B. M. (2018). Exploring youth activism on climate change: dutiful, disruptive, and dangerous dissent. Ecol. Soc. 23, 1–113. doi: 10.5751/ES-10287-230342

Ojala, M. (2021). To trust or not to trust? Young people’s trust in climate change science and implications for climate change engagement. Child. Geograph. 19, 284–290. doi: 10.1080/14733285.2020.1822516

Pachauri, R. K., Allen, M. R., Barros, V. R., Broome, J., Cramer, W., Christ, R., et al. (2014). “Climate change 2014: synthesis report” in Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change . Eds. R. Pachauri and L. Meyer (Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC), p. 151.

Palmonari, A., and Emiliani, F. (2016). “Le modèle socio-dynamique” in Les Représentations Sociales. Théories, Méthodes et Applications . eds. G. L. Monaco, S. Delouvée, and P. Rateau (Belgique, Bruxelles: De Boeck, Bruxelles)

Parrott, E., Lomeli-Rodriguez, M., Pacheco, E.-M., Rahman, A., Direzkia, Y., and Joffe, H. (2023). Adolescent girls’ representations of the role of schools and teachers post-disaster: “second parents, second homes”. Int. J. Adolesc. Youth 28:2242450. doi: 10.1080/02673843.2023.2242450

Pianelli, C., Abric, J.-C., and Saad, F. (2010). Rôle des représentations sociales préexistantes dans les processus d’ancrage et de structuration d’une nouvelle représentation. Les Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, Numéro 86, 241–274. doi: 10.3917/cips.086.0241

Piermattéo, A., Lo Monaco, G., Moreau, L., Girandola, F., and Tavani, J.-L. (2014). Context variations and pluri-methodological issues concerning the expression of a social representation: the example of the gypsy community. Span. J. Psychol. 17:E85. doi: 10.1017/sjp.2014.84

Rateau, P., Ernst-Vintila, A., and Delouvée, S. (2012). Michel-Louis Rouquette et le modèle de l’architecture de la pensée sociale/Michel-Louis Rouquette and the social thinking architecture model. Psicologia e Saber Social 1:245. doi: 10.12957/psi.saber.soc.2012.3245

Rateau, P., Moliner, P., Guimelli, C., and Abric, J.-C. (2011). Social representation theory. In P. LangeVan, A. Kruglanski, and T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology , United Kingdom: Sage.

Rousell, D., and Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, A. (2020). A systematic review of climate change education: giving children and young people a ‘voice’ and a ‘hand’ in redressing climate change. Child. Geograph. 18, 191–208. doi: 10.1080/14733285.2019.1614532

Schreiner, C., Henriksen, E. K., and Kirkeby Hansen, P. J. (2005). Climate education: empowering Today’s youth to meet Tomorrow’s challenges. Stud. Sci. Educ. 41, 3–49. doi: 10.1080/03057260508560213

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2015). Paris Agreement. United Nations. https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/french_paris_agreement.pdf

von Stumm, S., Smith-Woolley, E., Ayorech, Z., McMillan, A., Rimfeld, K., Dale, P. S., et al. (2020). Predicting educational achievement from genomic measures and socioeconomic status. Dev. Sci. 23:e12925. doi: 10.1111/desc.12925

Wagner, W., Duveen, G., Farr, R., Jovchelovitch, S., Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., Marková, I., et al. (1999). Theory and method of social representations. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 2, 95–125. doi: 10.1111/1467-839X.00028

Watts, N., Amann, M., Arnell, N., Ayeb-Karlsson, S., Belesova, K., et al. (2019). The 2019 report of the lancet countdown on health and climate change: ensuring that the health of a child born today is not defined by a changing climate. Lancet 394, 1836–1878. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32596-6

Whitmee, S., Haines, A., Beyrer, C., Boltz, F., Capon, A. G., De Dias, B. F., et al. (2015). Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: report of the Rockefeller Foundation–lancet commission on planetary health. Lancet 386, 1973–2028. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60901-1

Keywords: climate change, ecological transition perceptions, social representation, interest in science, social background, junior high school

Citation: Nadarajah K, Somat A, Baeyens C and Pansu P (2024) How social background and interest in science are linked to junior high school students’ perceptions of the ecological transition. Front. Psychol . 15:1360166. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1360166

Received: 28 December 2023; Accepted: 12 March 2024; Published: 12 April 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Nadarajah, Somat, Baeyens and Pansu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Kévin Nadarajah, [email protected] ; Céline Baeyens, [email protected] ; Pascal Pansu, [email protected]

† These authors share senior authorship

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.