ARTICLE

CONSTRUCTING SYMBOLIC VALUE THROUGH CATEGORIZATION TOOLS THE ROLE OF RANKINGS IN BUILDING BUSINESS SCHOOLS REPUTATION

  1. HOME
  2. ARTICLE

20 Pages : 354-377

http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2018(III-III).20      10.31703/gssr.2018(III-III).20      Published : Sep 2018

Constructing Symbolic Value Through Categorization Tools: The Role of Rankings in Building Business School's Reputation

Abstract

    Investigating rankings in the field of business education, we aim to examine field structuration process to understand how categories build symbolic value in an institutional field. We selected twenty reputed business schools from Pakistan and the United Kingdom (UK) through purposive sampling method. Adopting the concept of data triangulation, we gathered empirical evidences through interviews with business school marketing managers, academic experts in the field of marketing and reputation, and with industry experts. This data was further supplemented by variety of secondary sources such as internal student surveys, annual reports, newsletters and industry reports to perform a thematic analysis adopted in this study. Thematic analysis helped us to develop a model of institutional work and field level change by emphasizing on the key role categorization systems (rankings) in shaping perceptions of symbolic value (reputation). Our findings suggest, categorization tools create a contest at different levels. Consequently, it redefines the perception about value in the field. The current study may be useful for academia and Higher Education policy-makers by providing them with a theoretical understanding of categorization systems such as university rankings and the changing perception of value in the field.

    (1) Syed Haider Khalil
    Assistant Professor, Institute of Business and Leadership Studies, Abdul Wali Khan UniversityMardan, KP, Pakistan.
    (2) Fahad Sultan
    Deputy Director, Institute of Business and Leadership Studies, Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan, KP, Pakistan.
    (3) Muhammad Tufail
    Assistant Professor, Institute of Business and Leadership Studies, Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan, KP, Pakistan.
Fulltext PDF

References

  • AACSB. (2011). Globalisation of management education: Changing international structures, adaptive strategies, and the impact on institutions: Report of the AACSB international globalisation of management education task force. Bingley
  • Askehave, I. (2007). The impact of marketization on higher education genre: The international student prospectus as a case in point. Discourse Studies, 9(6), 723-742.
  • Bennett, R., & Gabriel, H. (2001). Reputation, trust and supplier commitment: The case of shipping company/seaport relations. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 16(6), 217-230.
  • Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its concequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. London: Sage Publications.
  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
  • Brown, M. A. (1996). Energy-efficient buildings: Doesthe marketplace work. New York: Oak Ridge National Lab.
  • Bunzel, D. L. (2007). Universities sell their brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16(2), 152-153.
  • Campbell, M. C. (1999). Perceptions of price unfairness: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 187-199.
  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 52, 440-455.
  • Doherty, B., & Haugh, H. (2015). Fair trade in the frame: the role of rhetoric in market category creation and growth. In Sustainability, Ethics and Entrepreneurship Conference. Denver
  • Dolphin, R. R. (2004). Corporate reputation: A value creating strategy. Corporate Governance, 4(3), 77- 92.
  • Douglas, M. (1986). How instituions think. Syracuse. New York: Syracuse University Press.
  • Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Members' responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 442.
  • Fombrun, C. J., & Van Riel, C. B. M. (2004). Fame & fortune: How successful companies build winning reputations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
  • Hazelkorn, E. (2007). The impact of league tables and rankings systems on higher education decision-making. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19 (2)(2), 87-110.
  • Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence. New york: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • HEC. (2012). Higher education commission Pakistan: Annual report 2010-11. Retrieved May 6, 2013, from http://www.hec.gov.pk/MediaPublication/PublishingImages/Annual Report-2012
  • Hedmo, T. (2004). Rule making in the Transnational Space: The development of European Accrediation of Management Education. Uppsala University: Sweden. Retrieved from http://www.divaportal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:164890
  • Hemsley-Brown, J., & Goonawardana, S. (2007). Brand harmonization on the international higher education market. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 942-948.
  • Herbig, P., & Milewicz, J. (1993). The relationship of reputation and credibility to brand success. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10(3), 18-24.
  • Horn, R. E. (1983). Trialectics: Toward a Practical Logic of Unity. Lexington: Information Resources.
  • Khaire, M., & Wadhwani, R. D. (2010). Changing landscapes: The construction of meaning and value in a new market category - Modern Indian Art. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1281-1304.
  • Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 167-195.
  • Liu, N. C., & Cheng, Y. (2005). The academic ranking of world universities. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 127-136.
  • Martin, J. L. (2003). What is field theory? American Journal of Sociology, 109(1), 1-49.
  • Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The new instituionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Rao, H. (1994). The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organisations in the American automobile industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15(1), 29-44.
  • Rao, H. (1998). Caveat emptor: The construction of consumer watchdog organisations. American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 912-961.
  • Roberts, P. W., & Dowling, G. R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1077-1093.
  • Rosa, J. A., Porac, J. F., Runser-Spanjol, J., & Saxon, M. S. (1999). Sociocognitive dynamics in a product market. Journal of Marketing, 63, 64-77.
  • Scott, R. W. (2004). Institutional theory. Encyclopedia of Social Theory, 4, 408- 414.
  • Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2000). Coercive accountability: The rise of audit culture in higher education. In M. Strathern (Ed.), Audit cultures - Antropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy (pp. 57-89). London: Routledge.
  • Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 35-67.
  • Usher, A., & Savino, M. (2006). A world of difference: A global survey of university league tables. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from http://www.educationalpolicy.org/pdf/world-of-difference200602162.pdf
  • Wedlin, L. (2006). Ranking business schools: Forming fields, identities and boundaries in international management education. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Wedlin, L. (2011). Going global: Rankings as rhetorical devices to construct an international field of management education. Management Learning, 42(2), 199-218.
  • Welsh, E. (2002). Dealing with data: Using NVivo in the qualitative data analysis process. Retrieved November 16, 2016, from http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/865/1880&q=NVivo+m anual&sa=X&ei =ZAH_T5PQOYuBhQfe9sWGBQ&ved =0CC4QFjAJ
  • Zhao, W. (2005). Understanding classifications: Empirical evidence from the American and French wine industries. Poetics, 33(3), 179-200.

Cite this article

APA

    APA : Khalil, S. H., Sultan, F., & Tufail, M. (2018). Constructing Symbolic Value Through Categorization Tools: The Role of Rankings in Building Business School's Reputation. Global Social Sciences Review, III(III), 354-377. https://doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2018(III-III).20

CHICAGO

    CHICAGO : Khalil, Syed Haider, Fahad Sultan, and Muhammad Tufail. 2018. "Constructing Symbolic Value Through Categorization Tools: The Role of Rankings in Building Business School's Reputation." Global Social Sciences Review, III (III): 354-377 doi: 10.31703/gssr.2018(III-III).20

HARVARD

    HARVARD : KHALIL, S. H., SULTAN, F. & TUFAIL, M. 2018. Constructing Symbolic Value Through Categorization Tools: The Role of Rankings in Building Business School's Reputation. Global Social Sciences Review, III, 354-377.

MHRA

    MHRA : Khalil, Syed Haider, Fahad Sultan, and Muhammad Tufail. 2018. "Constructing Symbolic Value Through Categorization Tools: The Role of Rankings in Building Business School's Reputation." Global Social Sciences Review, III: 354-377

MLA

    MLA : Khalil, Syed Haider, Fahad Sultan, and Muhammad Tufail. "Constructing Symbolic Value Through Categorization Tools: The Role of Rankings in Building Business School's Reputation." Global Social Sciences Review, III.III (2018): 354-377 Print.

OXFORD

    OXFORD : Khalil, Syed Haider, Sultan, Fahad, and Tufail, Muhammad (2018), "Constructing Symbolic Value Through Categorization Tools: The Role of Rankings in Building Business School's Reputation", Global Social Sciences Review, III (III), 354-377

TURABIAN

    TURABIAN : Khalil, Syed Haider, Fahad Sultan, and Muhammad Tufail. "Constructing Symbolic Value Through Categorization Tools: The Role of Rankings in Building Business School's Reputation." Global Social Sciences Review III, no. III (2018): 354-377. https://doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2018(III-III).20