IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v13y2023i3p21582440231196724.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Categories and Institutional Change: Contesting the Uncontested Space Through National Rankings

Author

Listed:
  • Syed Haider Khalil
  • Syed Mohsin Ali Shah
  • Fahad Sultan
  • Muhammad Ibrahim Khan
  • Sher Nawaz

Abstract

The current study aims to examine how and why actors contest the business education field through rankings. Inspired by the field structuration process and field level change, we argue that categorization systems, in this case, rankings, construct boundaries of the business education field and redefine authority and elites for the field. Ten highly ranked Pakistani business schools were selected through a purposive sampling method. For the thematic analysis adopted in the current study, we collected empirical evidence mainly through interviews with the directors of accreditation and ranking bodies, deans, and marketing directors of business schools. The interview data was also supplemented by secondary data such as internal student surveys, business school’s annual reports, and other relevant sources of data. The current study showed institutional work in the business education field. Through categorization systems, actors use their authority to challenge the existing social order and define the uncontested space of the business education field in developing countries. Actors then populate the uncontested space with new members thus legitimizing new rules and standards for the field and promoting new elites for the field thus creating new social order.

Suggested Citation

  • Syed Haider Khalil & Syed Mohsin Ali Shah & Fahad Sultan & Muhammad Ibrahim Khan & Sher Nawaz, 2023. "Categories and Institutional Change: Contesting the Uncontested Space Through National Rankings," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:13:y:2023:i:3:p:21582440231196724
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440231196724
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440231196724
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440231196724?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jill Johnes, 2018. "University rankings: What do they really show?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 585-606, April.
    2. Marlo M Vernon & E Andrew Balas & Shaher Momani, 2018. "Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
    3. R. Beunen & J.J. Patterson, 2019. "Analysing institutional change in environmental governance: exploring the concept of ‘institutional work’," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 62(1), pages 12-29, January.
    4. Hayagreeva Rao, 1994. "The Social Construction of Reputation: Certification Contests, Legitimation, and the Survival of Organizations in the American Automobile Industry: 1895–1912," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S1), pages 29-44, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Meng-Chen Zhang & Bo-Wei Zhu & Chao-Meng Huang & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng, 2021. "Systematic Evaluation Model for Developing Sustainable World-Class Universities: An East Asian Perspective," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-20, April.
    2. Xueyan Dong & Jingyu Gao & Sunny Li Sun & Kangtao Ye, 2021. "Doing extreme by doing good," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 291-315, March.
    3. Yuliya Snihur & Llewellyn D. W. Thomas & Robert A. Burgelman, 2018. "An Ecosystem‐Level Process Model of Business Model Disruption: The Disruptor's Gambit," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1278-1316, November.
    4. Ning Jia, 2017. "Diversification of pre-IPO ownership and foreign IPO performance," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1031-1061, May.
    5. Kim, Yeonshin & Hur, Won-Moo & Lee, Luri, 2023. "Understanding customer participation in CSR activities: The impact of perceptions of CSR, affective commitment, brand equity, and corporate reputation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    6. Schweizer, T.S., 2002. "Managing interactions between technological and stylistic innovation in the media industries, insights from the introduction of ebook technology in the publishing industry," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2002-16-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    7. Benjamin Cole & Preeta Banerjee, 2013. "Morally Contentious Technology-Field Intersections: The Case of Biotechnology in the United States," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 555-574, July.
    8. Jeroen Struben & Brandon H. Lee & Christopher B. Bingham, 2020. "Collective Action Problems and Resource Allocation During Market Formation," Post-Print hal-02927584, HAL.
    9. Tammar B. Zilber, 2011. "Institutional Multiplicity in Practice: A Tale of Two High-Tech Conferences in Israel," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 1539-1559, December.
    10. Thams, Yannick & Alvarado-Vargas, Marcelo J. & Newburry, William, 2016. "Geographical diversification as a predictor of MNC reputations in their home nations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 2882-2889.
    11. Lise Arena & Anthony Hussenot, 2021. "From Innovations at Work to Innovative Ways of Conceptualizing Organization: A Brief History of Organization Studies," Post-Print hal-03290300, HAL.
    12. H. L. Zou & R. C. Zeng & S. X. Zeng & Jonathan J. Shi, 2015. "How Do Environmental Violation Events Harm Corporate Reputation?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(8), pages 836-854, December.
    13. Lauren Lanahan & Daniel Armanios, 2018. "Does More Certification Always Benefit a Venture?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 931-947, October.
    14. Önder, Ali Sina & Schweitzer, Sascha & Yilmazkuday, Hakan, 2021. "Specialization, field distance, and quality in economists’ collaborations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    15. Sascha Raithel & Manfred Schwaiger, 2015. "The effects of corporate reputation perceptions of the general public on shareholder value," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(6), pages 945-956, June.
    16. Y. Sekou Bermiss & Benjamin L. Hallen & Rory McDonald & Emily C. Pahnke, 2017. "Entrepreneurial beacons: The Yale endowment, run‐ups, and the growth of venture capital," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 545-565, March.
    17. Rory McDonald & Cheng Gao, 2019. "Pivoting Isn’t Enough? Managing Strategic Reorientation in New Ventures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1289-1318, November.
    18. Annamaria Demarinis Loiotile & Francesco De Nicolò & Adriana Agrimi & Loredana Bellantuono & Marianna La Rocca & Alfonso Monaco & Ester Pantaleo & Sabina Tangaro & Nicola Amoroso & Roberto Bellotti, 2022. "Best Practices in Knowledge Transfer: Insights from Top Universities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-23, November.
    19. James Liou & Mei-Ling Chuang, 2010. "Evaluating corporate image and reputation using fuzzy MCDM approach in airline market," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1079-1091, October.
    20. Suhail Ahmad Bhat & Mushtaq Ahmad Darzi, 2018. "Service, People and Customer Orientation: A Capability View to CRM and Sustainable Competitive Advantage," Vision, , vol. 22(2), pages 163-173, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:13:y:2023:i:3:p:21582440231196724. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.