Ranking lists and European Framework Programmes: Does university status matter for performance in Framework Programmes?

Abstract

The operational context for higher education institutions has become increasingly competitive: universities have to compete on national and international markets for students, staff, funding and prestige. In this context, universities have increasingly become to think of themselves as actors who are in direct competition with others, and adapt their strategies to increase their status and survive in the new environment. The possibly best-known approach to measuring the status of universities is through the various ranking lists. Though focusing on different indicators like scientific performance or reputation, ranking lists can be considered as a mechanism for highlighting and even creating status hierarchies and providing information about the “market value” of universities. They have also contributed to the proliferation of various national policy schemes fostering elite universities, which aim to redress the dominance of US universities in the ranking lists. An increasingly important funding source for universities is the EU Framework Programmes, where the European Commission funds basic and applied research with industrial and societal relevance. The aim of our chapter is to explore whether established university rankings in their current form are appropriate instruments for predicting the performance of universities in the EU Framework Programmes and whether university’s status has an influence on its access to FP funding. To address this question, we analyse the relative influence of two different university rankings on the performance in the EU Framework Programmes, while controlling for other factors like previous experience, availability of national funding sources, university size, relational capital, and institutional factors (EU membership age and English language).