The Social Construction of the US Academic Elite

A Mixed Methods Study of Two Disciplines

Stephanie Beyer

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN:
  9780367568566
• eBook ISBN:
  9781000428506
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

This book explores the stark stratification and struggles over classifications in US academia from a relational perspective, looking beyond material differences and tracing its roots to symbolic power relations. Based on a mixed methods study drawing on both interview and quantitative data, it offers an account of the workings of academia, shedding light on the structures that permit elite departments to define categories and impose legitimate scientific definitions, to which the non-elite must adhere. With a focus on two scientific disciplines, the author shows how the translation of objective structures into mental structures establishes a relationship of power with regard to the definition of scientific categories, thus determining access to resources and opportunities to participate and move within the academic field. A study of the unequal intrusion of economic logics into the academic domain, this volume will appeal to scholars, policy makers and institutional leaders with interests in higher education, inequality within science, academic careers, power relationships and competition in the academy.

1 The stratification and economization of academia

DOI: 10.4324/9781003099697-1

As the economization of higher education continues (Bok 2005; Finkelstein, Conley, and Schuster 2016: 10), rankings have gained more and more attention internationally in a quest for universities’ elite¹ status and visibility. In this process, national higher education systems have been restructured, leading to increasing competition and stratification (e.g. compare Baier 2017). This has also resulted in “changing European academics” (Kwiek 2019) and changing relationships between the state and university (e.g. compare Whitley and Gläser 2007). This process is ongoing and appears to affect the work of faculty (Finkelstein et al. 2016:10), with American institutions representing an interesting and frequently-studied case It is often argued that US universities enjoy a hegemonic position, as they are highly ranked worldwide (Münch 2014:23), causing a “battle for excellence” (Hazelkorn 2011), or “ranking mania” (Davies and Zarifa 2012:145). Although US academia has already been widely described as extremely unequal and has undergone numerous crucial changes over the past decades, some authors – in describing these transformations – argue that the field is entering a different era (e.g. Tuchman 2009 Münch 2014:38; Berman 2012a; Finkelstein et al. 2016).

In the following, I will present a short insight into the literature that examines the stratification of US academia and the field’s relations with other spheres such as industry and the economic market. We then move on to a section that deals with the consequences of this changing relationship, in particular regarding the question of scientific autonomy and working conditions. This chapter not only serves as a brief literature overview, but at the same time will inform my (qualitative) empirical endeavor, as it provides parts of the topical dimensions of the interview guide (compare chapter 5).

Stratification

According to Stuart (1995:14), the first university listings date back to the 1870s, specifically to a classification based on a report by the United States Bureau of Education. Whereas this first ranking order did not become official, in 1925 Hughes published the first reputational ranking, which at that time included 38 graduate schools in 20 disciplines (Hughes 1925). Stuart (1995:16f.) refers to the National Academy of Sciences, which introduced the “Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States”; this laid the groundwork for today’s rankings, which include the U.S. News & World Report, which began publishing in 1983 and has since become one of the most visible, but also controversial, reputational rankings. Since their beginnings, rankings have received steadily increasing attention, the first audiences being administrators, federal agencies, state legislators, and researchers, as well as students (Stuart 1995:17), and rankings have become the basis for a “reputation race” (Hazelkorn 2011, 2014).

Stratification is the most researched topic in higher education (Hermanowicz 2012:211). One of the first studies on this matter was carried out by Crane (1965), who found that institutional prestige was connected to productivity and recognition. Referring to this study, Merton published his influential work on the “Matthew Effect in Science” (Merton 1968), on the basis of which a huge array of further studies appeared. Following Zuckerman’s (1967) study of Nobel laureates, Merton describes the Matthew effect as a “principle of cumulative advantage” that is at work in many stratified systems in which “the rich get richer at a rate that makes the poor become relatively poorer” (Merton 1968:62). He includes two perspectives – individual scientific careers as well as science as a system of communication and reward – and describes how early recognition usually leads to further advantages that are, for example, manifested in better equipment or higher productivity. He assumes that this “reward system thus influences the ‘class structure’ of science by providing a stratified distribution of chances” (Merton 1968:57). For instance, two scientists providing the same findings will differ in visibility, as the one with the higher prestige will be more likely to be cited. On the individual level, Merton describes a form of “institutionalized charisma”; he suggests that scientific recognition has an effect on individual behavior, which he illustrates by referring to by Nobel laureates who show “distinct self-confidence” as well as a self-perceived “sense of taste” for “important problems” (Merton 1968:60). This “character structure” also contributes to the communication aspect of the Matthew effect, because highly reputed scientists have a distinct “mode of presenting their scientific work […], a confidence that has been confirmed by the responses of others to their previous work” (Merton 1968:61).

Like Merton and Crane, a vast number of authors put stratification, the distribution of resources, and prestige in US academia at the center of their studies. However, as Clemens et al. point out, there is disagreement with regard to the potential reasons for stratification. They note, for instance, that Cole and Cole (1973) find high levels of social stratification within science and consider this effect to be academics’ “meritocratic reward for scientific productivity” (Clemens et al. 1995:438). A contrasting position on productivity and departmental prestige is propounded by Long, who has published a large number of studies on this matter. His 1978 work, for example, shows a link between an academic’s productivity and their department’s prestige: while the effect of their department’s prestige on an individual’s productivity is strong, the opposite cannot be confirmed, as academic productivity does not have a significant effect on departmental placement (Long 1978). Furthermore, Long et al. (1979) study the first academic position of biochemists and show an enormous correlation between the prestige of the department which granted a scholar’s PhD and the one in which they are currently employed. They specifically find that an individual’s productivity does not influence the prestige of their first placement; instead, the prestige of the department which granted a scholar’s PhD has a small effect on how often their work is cited, and no effect on the number of their publications, that is, their productivity. In this vein, Long and McGinnis’ (1981) results show that scientists’ levels of prestige are not dependent on their past scientific contributions; however, the authors do reveal a correlation between productivity and organizational context. They argue that their results underline that an early advantage within a scientific career is translated into a further advantage.

Allison et al. (1982) focus on “cumulative advantages” in biochemistry and chemistry. For both disciplines, they discover increasing inequality in publishing activities as academic careers advance but do not observe a Matthew effect for citations. To shed further light on the correlation between departmental prestige and productivity, Allison and Long (1990) study upwardly and downwardly mobile chemists, biologists, mathematicians, and physicists. Overall, they find that upwardly mobile researchers show an increase in publications and citations, whereas downward mobility in terms of prestige goes along with declining productivity. They conclude that “the effect of department affiliation on productivity is more important than the effect of productivity on departmental affiliation” (Allison and Long 1990:469).

Following early studies that indicate downward movements in terms of prestige within US academia (such as Berelson 1960; Caplow and McGee 1958; Shichor 1970), Baldi (1994) also investigates academic stratification, using longitudinal data on PhDs in sociology over a period of 30 years. He finds that PhD placement patterns remain relatively stable, with dominant elite departments placing their postgraduates in other distinguished departments. In order to maintain their position within the hierarchy, the elite practices “intra-prestige-group inbreeding” (Baldi 1994:39). Conversely, academics who leave low-ranked departments almost invariably remain in the same prestige category, as these departments are not able to attract elite graduates in the first place. Moreover, Baldi identifies increased rates of academic downward mobility over time, which he explains with the increasing numbers of PhDs granted at top institutions and the decreasing numbers of available positions (Baldi 1994:35f.). For similar results compare Bair and Boor (1997), who reaffirm the findings for elite sociology departments, and Baldi (1995), who again points to departmental prestige being more a matter of “academic origin” than of merit.

Burris (2004) attributes prestige differences between US departments mainly to an accumulation of social capital. Specifically in sociology, the mutual exchange of PhD students creates networks among elite universities that are central in explaining departmental prestige differences, which seem less a result of academic productivity. In this “academic caste system,” there are very few upward academic mobility patterns: 54% of postgraduates exhibit downward mobility, 40% have parallel trajectories, and only 6% experience upward mobility (Burris 2004:249). In line with the above, Weeber (2006) also describes a distinction between mass and elite sociology, and reveals that elite departments not only offer different specializations and courses to their doctoral students, but also that they control key journals in terms of editorial boards and publications. He furthermore argues that those departments close to the elite “are detached from the elite but still longing to be elite” (Weeber 2006:62). In a similar sense, Perrucci et al. (2019) find that scholars from elite sociology departments have been over-represented as editors and authors in four main sociology journals over the past 50 years. Concerning the form of publication, Clemens et al. (1995:480) find “distinctive cultures of production” in their analysis of sociology books and journals. Whereas private universities have a “preference” for books, sociologists from public institutions are more likely to publish articles. This chimes with different views of what is regarded as a legitimate “style of research”; while sociological theory is considered crucial, applied research seems less significant to the discipline itself (Clemens et al. 1995:481f.).

Mirroring previous findings on the centrality of prestige in US academia, Weakliem et al. (2011) scrutinize longitudinal data on hiring patterns ranging from 1965 to 2007 and identify an enormous permanence in prestige stratification in sociology. Although they observe changing ranking positions within departmental prestige groups, they barely find it between them. They see a Matthew effect at work on both the individual and the organizational level, and explain their findings with the extreme differences in the reputations and material resources of elite departments; these advantages secure their high standing and stability, specifically hindering the non-elite from moving up. The authors furthermore assume possible field differences: for disciplines with less consensus on quality, prestige might be more important. In that context, the authors refer to Han (2003), who notes that there exists a varying “strength of prestige ordering in different disciplines” (Weakliem et al. 2011:326). Han (2003) argues that in disciplines with a stark hierarchy, prestige is most effective. For instance, economics exh...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Acknowledgements
• Foreword by Richard Münch
• Introduction
• 1 The stratification and economization of academia
• 2 A relational approach to the social
• 3 The reconstruction of two US academic fields
• 4 Tracing trajectories
• 5 Structured narratives
• Conclusion
• End Matter
• Index