Rankings: Conceptual remarks

Tobias Werron, Leopold Ringel


The paper discusses conceptual basics of a comparative perspective on rankings. The main aim is not to advocate a particular sociological theory but to provide a conceptual framework for a discussion on rankings across the established theoretical and empirical camps in the social science literature. For this purpose, we define rankings as the interplay of four elements: (1) zero-sum comparison, (2) quantification, (3) visualization, and (4) publication. While distinguishing these elements analytically, we also argue that it is the particular way in which rankings combine these elements that is at the heart of modern rankings. In short, for the social operation ranking to exist and succeed, all of these elements have to work together and be institutionalized in societal fields. This definition allows for a wide array of possible combinations, theoretically as well as empirically.


Rankings, Vergleich, Konkurrenz, Transparenz




Bühler, K. 1934: Sprachtheorie. Oxford: Fischer.

Davis, K. E., Kingsbury, B., Merry, S. E. 2012: Indicators as a technology of global governance. Law & Society Review, 46. Jg., Heft 1, 71–104.

De Rijcke, S., Wallenburg, I., Wouters, P., Bal, R. 2015: Comparing comparisons. On rankings and accounting in hospitals and universities. In M. Guggenheim, J. Deville, Z. Hrdlickova (Hg.), Practising Comparison: Logics, Relations, Collaborations. Manchester: Mattering Press, 251–280.

Espeland, W. N., Sauder, M. 2007: Rankings and reactivity. How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113. Jg., Heft 1, 1–40.

Hansen, H. K. 2015: Numerical operations, transparency illusions and the datafication of governance. European Journal of Social Theory, 18. Jg., Heft 2, 203–220.

Heintz, B. 2010: Numerische Differenz. Überlegungen zu einer Soziologie des (quantitativen) Vergleichs. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 39. Jg., Heft 3, 162–181.

Kornberger, M., Carter, C. 2010: Manufacturing competition: How accounting practices shape strategy making in cities. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 23. Jg., Heft 3, 325–349.

Latour, B. 1987: Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Luhmann, N. 1995: Social Systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Pollock, N., D’Adderio, L. 2012: Give me a two-by-two matrix and I will create the market: Rankings, graphic visualisations and sociomateriality. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37. Jg., Heft 8, 565–586.

OED 2015a: rank, v.3. Oxford English Dictionary Online.

OED 2015b: rank, n.1. Oxford English Dictionary Online.

OED 2015c: ranking, n.1. Oxford English Dictionary Online.

Ringel, L. 2017: Transparenz als gesellschaftliches Ideal und Organisationsproblem: Eine Studie am Beispiel der Piratenpartei. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Spoerhase, C. 2014: Das Maß der Potsdamer Garde. Die ästhetische Vorgeschichte des Rankings in der Europäischen Literatur- und Kunstkritik des 18. Jahrhunderts. Jahrbuch der Deutschen Schillergesellschaft, 58. Jg., 90–126.

Warner, M. 2002: Publics and counterpublics. Public Culture, 14. Jg., Heft 1, 49–90.

Werron, T. 2014: On public forms of competition. Cultural Studies <--> Critical Methodologies, 14. Jg., Heft 1, 62–76.

Werron, T. 2015: Why do we believe in competition? A historical-sociological view of competition as an institutionalized modern imaginary. Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory, 16. Jg., Heft 2, 186–210.


  • Im Moment gibt es keine Refbacks

Copyright (c) 2017 Geschlossene Gesellschaften - 38. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie