Dissemination of international rankings: characteristics of the media coverage of the Shanghai Ranking in the French press

International academic rankings proliferated in the 2000s amid major reforms in higher education and research in France. The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), widely known as the Shanghai Ranking, was first published online by Shanghai Jiao Tong University in June 2003, using indicators such as Nobel and Fields laureates and bibliometrics (Nature, Science citations, SCI/SSCI). Despite no initial intent for international dissemination, the ranking spread to France via multiple channels. The paper observes that, unlike in the United States where ARWU triggered little reaction, France devoted substantial press attention to ARWU. The study advances three hypotheses: (1) media attention in France emerged from the co-development of the ranking’s meaning by multiple actors with different rationales; (2) the timing and selection of media outlets covering ARWU reveal distinct logics of French media coverage; and (3) the profiles and discourses of actors reflect arguments and power relations embedded in the media coverage process. The press is treated as a site for discourse production and as a space where debates are co-constructed by actors engaged in higher education and research. The purpose is to identify which agencies and newspapers disseminated ARWU, characterize the modalities and intensity of coverage over time, and examine the actors’ rationales as expressed in their discourse, in order to understand the specific features of ARWU’s dissemination in France.

Prior work on rankings has focused primarily on methodologies (e.g., indicator construction, reproducibility, effects of university mergers) and on impacts on institutions and decision-making (e.g., organizational reactivity, policy, student choices). References include Eloire 2010; Vught and Westerheijden 2010; Docampo 2013; Docampo et al. 2015; Werron and Ringel 2017 on methods; and Espeland and Sauder 2007; Hazelkorn 2007, 2011, 2014, 2015; Brankovic et al. 2018 on impacts. Less attention has been paid to the conditions of dissemination and debate about rankings in national media spheres. Studies of media framing of other league tables (e.g., hospital rankings, OECD PISA) underscore the role of derogatory framing and politicization (Pierru 2004; Pons 2015). This paper addresses that gap by analysing the dissemination and framing of ARWU in the French press.

Design: Longitudinal, monographic analysis of French print media coverage of ARWU combined with qualitative interviews. Corpus construction: Comprehensive retrieval of articles, interviews, and opinion pieces referencing ARWU across multiple databases and archives (Factiva, Europress, archives of Le Monde, Libération, and AEF—a specialist education press agency). Full-text searches used French terms and variants: classement mondial, classement international, classement de Shanghai, and spelling variants of Shanghai. Both press agencies (AEF; AFP) and mainstream/specialist outlets were included without bias to outlet type. Scope: June 2003 to September 2014 closed corpus comprising more than one million hits, 119 print media outlets, and 1,520 documents, including 90 opinion pieces. Post-2014 monitoring (2015–2018) via alerts and systematic collection around annual August releases complemented trends but was analysed qualitatively (not with textual statistics) due to corpus closure requirements. Analytical tools: Textual statistics (TextObserver and Alceste) to identify salient lexical and discursive features (e.g., framing). Temporal analysis of annual and quarterly distributions of coverage. Profiling of cited speakers/enunciators (political and academic actors) across press and AEF corpora. Qualitative analysis of ten interviews (journalists from AEF, Le Monde, Les Echos, La Tribune, Le Figaro, Libération; and actors in higher education and research) conducted 2010–2015 to probe sources, routines, and motivations. Additional context mapping: Triangulation with policy timelines (e.g., 2007 LRU law; PIA excellence initiatives) and ministry communications to situate peaks and uses of ARWU in political discourse.

- Two-step media coverage with a 2007 turning point: A seven-month lag occurred between ARWU’s June 2003 publication and first French mentions. Phase 1 (Dec 2003–May 2007) saw limited, specialist coverage with derogatory framing of French performance; Phase 2 (from May 2007) saw intensified volume and outlet diversification, coinciding with reforms and mobilizations in higher education and research. - Early disseminators and routines: AEF first referenced ARWU via a December 2003 press review and a January 2004 bulletin, sparked by a Paris Diderot newsletter. Les Echos was an early mainstream outlet, reflecting affinity with economic press. 86% of all items appeared after 2006. Routine August coverage developed due to predictable release timing (around 15 August), summer news scarcity, and inter-media circulation; headline examples in Les Echos for 2016–2018 confirm front-page salience. - Framing: Textual-statistical analysis shows dominant derogatory framing emphasizing underperformance of French institutions, with recurrent terms denoting lag/retard and syntactic constructions expressing restriction (e.g., only). Metaphors like shock and electroshock were common. Harvard’s consistent No.1 position reinforced perceived legitimacy of results. - Politicization and co-construction: Political leaders used ARWU to justify reforms. Nicolas Sarkozy and Minister Valérie Pécresse frequently cited the ranking (2007–2011), linking it to mergers, excellence initiatives (PIA), and advocating a European alternative (U-Multirank). Coverage peaks in 2008 and 2011 align with reform and contestation cycles. Ministries issued annual press releases; a 2017 IGEN/IGAENR report and a 2019 ministerial letter urging first signatures to list university affiliations (for HiCi counting) illustrate prescriptive effects. - Actor profiles and power relations: Academic enunciators were predominantly from universities, with additional voices from grandes écoles and research organisations, reflecting French system hierarchies. Indicative distributions reported: universities ~70%, grandes écoles ~15.8%, research organisations ~8.2%, Shanghai University ~6% (affiliations of academic enunciators). Opinion-piece enunciators: universities 57%, grandes écoles 17%, research organisations 11%, political sphere 10%, economic sphere 5%. - Strategic uses: ARWU served as a judgement tool affecting reputations and as a communication resource. University presidents, especially from scientific universities, leveraged results to enhance visibility (e.g., Paris VI advertising in 2004; consistent top French placement except 2011–2012). Institutions adapted to criteria (e.g., Paris-Dauphine’s recruitment of Fields medallists preceding inclusion). Grandes écoles leaders publicly cautioned about criteria while preserving elite positioning. - Discursive patterns: Frequent concessive constructions (e.g., decried yet unavoidable) neutralised counter-arguments and supported normalisation of ARWU as a natural judgement tool. - Media dynamics: The circular dynamic of coverage enhanced ARWU’s reputation and legitimacy, further amplifying media attention. Format plasticity, indicator simplicity, and periodicity facilitated media uptake.

The findings substantiate the hypotheses that ARWU’s prominence in France was co-constructed by interactions among specialist agencies, mainstream media, political authorities, and academic leaders. The two-stage trajectory and 2007 inflection reflect both media logics and the socio-political context of HE&R reforms. Derogatory framing functioned as a journalistic resource to create newsworthiness, while political instrumentalisation (justifying mergers, excellence initiatives, and European alternatives) extended coverage beyond annual releases. Academic actors used ARWU to recalibrate prestige within France’s tripartite system (universities, grandes écoles, research bodies), with university presidents in scientific fields particularly active. The ranking’s simplicity and list format, combined with routine August timing, fostered routinised coverage. Together, these factors transformed ARWU into a judgement tool shaping reputations and policy debates, illustrating how media dissemination can reconfigure evaluative standards from qualitative, field-internal norms toward quantitative indicators with claims to universality.

The study demonstrates that the French media dissemination of ARWU emerged from a co-constructed process linking journalistic routines and frames, political agendas, and academic communication strategies. A critical shift in 2007 led to intensified and diversified coverage. Derogatory framing and concessive argumentative patterns helped normalise the ranking as a legitimate judgement tool. The resulting circular dynamic—coverage building reputation, which in turn legitimises and further fuels coverage—has contributed to reconfiguring prestige and evaluative practices in French higher education and research, aligning them more closely with quantitative indicators. The paper does not explicitly propose future research directions.

- Data access and sharing: Press articles are under copyright; datasets are available on request but not publicly released. - Corpus constraints: The closed corpus for textual-statistical analysis covers 2003–2014; post-2014 material was monitored qualitatively only, limiting systematic comparability over the full period. - Media-centric risks: Although the study adopts a co-construction lens to avoid media-centric over-interpretation, reliance on press content may underrepresent non-media dissemination channels. - Interviews: Ten journalist interviews provide depth but are limited in number and scope, potentially constraining generalisability. - National specificity: Findings are embedded in French HE&R institutional specificities and political timelines, which may limit transferability to other contexts.