Hybrid Ranking Governance and the Pluralisation of Institutional Legitimacy: The Case of Vietnam University Rankings (VNUR)

Imagine the world of universities as a massive, global sports league. For a long time, there was only one official scoreboard, run by a few big organizations in the English-speaking world. This scoreboard decided who was the "best" team based on very specific rules: how famous the players were, how many times their goals were mentioned in international news, and how many foreign fans showed up to the games. If a university wanted to be seen as successful, it had to play by these rules, even if those rules didn't quite fit the local community or the specific needs of the country it lived in. This is the world of "university rankings," a system that acts like a referee, telling schools how to behave, where to spend their money, and what "excellence" actually means. But recently, some countries in the Global South (like Vietnam) have started asking: "What if our local community needs a different kind of champion?" They began to wonder if the global scoreboard was missing the point of what makes a school truly good for its own people.

This paper dives into that exact question by looking at a new scoreboard called the Vietnam University Rankings (VNUR). The author, Quang-Vinh Trinh, compares this new Vietnamese system against the two giants of the global league: the QS World University Rankings and the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings. The study suggests that while the global systems are like a high-stakes popularity contest focused on research fame and international reputation, the Vietnamese system is more like a local community report card. It cares less about how famous a school is around the world and more about whether it is actually accredited, whether its graduates can find jobs, and whether it is helping the country's economy grow. The paper argues that this isn't just a copy of the global rules with a few tweaks; it's a completely different way of thinking about what a university should do. It suggests that countries are starting to build their own "hybrid" systems that borrow some global ideas but keep their own local priorities front and center, creating a more diverse and fairer way to judge educational success.

The Global Scoreboard vs. The Local Report Card

For years, the game of judging universities has been dominated by two big players: QS and THE. Think of them as the "Global Superstars" league. Their rules are strict and focused on things that look good on a worldwide stage. They care heavily about reputation (how famous a school is), citations (how often other researchers quote a school's work), and internationalization (how many foreign students and teachers they have). In this league, if you want to win, you have to chase prestige. You have to publish papers in English, attract famous professors, and make sure your name is known in London, New York, or Sydney.

The paper explains that this system creates a bit of a problem for countries like Vietnam. Imagine a local bakery that makes the best bread for its neighborhood, feeding hundreds of families every day. But the Global Superstars league only gives awards to bakeries that are famous in Paris and have a lot of celebrity customers. The local bakery might be doing an amazing job for its town, but because it isn't "famous" enough, the global scoreboard says it's not a top-tier bakery. This is the tension the paper explores: universities in developing countries are being told to chase global fame, even when their main job is to train local workers and solve local problems.

Enter VNUR: The New Game Plan

In 2023, Vietnam launched its own ranking system, the Vietnam University Rankings (VNUR), created by a group called the Vietnam Education Index (VEINDEX). The paper treats this as a fascinating experiment in "hybrid governance." Instead of just copying the Global Superstars, VNUR decided to play a different game.

The most important difference is how they get their data.

• QS and THE often rely on reputation surveys. They ask experts and employers, "Who do you think is the best?" This is like asking people to vote for their favorite celebrity. It's subjective and can be biased toward schools that have been famous for a long time.
• VNUR refuses to use these popularity contests. Instead, it uses independent, publicly verifiable data. It looks at hard facts: Is the school accredited? How many graduates got jobs? How much innovation is happening? It's like a mechanic checking a car's engine with a wrench and a computer, rather than asking people if the car looks cool.

The paper breaks down the "rules of the game" for each system to show how different they are:

Feature	The Global Giants (QS & THE)	The New Challenger (VNUR)
Main Goal	To find the most prestigious, globally visible schools.	To find schools that align with national development and policy.
Key Metric	Reputation (about 50% of the score for QS).	Accreditation & Employability (getting jobs).
Data Source	Self-reported data from schools + surveys.	Independent, third-party verified data.
Focus	Research output, citations, and international fame.	Teaching quality, infrastructure, and local impact.
Transparency	Moderate (some data is hidden or self-reported).	High (methodology and data are public).

What the Paper Actually Found

The author didn't just look at the numbers; they looked at the philosophy behind the numbers. The study suggests that VNUR is not just a "smaller version" of the global rankings. It is a hybrid governance instrument. This means it takes some tools from the global playbook (like measuring research output) but mixes them with a completely different set of goals.

The paper argues that VNUR is trying to solve a specific problem: the "developmental mismatch." In the global system, a university is "excellent" if it produces research that gets cited by other researchers. But in Vietnam, a university might be "excellent" if it produces engineers who build bridges, teachers who educate rural children, or graduates who start local businesses. The global scoreboard often ignores these local heroes because they aren't publishing enough papers in English. VNUR tries to fix this by making "employability" and "accreditation" the stars of the show.

However, the paper is careful not to say this is a perfect solution. It suggests that VNUR has its own risks. Because it relies so heavily on measurable data (like job placement rates), schools might start trying to "game the system" by focusing only on what can be counted, rather than what truly matters for education. It's like a student studying only for the test questions they know will be on the exam, rather than actually learning the subject. The paper notes that while VNUR reduces the bias of "fame," it might introduce a new kind of pressure to "optimize metrics" to please the government.

The Big Picture: A World with Many Scoreboards

The most exciting part of the paper is its conclusion about the future of university rankings. For a long time, everyone thought there would eventually be one single, universal way to judge all universities. The paper suggests that this idea is fading. Instead, we are moving toward a world of pluralization.

Think of it like music. For a while, everyone thought there was only one "correct" genre of music (classical or rock). Now, we have jazz, hip-hop, K-pop, and folk, and they are all judged by different standards. The paper suggests that the Global South is leading this change. Countries like Vietnam, China, Malaysia, and South Korea are building their own "scoreboards" that make sense for their own economies and cultures.

The study concludes that VNUR is a sign of a bigger shift. It shows that countries are no longer just passive players trying to climb the global ladder. They are actively redesigning the ladder itself. They are saying, "We want to be part of the global conversation, but we also need to make sure our schools are serving our local people."

The paper doesn't claim that VNUR is perfect or that it has solved all the problems of higher education. It suggests that this is an emerging trend where different systems coexist. The future might not be about one global winner, but about a diverse ecosystem where different types of excellence are recognized. In this new world, a university can be a "global star" for its research and a "local hero" for its community, without having to choose between the two. The paper leaves us with the idea that the way we judge education is becoming more flexible, more local, and perhaps, a little bit more fair.