The bulk of research on academic rankings is policy-oriented, preoccupied with 'best practices', and seems incapable of transcending the normative discourse of 'governance'. To understand, engage, and properly critique the operation of power in academic rankings, the rankings discourse needs to escape the gravity of 'police science' and embrace a properly "political" science of ranking. More specifically, the article identifies three pillars of the extant research from which a departure would be critically fruitful -- "positivism," "managerialism," "institutionalism" -- and then goes on to outline three aspects of rankings that a critical political analysis should explore, integrate, and develop into future research from the discourses of critical theory -- "arkhè," "dispositif," and "dialectik."