No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Meta-ranking to position world universities
Abstract
University rankings have proliferated in recent years and have been diverse, with a variety of profiles. This paper deals with the task of obtaining one single summarized ranking based on a selection of the most widely known rankings, in short, a meta-ranking. Five of the best-known rankings were selected and a database compiled with the major world universities that appear in at least four of the five rankings chosen. A meta-ranking was constructed, which differentiates between two dimensions, identifying the positions of universities in each and checking bias. The positioning of the universities is shown and seven clusters of world universities are identified, differences examined according to size, quality of scientific production, level of internationalization, features of the economic context and institutional attributes (staff-to-student ratio and percentage of female students). These results are useful for benchmarking by universities and national university systems, with a view to planning decisions.
... While there are many questions concerning the validity of the methodology employed, these ratings have become an important aspect of external and internal marketing for universities (Kauppi, 2018;Pusser & Marginson, 2013). Rightly or wrongly, they are interpreted as aggregate criteria reflecting how well a university is functioning to deliver its overall value proposition to students and academics as consumers (Luque-Martínez & Faraoni, 2020). Necessarily, this encounter involves an exchange between the institution's value proposition and the student's personal values (Arambewela & Hall, 2013;Kopanidis & Shaw, 2014). ...
People deserve credible information from responsible government units and authentic news from various sources, including online, social media and other networks, to learn and prepare for any epidemic and pandemic. Social media and online news portals are the main sources for the public to explore news on the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This research aims to investigate the relationship between news and social media, awareness about, attitude and the action of the youths towards the spread of COVID-19 in Bangladesh. This research followed a structured survey method to investigate responses towards COVID-19 of Bangladeshi tertiary-level students of different disciplines. The study analysed students’ access to information through electronic and paper versions of Facebook and newspapers. Factor analysis was conducted for a sample of 705. A five-factor solution has been proposed. Access to information is critical in developing a diverse and effective strategy for combating COVID-19. Besides, awareness about the disease, Facebook access, attitude and reliance on local media were identified as key factors.
... This finding implies that the current measure of international faculty favors major English-speaking systems while other systems are disadvantaged. The current internationalization indicators are particularly favorable to the English-speaking systems influenced by the British educational system (Luque-Martinez & Faraoni, 2020). This finding suggests a possible bias of international outlook scores and global rankings. ...
This study analyzed how the ranking status has changed at various higher education system levels by applying different definitions of international faculty. Among the four measures (birthplace, current citizenship, and the country of bachelor and doctoral education), this study found that international faculty measured by the country of doctoral studies produced significantly different international outlook scores and thus ranking status from that based on birthplace or citizenship. Specifically, major English-speaking systems such as the UK, Canada, and Australia hire a large number of faculty who are foreign citizens while non-English speaking systems (Italy, Portugal, China, Korea, and Brazil) hire more local academics who have earned their doctoral degree abroad. This suggests that these non-English speaking countries are systematically under-rated in their international outlook scores by the adoption of the birthplace-based or citizenship-based international faculty measures. As an alternative, this study proposes to update the international faculty measure using a combination of citizenship of employment and doctoral training to minimize this systemic bias.
... They draw their inspiration from traditional methodologies such as multicriteria sorting, rank fusion, Pareto frontier and the related Data Envelopment Analysis [10] (see Section 2.1 for definitions of Pareto frontier and DEA). For instance, recent academic efforts on the topic include a goal programming model [9], application of the Pareto frontier [16], application of the Data Envelopment Analysis [6,25], clustering [14,20], and merging (fusing) several ranked lists [12]. ...
The quality of the education provided and the research impact produced by universities is continuously evaluated at national and international level. This phenomenon is not new. However, nowadays education is not only considered as a social value and right/privilege, but also as a big economic sector, which addresses to large portions of population worldwide. In this ecosystem, university rankings play a crucial role since they provide filtered information which is reproduced in surveys, newspapers, social media etc. All university rankings are based on a set of ad hoc evaluation criteria. Moreover, the final score is based on a set of arbitrary weights summing up to 1. Thus, at the end, these university rankings differ significantly producing ambiguities and doubts. In this paper, we propose a novel university ranking method based on the Skyline operator, which is used on multi-dimensional objects to extract the non-dominated (i.e., “prevailing”) ones. Our method is characterized by several advantages, such as: it is transparent, reproducible, without any arbitrarily selected parameters, based on the research output of universities only and not on publicly not traceable or questionnaires. Our method does not provide absolute rankings, but rather it ranks universities categorized in equivalence classes. Thus, we develop a generic framework which can be used for ranking universities and departments, and even individual persons. For the proof of concept we apply the framework in our Greek academic space, providing a case study on ranking persons and departments on computer science and engineering using data extracted from Microsoft Academic.
... More and more institutions evaluate and rank universities in recent years; the ranking content and methodology gradually become diversified. However, in the current world university rankings, some university rankings such as ARWU, NTU, and URAP, their ranking indicators, and methods show high similarity [22], so many people are trying to improve and synthesize the existing rankings using their own methodology, such as the introduction of entrepreneurial orientation [23], metaranking [24], and ranking aggregation [25]. In the process of specific ranking, the method of weighting and maximal normalization are extensively used to calculate the scores of each institution. ...
From the perspective of the complex system, university ranking is a complex system that involves multiagent actors, which evolve over time. Yet, current major university rankings fail to reflect the system dynamics of the university innovation system. In this paper, we apply the complex system model in the field of the university innovation system in the context of university ranking in the countries along the Belt and Road, which is a long-term overlooked field. We introduce a new method of university ranking based on the “winning and losing” relationship to measure the relative competitiveness between universities. This paper contributes to complex system research, the Belt and Road research, and the university ranking arena.
... Therefore, WURs generally incorporate two indicators of research recognition: publications in indexed and high-impact journals, and citations (i.e., numbers of citations and highly cited researchers). The demands from WURs for the calculation of various indices and the compilation of data have had extensive effects on higher education [27][28][29][30]. WURs expose universities and academics to competition at the global scale, influencing the publication and citation behaviors of academics in this competitive academic market. ...
Academics may actively respond to the expectations of the academic status market, which have largely been shaped by the World University Rankings (WURs). This study empirically examines how academics’ citation patterns have changed in response to the rise of an “evaluation environment” in academia. We regard the WURs to be a macro-level trigger for cementing a bibliometric-based evaluation environment in academia. Our analyses of citation patterns in papers published in two higher education journals explicitly considered three distinct periods: the pre-WURs (1990–2003), the period of WURs implementation (2004–2010), and the period of adaption to WURs (2011–2017). We applied the nonparametric Kaplan–Meier method to compare first-citation speeds of papers published across the three periods. We found that not only has first-citation speed become faster, but first-citation probability has also increased following the emergence of the WURs. Applying Cox proportional hazard models to first-citation probabilities, we identified journal impact factors and third-party funding as factors influencing first-citation probability, while other author- and paper-related factors showed limited effects. We also found that the general effects of different factors on first-citation speeds have changed with the emergence of the WURs. The findings expand our understanding of the citation patterns of academics in the rise of WURs and provide practical grounds for research policy as well as higher education policy.
... The different ranking systems were made to assess the performance of universities over the world (Anowar et al., 2015;Gnolek et al., 2014). The widely recognized ranking systems-once accepted-are influential to a variety of people, specifically: international students for seeking a right institution for their higher studies; new researchers to carry on scholarly activities and achieve funding facilities; institutions themselves to develop a constructive competition; and also employers to choose appropriate workforce for their business development (Luque-Martínez & Faraoni, 2019;Souto-Otero & Enders, 2017). A review by Anowar et al. (2015) indicated the top four widely accepted ranking systems including THE, ARWU, QS and Webometrics Ranking. ...
This research focuses on a sample of European and Chinese elite universities for the period 2011-2015. We adopt a meta-frontier methodology to decompose their overall productivity in three main determinants: (i) technical efficiency compared with contemporaneous technology, (ii) change in technical efficiency and (iii) technology relative superiority of the two groups of universities. The results reveal different patterns of evolution: Chinese institutions’ productivity grows faster than that of their European counterparts (+7.15%/year vs 4.51%/year), however the latter maintain a higher level of technology in efficient production as a group.
... For example, the sports rankings, such as the FIFA rankings [1]; social rankings such as that of the richest people in the world [2]. Currently, in organizations such as universities, rankings are fundamental for their prestige at an international level, the most prominent are the Times Higher Education, Academic Ranking World Universities Shanghai and QS World Ranking from which the universities of the United States and Europe are better rated [3]. A ranking is composed of a set of indicators, which are collapsed into a single measure that generates a sorted list. ...
Rankings compare the performance of organizations. In many cases, rankings provide a good assessment of successful or-ganizations. However, rankings often generate controversy and debate since they support the making decisions. A ranking is a weighted linear combination of indicators, and the weights assigned to each of the indicators can lead to different rank orders. In most cases, rankings are used as a tool to support making decisions, such as resource allocation; therefore, these decisions can be affected by the assignment of such weights. In this article, we analyze the behavior of a ranking and the weights; simulations are used to calculate the change in the order of the equally weighted ranking and of the randomly weighted ranking. In this regard, we present a discussion and ranking design alternatives.
... University rankings depend on the objectives determined by the institution conducting the rating (Olkay and Bulu, 2017), varying in the type of information they collect, which may be from public sources (publications, patents, web, quotes), information required from universities (linked to faculty, students, organization, budget, etc.), and surveys of reputation to academics, students or stakeholders (Vernon et al., 2018;Luque Martinez and Faraoni, 2020). Rankings can also be global, regional, or national in scope and evaluate the entire University or specific undergraduate or graduate academic programs. ...
Purpose - This study evaluates the correlations between the universities' type of property (public, private associative and private corporate), institutional seniority (<20, 20-45 and> 45 years), and the presence and position in national and international university rankings.
Design/methodology/approach - It considers 90 Peruvian universities certified by SUNEDU (public agency for the accreditation of universities in Peru), according to their presence in 20 university rankings (yes/no) and the position (tertiles) in two world rankings: Webometrics and SIR Iberoamericano. Four universities participated in 10 or more rankings and only 16 (18%) in 6 or more.
Findings - The private corporate universities were the least old (p <0.01). No association was found with the type of property both in the presence in rankings and in the positioning (p> 0.05), except in one where there was less participation of public institutions. Long-lived universities had higher participation and better positioning in rankings than those with less seniority (p <0.01). The presence and better positioning in university rankings depend on institutional seniority and not on the type of ownership in Peruvian licensed universities.
Originality - This research highlights the lack of equity in several international rankings for the evaluation of the quality of universities, in the respect that most of them give priority to aspects related to institutional seniority and size. At the same time, the results of younger and smaller institutions are not put into perspective.
Keywords University ranking, university quality, institutional seniority, property type, university education, higher education, THE, ARWU, Webometrics, QS.
Article classification Research Paper
... University rankings can further promote reasonable competition among universities, maximize the utilization efficiency of educational resources, and achieve transparent public supervision of the higher education system. University rankings have appeared diversified and growth-up in recent years [2]. There are some famous university rankings such as U.S. News & World Report Best Global Universities Rankings (U.S. News), Times Higher Education World University Ranking (THE), QS World University Rankings (QS), and Shanghai Ranking's Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU). ...
... Since every ranking is biased, future research in this area should therefore use other global rankings and verify the prevalence of some diversity indicators in the top higher education institutions that we have found in the study reported here. Regional, national rankings and, even more interesting, meta-rankings as the one recently made by Luque-Martínez y Faraoni [67], should also be used to check the presence of diversity indicators in different ranges or in different clusters of universities. Multi-source evidence could provide a clearer picture about the relation of market-with social-based indicators, helping to interpret discrepant results when using different systems.Regarding the qualitative dimension of the study, in general terms, higher education institutions stipulate in their institutional statements and the goals of their strategic diversity outreach plans that one of the main aims is to increase the features of diversity in the demographic composition of the institution. ...
The participation of diverse demographics in higher education has risen over the last half-century; meanwhile, different political and social tiers have been assigning a more active role to institutions in terms of equality and social justice. This change in circumstances has led to the roll out of processes to institutionalise diversity outreach. This study was conducted for the clear purpose of assessing the current institutionalisation status of diversity outreach in 127 key universities from the Academic Ranking of World Universities based on the opinions of diversity outreach managers and the information published on institutional websites, in turn measuring compliance with various indicators. A qualitative analysis of the institutional statements, the goals sought through strategic plans and the definitions of diversity itself was also conducted. The evidence reveals the early stage of the institutionalisation process in universities on account of the low percentage obtained for the proposed indicators. Furthermore, the study failed to exhibit significant differences in this process in terms of the institutional ownership or position held in the ranking; however, more prominent progress was noted in the North-American region when geographical differences were taken into account, likely as a result of the historical background in the advocacy for equal opportunities. Lastly, a change of approach to the conceptualisation of diversity is suggested in favour of equality and social justice.
Covid-19 has put much stress on the higher education sector. As universities recover, new ways to improve their marketing should be examined. It is suggested that an expanded social power theory in conjunction with the extended marketing mix can be used to create a hierarchy of four value propositions that apply to prospective and current students and internal and external academics. These value propositions can be considered an aggregate that expresses a university’s position in the marketplace. It is suggested that transactional marketing approaches are appropriate for prospective and current students, while relational marketing approaches are more suitable for internal and external academics. It emerges that the social power theory is more paradoxical in its application. Temporal differences also can be seen to add complexity to this model. Understanding these factors makes it possible for the four key value propositions to be improved (via alignment and intentionality) so that value delivery happens. It is argued that this model can be used with university rankings to enhance a university’s market position.
About ten years ago, concerns were expressed about quality and standards in some universities of applied sciences (UAS) in the Netherlands. In response, a HBO report outlined a series of measures to improve the quality of assessment practices in UAS. This study provides recent analysis of lecturer perceptions of assessments of UAS with a view to exploring how these recommendations have become embedded in the assessment cultures of UAS. The qualitative study with 19 participants teaching at ten different UAS, reveals strong evidence of a staff knowledge gap around outcomes-based assessment.
World University Ranking (WUR) systems play a significant role in how universities are funded and whom they can attract as faculty and students. Yet, for the purpose of comparing universities as institutions of higher education, current systems are readily gamed, provide little guidance about what needs to be improved, and fail to allow for the diversity of stakeholder needs in making comparisons. We suggest a list of criteria that a WUR system should meet, and which none of the current popular systems appears satisfy. By using as a starting point the goal of creating value for the diverse and sometimes competing stakeholder requirements for a university, we suggest via a thought experiment a rating process that is consistent with all the criteria, and a way in which it might be trialled. Also, the resulting system itself adds value for individual users by allowing them to tune it to their own particular circumstances. However, an answer to the simple question "Which is the best university" may well be: there is no simple answer.
This article reviews the history of world university rankings and their large-scale impact. It then analyzes some of the criticism of the world ranking systems before exploring their impact in the context of Thai universities. The authors’ assertions centre on the premise that much of the criticism of these ranking systems can be divided into three broad categories: criticism of their conceptualization and guiding ideology, criticism of the methodology that they employ, and criticism of their influence on universities and other stakeholders. These criticisms cut across national borders; however, some apply to a greater extent in certain contexts, for example in developing countries such as Thailand. The article then details how these ranking systems have shifted academic attention from teaching quality to research production through the creation of annual performance assessments which are heavily skewed towards research and the creation of lucrative research product rewards systems which can create an organisational hierarchy of faculty based solely on research output through academic positions and financial rewards. Although some may criticize the Asian universities’ and faculty’s, i.e., the ‘players’’ responses to the academic rankings, these responses are predictable and rational adaptations to the ‘game’ that has been imposed on them.
In contemporary higher education systems, funding is increasingly associated with performativity, assessment, and competition, and universities are seeking different forms of financing their activities. One of these new forms is crowdfunding, a tool enabled by the digitalization of finance. Based on data from the UK higher education system and two crowdfunding platforms, our study adds to previous crowdfunding research in academic settings that have, thus far, focused on research projects, and assesses who is participating, their level of engagement and the resources they have gathered from crowdfunding. Our findings show that crowdfunding is used more by universities that have fewer resources. These universities are more teaching-oriented, less prestigious, and have a student body largely derived from lower socio-economic sectors of society. The popularity of crowdfunding in this type of university suggests that crowdfunding may enhance the democratization of higher education funding. However, as optimal crowdfunding participation and engagement requires high academic-to-student ratios and total-staff-to-academic-staff ratios, universities facing a greater financial precarity may be disadvantaged in their access to and engagement with crowdfunding. Differentials between part-time and full-time student ratios may exacerbate this disadvantage. Our study suggests that crowdfunding is a viable means of obtaining additional financing for learning activities complementing the fundings from other sources, but raises concerns about the use of crowdfunding as a burden to academics and students to find resources to meet learning experiences that ought to be provided by universities in the first place.
Higher education across the world is currently in the throes of assuming a commitment to diversity. However, certain critical positions maintain that such evolution is still guided by market principles. Within such a context, this paper explores what attention is given to diversity in Spanish university policies and practices and how it relates to key productivity indicators. To do so, a study with a descriptive and correlational design was conducted, based on analysing institutional documents and surveying chief diversity officers, techniques which provided evidence about diversity philosophy and practices, respectively. The results revealed at least an average level of institutionalisation of diversity, although it did not demonstrate, in most of the areas, any association with indicators derived from a consolidated ranking by productivity in Spain. The conclusion is that Spanish universities have adopted an asymmetric dual model, in which neo-liberal ideas maintain their hegemony while, although subordinately, certain innovations have been consolidated in parallel in order to protect a number of vulnerable groups under the rhetoric of equity and social justice.
Universities must focus their efforts on being economically competitive without harming the chances of being sustainable. The study of sustainable economic development (SED) of higher education institutions (HEIs) has experienced growth in last years. The objective of this study is to explore the global evolution of scientific production and research trends related to SED in HEIs in 1990-2018 period. For this purpose, a theoretical and conceptual framework was carried out, together with a bibliometric analysis of a sample of 1689 articles. Results of the scientific productivity of the journals, authors, research institutions, and countries that contribute to this topic have been obtained. Most of the articles have been divulged by Journal of Industrial Ecology and Journal of Cleaner Production, whereas the countries with the most articles produced are the United States, China, and the United Kingdom. The main lines of research developed during this period have been detected: sustainable development, environmental impact, economy, education and recycling. The future lines of research are in establishing indicators that allow managers of academic institutions a protocol to assess the economic dimension of sustainability. This study offers different analysis and evaluation perspectives for HEIs according to the SED, so that the actions are applied and valued positively in the economic, social, and environmental dimensions in the context of the SDGs.
Numerous specialists and associations have invested energy into building managerial positioning frameworks by concentrating on various rules and different strategies. These frameworks produce various positions for establishment because of methodological contrasts that emerge from the determination of markers, loads, information assortment, and examination. This paper reports on the calculated and methodological contrasts in college positioning frameworks and focuses on the circumstance in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.The writing audit exhibits a bigger than anticipated requirement for a national positioning framework for Jordan to recognize the situation of a particular college contrasted with others. In a vital administration setting, policymakers need to create and send techniques related to the advanced education framework.The instance of the positioning of the executive’s divisions was analyzed to develop an establishment for a national field-based positioning framework. Therefore, a structure for positioning of the executive’s divisions in Jordanian colleges is proposed.
This study focuses on the effect of globalization on university ranking and current developments and challenges that HEIs face in the global higher education market. It provides detailed information about the origins of international ranking systems, diversification of university rankings and strategic planning of higher education institutes. Moreover, this study describes the global university classification, continuous exposure to elite universities, neglect of the humanities, arts and the social sciences researches, limited description of methods and indigent metrics. The expected effects on ranking system amid the COVID-19 crisis are mentioned which are widely being discussed by the researchers. The study concludes that there is a threat that universities which are investing time and money in accumulating and using statistics and data for the sake of improvement in their performance for the rankings may destabilize themselves from the development in other areas such as learning, teaching or community involvement.
Este trabajo examina la distribución por género de las universidades, a través de un porcentaje de mujeres dentro del alumnado, y comprueba si tal distribución tiene alguna relación con la posición de las universidades en los rankings universitarios. Se han seleccionado siete rankings, globales y sintéticos, disponiendo de datos de la distribución por género del alumnado para 924 universidades. Los resultados confirman que las universidades con una equilibrada distribución entre hombres y mujeres presentan mayores puntuaciones, por tanto, mejores posiciones en los rankings. Las universidades con mayor presencia femenina en el alumnado son las de ratio más alto de estudiantes por profesor y las que alcanzan mayores valoraciones medias en los indicadores de internacionalización. En los indicadores de premios Nobel y medallas Fields, e ingresos procedentes de la industria, las universidades con mayor presencia masculina tienen mayores puntuaciones medias. Los resultados pueden contribuir a la mejora de las políticas de igualdad en las universidades, así como a orientar las decisiones estratégicas y de gestión de las mismas.
Despite some theoretical and technical criticism, scholars largely acknowledge the influence of universities’ ranking positions on the preferences of fund providers, academics and students, nationally and internationally. Considering their noticeable contribution to university rankings, prominent indicators can guide university leaders to develop better strategies by targeting common aspects of international ranking systems. The purpose of this research is therefore to specify the significant indicators and to examine their individual weight through an expanded indicator-set of international university rankings. The research benefited from the predictive approach of correlational research. The dataset was composed of universities’ scores in the 2018 ARWU, THE, QS and URAP world university rankings and includes the scores of 224 universities. The data were re-organised following the expanded indicator-set previously formulated by the researcher. Regression analyses were then employed in two steps to explore significant predictors through the expanded indicator-set. The researcher also re-calculated the percentage values of seven combined indicators: citation, income, internationalisation, prize, publication, reputation and ratios/degrees. The findings showed that while all these indicators are statistically significant, the components of research reputation contribute 73.71% to universities’ ranking scores. On the other hand, income is the only negative contributor with a weight of − 1.78%. The research also revealed that when comparing two scores based on re-calculated and assigned weights, only 19 universities occupy the same position among the 224 universities. Following these results, the researcher then discusses various policies and practices with the potential to expedite universities’ ranking success. Considering the data reliability and longitudinal feasibility, several recommendations were also developed for further research on university ranking systems.
In the 21st century, sustainability and indicators of world-class universities have come within the scope of an academic cottage industry. The complex problem of university sustainability implies a big challenge for countries and educators to implement important strategies in an integrated and comprehensive way. This paper highlights and analyzes the sustainability indicators of universities included as newly formed world-class universities (NFWCUs) in the top 100 from 2010 and 2018. The integration of three global ranking scales—the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), the Quacquarelli–Symonds World University Ranking (QS) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THEs)—allows us to minimize the impact of the methodology used. This study integrates regression analysis by using statistical grouping, case studies and normative analysis. Our principal findings are as follows: among the commonly ranked top 100 universities in 2018, the ARWU, QS and THE counted 57, compared with 47 in 2010. Thus, comparing 2010 and 2018 shows that 44 of the universities appeared simultaneously in ARWU, QS and THE rankings and maintained a sustainable position in any ranking system in the family of top 100 groups. Three lower-ranked NFWCUs in the hybrid list for 2010 lost their ranking and did not appear in the group of top 100 universities in 2018, which are covered by some catch-up and young universities. The NFWCUs were from US, Australia, China, Singapore, Germany and Belgium. By systematic comparison, the US and UK continued to dominate the stability of NFWCUs in 2010 and 2018. The key sustainability indicators include a high concentration of talent, abundant resources to offer a rich learning environment and conduct advanced research. Generally, the factors were negatively associated with ranking suggesting that a higher score result in top ranking and vice versa. Teaching, research, citation and international outlook were negatively correlated with THE ranking in 2018. Similarly, Alumni and PUB were negatively associated with ARWU ranking in 2018. All factors except international student ratio were significantly correlated in QS ranking either in 2010 or 2018, where negative association was observed. The significant contribution of our study is to highlight that for the sustainability of universities, it is necessary to have an increasing emphasis on the effectiveness and efficiency of government-supported research, stability of investments and more approaches to employ international initiatives. The results also confirm the appropriate governance, developing global students and place emphasis on science and technology as additional factors in the approaches of pathways to NFWCUs, with delivery of outstanding educational programs and comprehensive internationalization as a key indicator for performance improvement and global university ranking systems.
Este estudio propone la elaboración de un meta-ranking con las 14 universidades españolas que aparecen en al menos cuatro de los cinco rankings globales considerados, que son de reconocida notoriedad internacional. Se puede diferenciar entre rankings de investigación con datos bibliométricos y rankings que tienen en cuenta otros aspectos y otras formas de recabar datos basadas en encuestas. Las universidades españolas alcanzan mejores posiciones en los primeros que en los segundos. Se pone de relieve una debilidad mayor en la internacionalización, la reputación o el ratio estudiante-profesor que en los indicadores de investigación. Son excepción las universidades que destacan en las dos dimensiones. A la vista de estas conclusiones resulta evidente la necesidad de profundizar en una mayor internacionalización, en mejorar la reputación y mejorar la visibilidad internacional de la universidad española.
In this article, we discuss how ‘managerialist’ and ‘leaderist’ discourses (O’Reilly and Reed Public Administration 88:960–978, 2010; Organization Studies 32:1079–1101, 2011) are drawn upon in the context of the deregulation of Swedish higher education. As of 2011, there has been new legislation that frames Swedish universities as ‘autonomous’ and transfers most of the regulative responsibilities from the government level to university vice-chancellors. The aim of this article is to inquire into how tensions within and between managerialist and leaderist discourse are handled in the promotion of New Public Management reforms and the consequences thereof in terms of how leadership in the higher education sector is constructed. We analyse how these discourses are employed in the core documents leading up to the 2010 Riksdag decision to enact most of the proposed deregulations, and the subsequent evaluation undertaken by the social democratic government that took over in 2014. Based in this analysis, we suggest that the texts indeed draw upon notions of leadership and leaders as necessary for Swedish universities to survive and thrive in the future, but that the envisaged practise of this ‘strong leadership’ can either be characterised as a discursive void or described in terms of de-personalised, instrumental managerial surveillance and control.
Neo-liberal reforms in higher education have resulted in corporate managerial practices in universities and a drive for efficiency and productivity in teaching and research. As a result, there has been an intensification of academic work, increased stress for academics and an emphasis on accountability and performativity in universities. The paper proposes that while managerialism in modern universities is now the norm, corporate approaches have disempowered academics in their institutions and reduced productivity because they ignore the nature of academic work. Using Foucault’s conception of power relations in institutions, policies that directly affect academic work such as workload allocation and performance management are identified as key ways in which power is exercised in universities. The paper reports on a case study in one university which explored the relationship between the academic workload allocation and performance management policies and concludes that a more balanced power relationship is needed in which academics can have more influence over these key processes which control their work so they preserve the self-managed aspects of academic work and the intrinsic motivations driving their careers.
This article combines Bourdieu’s concepts of field, habitus and cultural capital with Lyotard’s account of performativity to construct a three-tiered framework in order to explore how managerialism has affected the academic habitus. Specifically, this article examines the adoption of group assignments as a means of developing teamwork skills in one Australian case study organisation. On a macrolevel, by viewing the employability imperative as one manifestation of managerialism in the higher education field, we argue that managerialism has created a performative culture in the case study organisation evidenced by an increasing emphasis on performance indicators. On a mesolevel, by examining how academics use group assessments to respond to demands made by governments and employers for ‘employable graduates’, we highlight the continuity of academic habitus. Finally, on a microlevel by drawing on alumni reflections regarding their experiences of group assessments at university, we are able to shed some light on their evaluation of this pedagogical tool.
En 2009 nace la iniciativa Campus de Excelencia Internacional (CEI) entre cuyos objetivos estaba mejorar la posición de las universidades españolas en los rankings internacionales con un horizonte de 2015. Este trabajo analiza el impacto de los CEI en la clasificación ARWU o ranking de Shanghái. Comparando la media de los tres años del inicio (2009-2012) y del final (2013-2015), el sistema universitario español ha mejorado sensiblemente su prestación investigadora a juzgar por el incremento en puntuación media y en posiciones. Las universidades coordinadoras de proyectos CEI presentan una evolución más estable (aumento del 9%) que las no coordinadoras (aumento del 21%) resultando un sistema universitario más homogéneo. Las universidades con proyectos CEI con una sola universidad alcanzan mejores posiciones. A pesar del contexto de crisis, escaso tiempo y financiación de la iniciativa CEI, la experiencia ha resultado positiva a la vista de la evolución de las universidades españolas en dicho ranking.
RESUMEN Pretende este breve ensayo pasar revista a los males que aquejan a la universidad española de hoy. Tras negar que el principal problema de nuestra universidad sea no contar con una institución entre las 150 o 200 primeras universidades del mundo según el Ranking Shanghái, se apuntan y glosan cuáles son esas dolencias. La primera y principal es de naturaleza política: la ausencia de un pacto por la educación. Y a partir de ahí otras, como el incier-to e ineficaz modelo de gobierno, la burbuja universitaria, la burocratización, el envejecimiento y anquilosamiento del profesorado, el fracaso escolar, la deficiente planificación docente, la falta de movilidad de estudiantes y profesores, el efecto de la CNEAI y el defecto de la ANECA en la evaluación del rendimiento del profesorado. Se concluye intentando dilucidar si existe un problema de insuficiencia de recursos o de uso ineficiente de estos y proponiendo medidas concretas que mejoren nuestro sistema universitario.
The Spanish university on the therapist’s couch
The aim of this brief essay is to examine the evils that currently affect the Spanish university system. After refusing to agree that the main problem of our universities is that none of them are among the first 150 or 200 universi¬ties according to the Shanghai Ranking, the actual maladies are addressed and discussed. The first and foremost reason is of a political nature: the ab¬sence of a pact for education. The other reasons include: an ineffective gov¬ernment model, the university bubble, an increasing bureaucratization, the ageing and stagnation of the faculty staff, academic failure, deficient educa¬tional planning, lack of student and teacher mobility, and the effect of the CNEAI and ANECA in the assessment of academic performance. The essay concludes with an attempt at elucidating whether these problems have aris¬en because of insufficient resources, or rather because the resources are be¬ing spent inefficiently, and it proposes a number of specific measures to im-prove our university system
Palabras clave: Universidades españolas, Educación superior, Docencia, Investigación, Gobierno, Organización institucional, Financiación, Rendimiento académico, Rendimiento docente, Fracaso escolar, Profesores, Estudiantes
Key words: Spanish Universities, Higher Education, Teaching, Research, University Governance, Management, College Funding, Academic Perfor¬mance, Academic Achievement, School Failure, Professor, University Students
Global university rankings currently attract considerable attention, and it is often assumed that such rankings may cause universities to prioritize activities and outcomes that will have a positive effect in their ranking position. A possible consequence of this could be the spread of a particular model of an “ideal” university. This article tests this assumption through an analysis of a sample of research-intensive universities in the Nordic region. Through document analysis and interviews with institutional leaders and staff from central administration, the study explores whether high-ranked Nordic universities take strategic measures as a response to global rankings, and whether the traditional identities of the universities are changing, as they are influenced and affected by the rankings. The study shows that rankings have a relatively modest impact on decision-making and strategic actions in the Nordic universities studied, and that there are few signs of rankings challenging the existing identities of the universities in this region.
Over the last two decades, enumeration has become a critical force in crafting the governmentalities of globalizing higher education. Whether in the glossy Web sites and documentation of the world’s ‘top universities’ or in more fine-tuned regional and subject guides, accreditation schemes, journal metrics or h-indexes, technologies for measuring and ranking academic performance have not only created new imaginaries of reputation but also started to reshape institutional behavior in the pursuit of enhanced performance. In this paper, we critically explore these governmentalities of globalizing higher education through a discussion of the competing logics and landscapes of reputation and ranking in two leading universities in South Korea. Our analysis draws attention to the ways in which university rankings have generated a new multi-scalar geography of institutional reputation, the mismatch between quality, reputation and ranking, and the new kinds of institutional behaviors that are emerging to respond to the proliferation of ranking systems. Through this analysis, our paper offers two critical contributions to the current literature on university reputation. Firstly, we offer a critique of the high-level metrics used in university ranking and their implications for the quality of institutions. Secondly, we also argue for more nuanced accounts of ranking and reputation by scholars of higher education and in particular a greater emphasis on their successes and failures, the competing logics and unexpected outcomes of ranking and their implications for the future of universities.
The article examines, primarily based on large-scale survey data, the functionalist proposition that HE customers, students and employers, demand rankings to be able to adopt informed decisions on where to study and who to recruit respectively. This is contrasted to a Weberian ‘conflict’ perspective on rankings in which positional competition is key. The article concludes that rankings are better understood as instruments in positional competition for a minority of global players. They are a crucial source of information only for particular groups of international students and employers. The empirical analysis further suggests that the state of economic development, cultural aspects and the availability of top-ranked institutions in
the home HE system are important factors in explaining differences in the importance of rankings across countries. We conclude by arguing that national governments and HE institutions should re-visit the assumption of a wide-spread importance of rankings for students and employers.
For middle-income and developing countries as well as some industrial nations a major challenge for building and sustaining successful research universities is determining the mechanisms that allow those universities to participate effectively in the global knowledge network on an equal basis with the top academic institutions in the world. These research universities provide advanced education for the academic profession, policy makers, and public and private sector professionals involved in the complex, globalized economies of the 21st century. In addition to their contribution to economic development, these universities play a key societal role by serving as cultural institutions, centers for social commentary and criticism, and intellectual hubs. The positive contribution of tertiary education is increasingly recognized as not limited to middle-income and advanced countries, because it applies equally to low-income economies. Tertiary education can help these countries to become more globally competitive by developing a skilled, productive, and flexible labor force and by creating, applying, and spreading new ideas and technologies. A recent study on how to accelerate economic growth in Sub-Saharan Africa spells out the crucial contribution of tertiary education in supporting this endeavor (World Bank 2008). It observes that the key for success in a globalized world increasingly lies in how effectively a country can assimilate available knowledge and build comparative advantages in areas with higher growth prospects and how it can use technology to address the most pressing environmental challenges. The main chapters of this book are nine case studies that illustrate what it takes to establish and sustain research universities and help validate the analytical model outlined above, including the paths to building research excellence.
Much research on higher education has discussed the positional competition induced by global rankings and the complementary concept of “world-class” universities. This paper investigates the network of social media communication between globally ranked universities. Specifically, it examines whether universities seek to preserve and reproduce status by selectively forming associations with highly ranked institutions. It uses social network analysis and exponential random graph models to investigate data on interactions through the popular social media website Twitter.com. Findings show that social media communications are significantly related to global rankings, but that the size of this effect is quite small. Instead, structural relationships within the network and geographical location appear to have more influence on network structure. These results suggest a need to critically reassess the category of “world-class” universities and the role of global rankings in global higher education.
University rankings have gained popularity worldwide because they appear to fulfil demands by students, parents, policymakers, employers, and other stakeholders for information and transparency. They are often equated with quality, and are now a significant factor shaping institutional reputation. Today, there are eleven global rankings, experiencing varying degrees of popularity, reliability and trustworthiness, and national rankings in over 40 countries. Despite their popularity, how much do we really know and understand about the influence and impact of rankings? This book is the first comprehensive study of rankings from a global perspective. Based on original international surveys and interviews with universities and stakeholders, Ellen Hazelkorn draws together a wealth of international experience to chronicle how rankings are helping reshape higher education in the age of globalization. Written in an easy but authoritative style, the book makes an important contribution to our understanding of the rankings phenomenon. It is essential reading for policy makers, institutional leaders, managers, advisors, and scholars.
En este trabajo se analiza el interés de los rankings nacionales de universidades para visibilizar la actividad investigadora de estas instituciones en países no centrales. Para ello, en la primera parte de carácter metodológico, se presentan las características de los rankings nacionales que se muestran más adecuados para identificar y comparar las actividades de las instituciones de un mismo entorno. Se describen, además, las ventajas y limitaciones de la utilización de múltiples indicadores frente a indicadores sintéticos. En la segunda parte se presenta el Observatorio IUNE como una herramienta que ofrece información amplia y variada para el seguimiento de la actividad investigadora de las universidades españolas. Los datos obtenidos permiten conocer las características del sistema universitario español, así como posicionar a las instituciones en función de su actividad en 6 dimensiones diversas a partir de 42 indicadores distintos.
Universities’ R&D and innovation activity takes place within the economic and social context of a specific territory. This activity is multidimensional and its different dimensions may be unduly influenced by the economic context in which it is carried out. The present work analyses the research activity of Spanish public universities in the context of per capita GDP of their territories. The work examines data from 2002–2010 obtained from the IUNE observatory. The relationship between GDP and the different dimensions of research activity are analyzed: recognition, scientific activity, innovation, competitiveness and research training capacity. The results show that the economic context in which the activity takes place is not neutral and that there are significant correlations and linear relationships between per capita GDP and various dimensions of research activity. The significance is particularly notable once the dimensions are relativized according to the number of inhabitants. Statistically significant differences have also been found for different dimensions of research activity between universities located in territories with higher, or lower, per capita GDP.
Academicians, experts, and other stakeholders have contributed extensively to the literature on university rankings also known as “league tables”. Often the tone is critical usually focused on the subjective aspects of the process; e.g., the list of the universities’ attributes used in the rankings, their respective weights, and the size and composition of the comparison group. These aspects of a ranking are an easy target since, after all, they are based on someone’s opinion even if this person is considered an expert. There are other, purely technical, reasons why ranking schemes are problematic. In this paper we discuss these aspects of rankings by studying the handling of the data, exposing logical mistakes, and raising interpretation issues. We present these as a list of four “pitfalls” invoking in each case an example from an actual rankings. Each case also results in recommendations that address the technical issues involved.
This article addresses global postsecondary ranking systems by using critical-theoretical perspectives on power. This research suggests rankings are at once a useful lens for studying power in higher education and an important instrument for the exercise of power in service of dominant norms in global higher education.
This article addresses global postsecondary ranking systems by using critical-theoretical perspectives on power. This research suggests rankings are at once a useful lens for studying power in higher education and an important instrument for the exercise of power in service of dominant norms in global higher education.
The study analyzes how the emergence of dominant models in higher education and power they embody affect non-Western, non-English language universities such as those in Japan. Based on extended micro-level participant observation in a Japanese research university aspiring to become a “world-class” institution, their struggles and the quest for new identities are examined. The prevalent and oft-referenced university rankings and league tables give rise to de facto global standards and models, against which traditions of national language education and research as well as self-sustenance in human resources are challenged and tested. Such new modes of objectifying academic excellence alter domestic academic hierarchies and internal dynamics within universities. This study uses these insights to look critically at new dimensions of knowledge construction and an emerging hegemony in today's global higher education context.
The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) or Shanghai Ranking is a de facto standard to determine the position
of universities worldwide. Improving ranking positions has become the goal of universities and governments. No wonder
therefore that the aggregation of universities in Spain is nowadays suggested as a means to raise the international profile
of our university system. In this context, the goal of this study was to test two potential groupings, universities belonging
to the same Autonomous Community and campuses of international excellence (CEIs), to determine the ARWU placement
that would result. To compute the ARWU indicators of these possible groupings, we used the methodology developed in
Docampo (2012b). The results of our analysis clearly show the difficulty of improving ranking positions by calculating the
sum of aggregated institutions. As a matter of fact, the only way to place a university cluster from Spain in the top 100 would
be to treat all of the Catalan universities as a single institution. The next best ranking for Spain would be achieved by the
Habitat 5U (universities of Comunidad Valenciana), BKC (Barcelona and Politècnica de Catalunya) and VLC/Campus (Valencia
and Politécnica de Valencia), CEIs which would lie in the 150-200 range
Numerous journal rankings exist in the field of Technology/Innovation Management and Entrepreneurship (TIE). In light of the growing importance of such rankings for the evaluation of research endeavors, the question arises as to which ranking constitutes the most appropriate scale. We suggest aggregating the individual rankings, thereby following the rationale of meta-analysis. In this article, we provide a detailed description of each step in the development of such a journal meta-ranking in the field of Technology/Innovation Management and Entrepreneurship.
Educationalists are well able to find fault with rankings on numerous grounds and may reject them outright. However, given
that they are here to stay, we could also try to improve them wherever possible. All currently published university rankings
combine various measures to produce an overall score using an additive approach. The individual measures are first normalized to make the figures ‘comparable’ before they are combined. Various normalization procedures exist but, unfortunately, they
lead to different results when applied to the same data: hence the compiler’s choice of normalization actually affects the
order in which universities are ranked. Other difficulties associated with the additive approach include differing treatments
of the student to staff ratio, and unexpected rank reversals associated with the removal or inclusion of institutions. We
show that a multiplicative approach to aggregation overcomes all of these difficulties. It also provides a transparent interpretation
for the weights. The proposed approach is very general and can be applied to many other types of ranking problem.
KeywordsLeague tables–Performance measure–University rankings
The existence of geographically mediated "spillovers" from university research to commercial innovation is explored using state-level time-series data on corporate patents, corporate R&D, and university research. A significant effect of university research on corporate patents is found, particularly in the areas of drugs and medical technology, and electronics, optics, and nuclear technology. In addition, university research appears to have an indirect effect on local innovation by inducing industrial R&D spending. Copyright 1989 by American Economic Association.
World university rankings use the weight-and-sum approach to process data. Although this seems to pass the common sense test, it has statistical problems. In recent years, seven such problems have been uncovered: spurious precision, weight discrepancies, assumed mutual compensation, indictor redundancy, inter-system discrepancy, negligence of indicator scores and inconsistency between changes in ranking and ‘Overall’. These issues render the validity of ranking results suspect. Moreover, discussion on problems in world university ranking has been conducted mostly at the verbal level with little substantiation of supporting statistics. It is argued that discussion on ranking issues needs statistical evidential support. Modifications to the approach of processing ranking data are suggested.
Many countries perform research assessment of universities, although the methods differ widely. Significant resources are invested in these exercises. Moving to a more mechanical, metrics-based system could therefore create very significant savings. We evaluate a set of simple, readily accessible metrics by comparing real Economics departments to three possible benchmarks of research excellence: a fictitious department composed exclusively of former Nobel Prize winners, actual world-leading departments, and reputation-based rankings of real departments. We examine two types of metrics: publications weighted by the quality of the outlet and citations received. The publication-based metric performs better at distinguishing the benchmarks if it requires at least four publications over a six year period and allows for a top rate for a very small set of elite reviews. Cumulative citations received over two six-year review periods appear to be somewhat more consistent with our three benchmarks than within-period citations, although within-period citations still distinguish quality. We propose a simple evaluation process relying on a composite index with a journal-based and a citations-based component. We also provide rough estimates of the cost: assuming that all fields of research would be amenable to a similar approach, we obtain a total cost of about £12M per review period.
There are increasing demands on universities to operate transparently with regard how resources are being used and targets met, putting them under growing pressure to clarify their position relative to other universities at national and international level. But there are several challenges associated with establishing their relative positioning. The first issue is concerned with measurement or how to capture data that are relevant, pertinent and fit-for-purpose. Second, universities must obtain an overall indicator or a means of ordering that helps synthesize the different indicators; and, third, they must decide how to weight them. Those university rankings that attempt to address these questions are met with a degree of criticism for being subjective or inconsistent in their quantification of the indicators. The aim of the present work is to develop a procedure for synthesizing all of the indicators relating to the objective measurement of university R&D and innovation into a single or summary concept. In other words, to establish a procedure that does not require subjective criteria and that can be applied for both absolute and relativized indicators. This approach makes a dual contribution. First, a specific application, in this particular case for the case of the Spanish university system, will be created, to obtain a synthetic indicator for research activity. This will enable us to achieve an R&D and innovation ranking for Spanish universities. Second, the work makes a methodological contribution by using a new technique for synthesizing this type of indicator, namely Partial Least Squares (PLS).
The heightened mobility of resources, ideas, and cultural practices across national borders—commonly known as “globalization”—entails changes in the contexts in which US research universities operate. We draw on recent developments in neo-institutional theory to understand these changes and their implications for the ways in which US universities compete for international doctoral students. Quantitative analyses of university-level data from 1990 to 2006 identify significant predictors of growth in this field, including state appropriations and state-supported research expenditures for public universities and net tuition receipts and number of full-time faculty members for private universities. We also highlight the ways in which returns have intensified, declined, or held relatively constant over time.
The purpose of this study is to analyze how China has strived to develop its world-class research universities and what are distinguishing characteristics of China’s efforts to form these universities for the last decades. This study begins with a review of literature and research questions. It then touches on the background and rationale of creating China’s world-class university. In the third section, it examines national policies and strategies of building China’s world-class research university since the mid-1990s. In the fourth section, based on national documentation and institutional strategies as well as major findings from the international survey of the Changing Academic Profession which was exercised in China in 2007, the study presents what has been achieved in the effort launched to create Chinese world-class research university and challenges facing China in this regard. The study concludes by arguing the following aspects: firstly, China has made an impressive progress of forming its world-class research university and national policies and strategies are effective; secondly, differing from the world-class research universities in the USA and the UK, the Chinese path to building a world-class research university is characterized with a top-down policy, accompanied by the growth in intensive funding from both national government and especially local authorities on few selected elite universities; and finally, the Chinese way is still receptive to Western influence and external international ranking systems or organizations; therefore, there is still a long way for China to become an internationally influential part of the higher education landscape.
Shanghai Jiao Tong University1 1. Read about this key university in China at ⟨http://www.sjtu.edu.cn/www/english/⟩. View all notes has published on the Internet an Academic Ranking of World Universities that has attracted worldwide attention. Institutions are ranked according to academic or research performance and ranking indicators include major international awards, highly cited researchers in important fields, articles published in selected top journals and/or indexed by major citation indexes, and performance per capita. Methodological problems discussed here include quantitative versus qualitative evaluation, assessing research versus education, the variety of institutions, the language of publications, selection of awards, etc. Technical problems such as the definition and naming of institutions, the merging and splitting of institutions, and the search for and attribution of publications are discussed.
Among the major trends in the higher education (HE) sector, the development of rankings as a policy and managerial tool is of particular relevance. However, despite the diffusion of these instruments, it is still not clear how they relate with traditional performance measures, like unit costs and efficiency scores. In this paper, we estimate a variety of models to evaluate costs in US higher education institutions. A particularly innovative feature of our approach involves the estimation of latent class and random parameter stochastic frontier models of a multiproduct cost function: this allows us fully to accommodate both the heterogeneity across institutions and the presence of technical inefficiencies. Such methodological strategy is essential in analyzing the US HE system, which is characterized by a strong internal differentiation. Our main findings are two. First, on a public policy ground, the estimates suggest that global economies could be achieved by effecting a reduction in the number of institutions providing undergraduate instruction, while increasing the number of institutions engaged in postgraduate activity. Second, the current existing rankings turn out as coherent with ratings provided by the calculation of efficiency scores.
University administrators may invest significant time and resources with the goal of improving their U.S. News
& World Report ranking, but the real impact of these investments is not well known since, as other universities make similar changes, rankings become a moving target. This research removes the mystique of the U.S. News ranking process by producing a ranking model that faithfully recreates U.S. News outcomes and quantifies the inherent “noise” in the rankings for all nationally ranked universities. The model developed can be a valuable tool to institutional researchers and university leaders by providing detailed insight into the U.S. News ranking process. It allows the impact of changes to U.S. News subfactors to be studied when variation between universities and within subfactors is present. Numerous simulations were run using this model to understand the effect of each subfactor individually and to determine the amount of change that would be required for a university to improve its rank or move into the top 20. Results show that for a university ranked in the mid-30 s it would take a significant amount of additional resources, directed in a very focused way, to become a top-ranked national university, and that rank changes of up to ± 4 points should be considered “noise”. These results can serve as a basis for frank discussions within a university about the likelihood of significant changes in rank and provide valuable insight when formulating strategic goals.
When benchmarking its performance, a university is usually considered as a single strategic unit. According to the evidence, however, lower levels within an organisation (such as faculties, departments and schools) play a significant role in institutional governance, affecting the overall performance. In this article, an empirical analysis was carried out to obtain the teaching efficiency scores of the different schools belonging to 12 universities within one Italian region. In this perspective, the efficiency of a university can be viewed as the ‘distribution’ of the scores for each of its sub-units. The results show how the ‘ranking’ of efficient universities varies when they are analysed according to the different sub-units that compose them; moreover, the average efficiency scores seem to be greatly affected by the subject mix. The implication for management is that it is better to implement benchmarking exercises for the different schools within a university and not at the institutional level only.
The Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University has published on the web the Academic Ranking of World Universities that has attracted wide attentions worldwide. Institutions are ranked according to their academic or research performance. Ranking indicators include the alumni and staff winning major international awards, highly cited researchers in major research fields, articles published in selected top journals, articles indexed by major citation indexes, and performance per capita. Methodological problems discussed include quantitative versus qualitative evaluation, evaluation of research versus education, variety of institutions, language of publications, selection of awards, and studying or working experience of award winners. Technical problems such as definition of institutions, name expression of institutions, merging and splitting of institutions, searching and attribution of publications are discussed.
We test the hypothesis that universities are more productive when they are both more autonomous and face more competition. Using survey data, we construct indices of university autonomy and competition for both Europe and the United States. We show that there are strong positive correlations between these indices and multiple measures of university output. To obtain causal evidence, we investigate exogenous shocks to US universities’ expenditures over three decades. These shocks arise through the political appointment process, which we use to generate instrumental variables. We find that an exogenous increase in a university’s expenditure generates more output, measured by either patents or publications, if the university is more autonomous and faces more competition. Exploiting variation over time in the ‘stakes’ of competitions for US federal research grants, we also find that universities generate more output for a given expenditure when research competitions are high stakes. We draw lessons, arguing that European universities could benefit from a combination of greater autonomy and greater accountability. Greater accountability might come through increased reliance on competitive grants, enhanced competition for students and faculty (promoted by reforms that increase mobility), and yardstick competitions (which often take the form of assessment exercises).
--- Philippe Aghion, Mathias Dewatripont, Caroline Hoxby, Andreu Mas-Colell and André Sapir
The most popular world university rankings are routinely taken at face value by media and social actors. While these rankings are politically influential, they are sensitive to both the conceptual framework (the set of indicators) and the modelling choices made in their construction (e.g., weighting or type of aggregation). A robustness analysis, based on a multi-modelling approach, aims to test the validity of the inference about the rankings produced in the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) of Shanghai Jiao Tong University and those produced by the UK's Times Higher Education Supplement (THES). Conclusions are drawn on the reliability of individual university ranks and on relative country or macro regional performance (e.g., Europe versus USA versus China) in terms of the number of top performing institutions. We find that while university and country level statistical inferences are unsound, the inference on macro regions is more robust. The paper also aims to propose an alternative ranking which is more dependant on the framework than on the methodological choices.
Higher education administrators believe that revenues are linked to college rankings and act accordingly, particularly those
at research universities. Although rankings are clearly influential for many schools and colleges, this fundamental assumption
has yet to be tested empirically. Drawing on data from multiple resource providers in higher education, we find that the influence
of rankings depends on constituencies’ placement in the higher education field. Resource providers who are vulnerable to the
status hierarchy of higher education––college administrators, faculty, alumni, and out-of-state students––are significantly
influenced by rankings. Those on the periphery of the organizational field, such as foundations and industry, are largely
unaffected. Although rankings are designed largely for stakeholders outside of higher education, their strongest influence
is on those within the higher education field.
KeywordsCollege-Rankings-Strategy-Resource dependence-Organizations-Institutions-Institutional theory
This study addresses several methodological problems that have confronted prior research on the effect of class size on student
achievement. Unlike previous studies, this analysis accounts for the hierarchical data structure of student achievement, where
grades are nested within classes and students, and considers a wide range of class sizes across various disciplines. Based
on data from undergraduate class sections at a single institution, the study provides consistent evidence of a negative effect
of class size on grade performance, most substantially affecting the achievement of “A” grades with lesser effect on grades
of “C” or higher. Because models with logarithmic specification show superior fit, this study also demonstrates that the effect
of class size on students’ final grades diminishes as the class size increases. These findings suggest that a larger impact
on student performance could be attained by further trimming enrollment in small classes than by reducing class size overall.
KeywordsClass size-Student performance-Multilevel models-Cross-classified models-Unconditional models
The role of geographically mediated knowledge externalities in regional innovation systems has become a major issue in research policy. Although the process of innovation is a crucial aspect of economic growth, the problem of measuring innovation has not yet been completely resolved. A central problem involved in such analysis is the measurement of economically useful new knowledge. In the US information on this has been limited to an innovation count data base. Determining the extent to which the innovation data can be substituted by other measures is essential for a deeper understanding of the dynamics involved. We provide an exploratory and a regression-based comparison of the innovation count data and data on patent counts at the lowest possible levels of geographical aggregation.
The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 is a ranking of universities based on bibliometric indicators of publication output, citation impact, and scientific collaboration. The ranking includes 500 major universities from 41 different countries. This paper provides an extensive discussion of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012. The ranking is compared with other global university rankings, in particular the Academic Ranking of World Universities (commonly known as the Shanghai Ranking) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. Also, a detailed description is offered of the data collection methodology of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 and of the indicators used in the ranking. Various innovations in the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 are presented. These innovations include (1) an indicator based on counting a university's highly cited publications, (2) indicators based on fractional rather than full counting of collaborative publications, (3) the possibility of excluding non-English language publications, and (4) the use of stability intervals. Finally, some comments are made on the interpretation of the ranking, and a number of limitations of the ranking are pointed out.
The composite journal rankings help in minimizing differences in the methods used to rank journals and differences in the methods used to include journals in the rankings. A comprehensive overview of journal ranking studies is provided over a 12-year period and a composite ranking of the top 50. Despite movements in the rank of many individual journals, the overall journal rankings have remained consistent over time, providing evidence that the MIS field is forming a consent on its potential publication outlets and their relative quality. The MIS field continues to evolve, new journals appear, and future journal rankings will include the new outlets.
In a previous article (Degli Esposti and Geraci. Bulletin of Italian Politics, 2011), we presented an historical survey of
the university reform laws that took place in Italy in the last 30 years. On that occasion, we stressed how important is merit
evaluation for academics and their institutions, especially in view of the much debated but not yet implemented ‘Gelmini’
reform with its long awaited new regulation for accessing academic positions (concorsi) and for determining individual weight in financial resource allocation among universities. Here, we present and compare
several rankings used to evaluate the prestige and merit of Italian universities. We also consider alternative approaches
to academic rankings that highlight peculiar aspects of the universities in Italy which cannot be reasonably accounted for
by other international rankings. Finally, we propose a new approach that combines both national and international standing
of Italian universities. It is hoped that this study will provide practical guidance to policy makers for establishing the
criteria upon which merit should be assessed.
International academic rankings that compare world universities have proliferated recently. In accordance with latter conceptual
and methodological advances in academic rankings approaches, five selection criteria are defined and four international university
rankings are selected. A comparative analysis of the four rankings is presented taking into account both the indicators frequency
and its weights. Results show that, although some indicators differ considerably across selected rankings and even many indicators
are unique, indicators referred to research and scientific productivity from university academic staff have a prominent role
across all approaches. The implications of obtained data for main rankings consumers are discussed.
According to the Academic Ranking of World Universities, the world's top 500 universities are located in only 38 countries, with the USA alone having 157 of them. This article investigates the socioeconomic determinants of the wide performance gap between countries, and whether the USA's dominance is largely due to its economic power. A large amount of cross-country variation in university performance can be explained by just four socioeconomic factors: income, population size, research and development spending, and the national language. Conditional on the resources that it has, the USA is actually underperforming by about 4-10%. On the contrary, an emerging economic power, China, is rising fast in the league table as well as outperforming countries with similar levels of resources.
Incl. bibl., abstract According to Altbach in 2004, "everyone wants a world-class university". Corresponding developmental efforts undertaken by higher education institutions are very often referenced to improvements in ranking results. Surprisingly, there is relatively little analysis of variations in higher education ranking systems across countries regarding how "world-class" is defined, measured and benchmarked. Due to the limited number of systems included in existing comparative analyses of ranking systems, it remains uncertain whether ranking results are "largely a statistical fluke" (as noted by Usher and Savino in 2006) or a reflection of "higher education systems and cultures, and the availability and reliability of data" (as noted by van Dyke in 2005). With this first comprehensive and comparative analysis of 23 higher education ranking systems published in 11 European countries, we show that certain components and characteristics of ranking systems can indeed be systematized along national boundaries. However, it also becomes obvious that no holistic distinctions can be identified between a set of rankings in a particular country in comparison to rankings in other countries.
Incl. bibl., abstract We look at some of the theoretical and methodological issues underlying international university ranking systems and, in particular, their conceptual connection with the idea of excellence. We then turn to a critical examination of the two best-known international university ranking systems - the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) World University Rankings and the Shanghai Jiao Tong Academic Ranking of World Universities. We assess the various criteria used by the two systems and argue that the Jiao Tong system, although far from perfect, is a better indicator of university excellence. Based on our assessments of these two systems, we suggest how an ideal international university ranking system might look, concluding with some comments on the uses of ranking systems.
An analytic criterion for rotation is defined. The scientific advantage of analytic criteria over subjective (graphical) rotational procedures is discussed. Carroll's criterion and the quartimax criterion are briefly reviewed; the varimax criterion is outlined in detail and contrasted both logically and numerically with the quartimax criterion. It is shown that thenormal varimax solution probably coincides closely to the application of the principle of simple structure. However, it is proposed that the ultimate criterion of a rotational procedure is factorial invariance, not simple structure—although the two notions appear to be highly related. The normal varimax criterion is shown to be a two-dimensional generalization of the classic Spearman case, i.e., it shows perfect factorial invariance for two pure clusters. An example is given of the invariance of a normal varimax solution for more than two factors. The oblique normal varimax criterion is stated. A computational outline for the orthogonal normal varimax is appended.
Although there are exceptions, most European universities and institutions of higher education find it difficult to compete with the best universities in the Anglo-Saxon world. Despite the Bologna Agreement and the ambitions of the Lisbon Agenda, European universities are in need of fundamental reforms. We look at structural reforms of higher education and propose more effective use of public subsidies, more efficient modes of financing institutions of higher education, more diversity, competition, and transparency, larger private contributions and more equity. In the process we discuss the nature and governance of an institution of higher education, selection, hierarchy in higher education, grade-inflation, fair competition, private and social returns to education, income-contingent loans, equity, and transparency. We sum up with seven recommendations for reform of higher education in Europe.
— Bas Jacobs and Frederick van der Ploeg
Actividad Investigadora y Contexto Económico. El Caso de las Universidades Públicas Españolas [Research Activity and Economic Context: The Case of Spanish Public Universities
- T Luque-Martínez
Luque-Martínez, T. 2015. "Actividad Investigadora y Contexto Económico. El Caso de las Universidades Públicas Españolas
[Research Activity and Economic Context: The Case of Spanish Public Universities]." Revista Española de
Documentación Científica 38 (1): 1-16. doi:10.3989/redc.2015.1.1135.