scholarly journals China: A candidate for winner in the international game of higher education?

2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (S) ◽  
pp. 127-152
Author(s):  
Ádám Török ◽  
Andrea Magda Nagy

AbstractThe hegemony of the Western higher education institutions in the global university market is being challenged by China. The top Chinese universities have significantly improved their international ranking positions. When it comes, however, to the ability of universities to attract foreign students and faculty, the Chinese higher education institutions' performance raises questions. The International Outlook scores of these universities, although showing an increasing trend, are still lacking behind the U.S. or Western European top universities. China is primarily a student ‘exporter.’ It also became a leading destination country for students from Asia or Africa, but it is still far from reaching the ‘international openness’ level of the U.S. or the UK universities. The publication networks of the top Chinese higher education institutions indicate that these universities prefer to publish with other Chinese institutions or the U.S. universities.

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maruša Hauptman Komotar

Purpose This paper aims to investigate how global university rankings interact with quality and quality assurance in higher education along the two lines of investigation, that is, from the perspective of their relationship with the concept of quality (assurance) and the development of quality assurance policies in higher education, with particular emphasis on accreditation as the prevalent quality assurance approach. Design/methodology/approach The paper firstly conceptualises quality and quality assurance in higher education and critically examines the methodological construction of the four selected world university rankings and their references to “quality”. On this basis, it answers the two “how” questions: How is the concept of quality (assurance) in higher education perceived by world university rankings and how do they interact with quality assurance and accreditation policies in higher education? Answers are provided through the analysis of different documentary sources, such as academic literature, glossaries, international studies, institutional strategies and other documents, with particular focus on official websites of international ranking systems and individual higher education institutions, media announcements, and so on. Findings The paper argues that given their quantitative orientation, it is quite problematic to perceive world university rankings as a means of assessing or assuring the institutional quality. Like (international) accreditations, they may foster vertical differentiation of higher education systems and institutions. Because of their predominant accountability purpose, they cannot encourage improvements in the quality of higher education institutions. Practical implications Research results are beneficial to different higher education stakeholders (e.g. policymakers, institutional leadership, academics and students), as they offer them a comprehensive view on rankings’ ability to assess, assure or improve the quality in higher education. Originality/value The existing research focuses principally either on interactions of global university rankings with the concept of quality or with processes of quality assurance in higher education. The comprehensive and detailed analysis of their relationship with both concepts thus adds value to the prevailing scholarly debates.


2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (7) ◽  
pp. 1279-1298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Remmer Sassen ◽  
Dominik Dienes ◽  
Johanna Wedemeier

Purpose This study aims to focus on the following research question: Which institutional characteristics are associated with sustainability reporting by UK higher education institutions? Design/methodology/approach To answer the aforementioned research question, this study uses logistic regression. Findings The results show that 17 per cent of the UK higher education institutions report on their sustainability (July 2014). In line with legitimacy and stakeholder theory, logistic regressions provide evidence that the larger the size of the institution, the higher the probability of reporting. By contrast, high public funding decreases this probability. Research limitations/implications The findings show characteristics of higher education institutions that support or hamper sustainability reporting. Overall, the findings imply a lack of institutionalisation of sustainability reporting among higher education institutions. Originality/value Although a lot of research has been done on corporate sustainability reporting, only a small number of studies have addressed the issues of sustainability reporting of higher education institutions. This study covers all sustainability reports disclosed among the 160 UK higher education institutions. It is the first study that investigates characteristics of higher education institutions that disclose a sustainability report.


Author(s):  
Adefarati Oloruntoba ◽  
Japhet Tomiwa Oladipo

Aims: To correlate the energy and carbon emission efficiency relative to research income, gross internal area, and population for all the Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the UK and to assess the comparative carbon emission efficiency of HEIs relative to economic metrics. Study Design:  Analytical panel data study. Place and Duration of Study: This paper evaluates the energy efficiency of 131 HEIs in the UK subdivided into Russell and non-Russell groups from 2008 to 2015. Methodology: Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and Malmquist productivity indexes (MPI) are used for the efficiency calculations. Results: The empirical results indicate that UK HEIs have relatively high energy efficiency scores of 96.9% and 77.6% (CRS) and 98.5%, 86.3% (VRS) for Russell and non-Russell groups respectively. Conclusion: The evidence from this study reveals that HEIs are not significantly suffering from scale effects, hence, an increase in energy efficiency of these institutions is feasible with the present operating scale but would need to work on their technical improvements in energy use. Malmquist index analysis confirms the lack of substantial technological innovation, which impedes their energy efficiency and productivity gain. Findings show that pure technical efficiency accounts for the annual efficiency obtained in the DEA model, the technological progress in contrast is the source of their energy inefficiency.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Sharif Uddin

Andrade and James Hartshorn (2019) surrounds the transition that international students encounter when they attend universities in developed countries in pursuit of higher education. Andrade and James Hartshorn (2019) describe how some countries like Australia and the United Kingdom host more international students than the United States (U.S.) and provides some guidelines for the U.S. higher education institutions to follow to host more international students. This book contains seven chapters.


Comunicar ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 19 (37) ◽  
pp. 15-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Betty Collis ◽  
Jef Moonen

We have studied the construct of flexibility in higher education for many years, as researchers and practitioners. In this context we define flexibility as offering the student choices in how, what, where, when and with whom he or she participates in learning-related activities while enrolled in a higher education institution. In a textbook we wrote on the topic in 2001 we identified options that could be available to students in higher education to increase the flexibility of their participation. We studied these from the perspective not only of the student but also in terms of their implications for instructors and for higher-education institutions and examined the key roles that pedagogical change and technology play in increasing flexibility. Now is it nearly a decade later. We will revisit key issues relating to flexibility in higher education, identify in broad terms the extent to which increased flexibility has become established, is still developing, or has developed in ways we did not anticipate directly a decade earlier. We will also review our scenarios for change in higher education related to flexibility and contrast these with a more-recent set from the UK. Our major conclusion is that flexibility is still as pertinent a theme for higher education in 2011 as it was in 2001. Llevamos bastantes años estudiando la construcción de la flexibilidad en la educación superior, tanto desde la óptica de la investigación como de la práctica. Entendemos por flexibilidad la opción de ofrecer a los estudiantes la posibilidad de elegir cómo, qué, dónde, cuándo y con quién participan en las actividades de aprendizaje mientras están en una institución de educación superior. En el libro que escribimos sobre esta temática en 2001 identificamos opciones posibles para los estudiantes de educación superior con la finalidad de incrementar la flexibilidad de su participación. Lo estudiamos no solo desde la perspectiva del estudiante sino también desde las implicaciones para los profesores y para las instituciones de educación superior, y examinamos el papel fundamental que desempeñan el cambio pedagógico y la tecnología en el aumento de la flexibilidad. Ahora, diez años después, revisamos los temas clave relacionados con la flexibilidad en la educación superior e identificamos, en términos generales, hasta qué punto se ha ido estableciendo el incremento de la flexibilidad, si todavía está evolucionando o si ha evolucionado de una forma que no pudimos prever hace diez años. Revisamos también nuestros escenarios para el cambio en la educación superior relacionados con la flexibilidad y los contrastamos con un estudio más reciente llevado a cabo en el Reino Unido. Nuestra conclusión principal es que la cuestión de la flexibilidad en la educación superior sigue siendo tan pertinente en 2010 como lo era en 2001.


Education ◽  
2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen Hazelkorn

Global university rankings have become a significant feature of international higher education and are commonly interpreted as an indicator of success in the global economy. They came to prominence in 2003 with the publication of the Shanghai Jiao Tong Academic Rankings of World Universities (ARWU). Today, there are ten global rankings of varying degrees of popularity, reliability, and trustworthiness. National rankings have existed since the early 19th century, primarily in the United States, but they now exist in many countries around the world. It is the ability of global rankings to provide a simple, easily understood method by which to compare higher education internationally that has made them a phenomenon. Thus, rankings are viewed as a measure of “world-class excellence.” The performance and quality of higher education is a vital sign of a country’s capacity to participate successfully in the global economy. This follows from studies that continue to highlight strong correlations between investment in education and research and economic growth. While this has highlighted the importance of higher education in creating competitive advantage, it has also brought increased public scrutiny to how higher education is governed and managed, and about value-for-money. This is now the subject of policy debate and public discourse at both the national and the supranational levels. Rankings are also a response to growing pressure from students and parents for more consumer information. As students look for the “best” universities and colleges, rankings appear to provide information about educational quality and, correspondingly, about career prospects. Because rankings are seen as independent of the higher education sector and individual institutions, they are perceived as a more reliable source of information for employers, policymakers, and the public. But rankings are also controversial. Studies raise many questions about their methodology and choice of indicators, which are widely seen as promoting a narrow definition of excellence, and thus as favoring a small subset of the world’s 18,000 higher education institutions. Nonetheless, international research shows that the influence of global rankings on the choices and decisions taken by governments, higher education institutions, students, employers, and others continues to grow. Today’s debates have moved beyond discussing the advantages and disadvantages of global rankings to examining their impact and influence, alternative accountability and transparency instruments, and what global rankings are telling us about the changing shape or the geopolitics of higher education internationally. For further information on a related topic, see the separate Oxford Bibliographies in Education article “Value of Higher Education for Students and Other Stakeholders.”


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document