scholarly journals A method for evaluating global university rankings

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Gadd ◽  
Richard Holmes ◽  
Justin Shearer
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
World University Rankings ◽  
Global University ◽  
Rating Method ◽  
World Report ◽  
Governance Transparency ◽  
What Matters

Describes a method to provide an independent, community-sourced set of best practice criteria with which to assess global university rankings and to identify the extent to which a sample of six rankings, Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), CWTS Leiden, QS World University Rankings (QS WUR), Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE WUR), U-Multirank, and US News & World Report Best Global Universities, met those criteria. The criteria fell into four categories: good governance, transparency, measure what matters, and rigour. The relative strengths and weaknesses of each ranking were compared. Overall, the rankings assessed fell short of all criteria, with greatest strengths in the area of transparency and greatest weaknesses in the area of measuring what matters to the communities they were ranking. The ranking that most closely met the criteria was CWTS Leiden. Scoring poorly across all the criteria were the THE WUR and US News rankings. Suggestions for developing the ranker rating method are described.

Discourses on quality and quality assurance in higher education from the perspective of global university rankings

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maruša Hauptman Komotar
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Higher Education Institutions ◽  
International Studies ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Quality Of Higher Education ◽  
World University Rankings ◽  
International Ranking ◽  
Global University

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.

Sustainability university rankings: a comparative analysis of UI green metric and the times higher education world university rankings

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Galleli ◽  
Noah Emanuel Brito Teles ◽  
Joyce Aparecida Ramos dos Santos ◽  
Mateus Santos Freitas-Martins ◽  
Flavio Hourneaux Junior
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
Content Type ◽  
World University Rankings ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Global University ◽  
Methodological Procedures ◽  
The Times

Purpose This study aims to answer the research question: How to evaluate the structure of global university sustainability rankings according to the Berlin Principles (BP) framework. Design/methodology/approach The authors investigated two global sustainability rankings in universities, The UI green metric World University Ranking (WUR) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE-WUR). The authors performed content analysis regarding their evaluation criteria and assessed both rankings using the BP framework. Findings Results show that there is still a gap to be filled regarding the specificity of global university sustainability rankings. Although the THE-WUR had a better performance in this research, there are several items for improvement, especially regarding the methodological procedures. There are structural differences, limitations and points for improvement in both rankings. Besides, it may not be possible to have a unique and more appropriate ranking, but one that can be more suitable for a contextual reality. Practical implications This study can be helpful for university managers when deliberating on the most appropriate ranking for their institutions and better preparing their higher education institutions for participating in sustainability-related rankings. Besides, it suggests possible improvements on the rankings’ criteria. Social implications The authors shed light on challenges for improving the existing university sustainability rankings, besides generating insights for developing new ones. In a provocative but constructive perspective, the authors question their bases and understandings of being “the best university” regarding sustainability. Originality/value This is the first study that provides an in-depth analysis and comparison between two of the most important global university sustainability rankings.

scholarly journals A longitudinal analysis of university rankings

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 1109-1135
Author(s):  
Friso Selten ◽  
Cameron Neylon ◽  
Chun-Kai Huang ◽  
Paul Groth
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Principal Component ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
Quality Of Higher Education ◽  
World University Rankings ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
Global University ◽  
The Times ◽  
University Performance

Pressured by globalization and demand for public organizations to be accountable, efficient, and transparent, university rankings have become an important tool for assessing the quality of higher education institutions. It is therefore important to assess exactly what these rankings measure. Here, the three major global university rankings—the Academic Ranking of World Universities, the Times Higher Education ranking and the Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings—are studied. After a description of the ranking methodologies, it is shown that university rankings are stable over time but that there is variation between the three rankings. Furthermore, using principal component analysis and exploratory factor analysis, we demonstrate that the variables used to construct the rankings primarily measure two underlying factors: a university’s reputation and its research performance. By correlating these factors and plotting regional aggregates of universities on the two factors, differences between the rankings are made visible. Last, we elaborate how the results from these analysis can be viewed in light of often-voiced critiques of the ranking process. This indicates that the variables used by the rankings might not capture the concepts they claim to measure. The study provides evidence of the ambiguous nature of university rankings quantification of university performance.

scholarly journals FACTORS OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS RANKING (COMPARISON OF THREE WORLD UNIVERSITY RANKINGS)

2019 ◽  
pp. 62-70
Author(s):  
Nattapong Techarattanased ◽  
Pleumjai Sinarkorn
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Science Citation Index ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Social Science Citation Index ◽  
Science Citation ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
University Ranking ◽  
World University Rankings ◽  
Ranking Systems ◽  
Global University

Many universities have drawn attention to world university rankings, which reflect the international competition of universities and represent their relative statuses. This study does not radically contradict all types of global university rankings but calls for an examination of the effects of their indicators on the final ranking of universities. This study investigates the indicator contribution to the ranking of universities in world university ranking systems including the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Times Higher Education (THE), and QS World University Rankings. Results showed that in the ARWU system, three indicators regarding faculty members who won Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals and papers published in Nature and Science and in the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index journals predicted the ranking of universities. For the QS and THE systems, the more powerful contributors to the ranking of universities were expert-based reputation indicators.

scholarly journals Welcome to the World Class University: Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Sharon Rider ◽  
Michael A. Peters ◽  
Mats Hyvönen ◽  
Tina Besley
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Higher Education Policy ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
University Teachers ◽  
World University Rankings ◽  
Teachers And Students ◽  
Global University ◽  
World Class ◽  
Object Of Study ◽  
World Class Universities

AbstractThe notion of World Class Universities, and the use of rankings in general, has been an object of study for decades. Perhaps the first major critical work was Ellen Hazelkorn’s Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence (2011). Just as the influence of rankings shows no sign of abating, neither does the impetus to provide practical proposals for how to use them to advantage, or, alternatively, to examine the sources and effects of the practices involved. Recent interventions belonging to the first category are Downing and Ganotice’s World university rankings and the future of higher education (2017), while Stack’s Global university rankings and the mediatization of higher education (2016) and Hazelkorn’s Global rankings and the geopolitics of higher education: Understanding the influence and impact of rankingson higher education, policyand society (2016) are notable examples of the latter. The essays presented in the present volume are intended to contribute to our understanding of the phenomenon, its causes and consequences by filling three functions: (i) to provide an updated analysis of current trends in rankings and an examination of recent data regarding World Class University (WCU) initiatives relevant to the form and content of higher education; (ii) to study these especially with an eye to particular ramifications for work on the shop floor, that is to say, for university teachers and students; (iii) to investigate possible future courses and alternative trajectories.

scholarly journals Diponegoro University Heading to become a Research University (Phase I – Phase IV) Between Expectation and Reality

2020 ◽  
Vol 202 ◽  
pp. 03026
Author(s):  
Tri Handayani ◽  
Daivangga Maheswari
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Research University ◽  
Higher Education Institutions ◽  
Education Institution ◽  
Global Dynamics ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
World University Rankings ◽  
The World ◽  
The University

Diponegoro University is one reputable university belonging to Indonesia. This state university is located in Semarang, Central Java Province. Global dynamics have also colored its journey in implementing its traditionally assigned three missions: teaching, conducting research, and providing public services. These make this university highly confident heading to become a research university. A research university is a step to take that the university has its competitiveness to compete with the others in the world. There are some Higher Education-rankings institutions which evaluate all Higher Education Institutions in the world, such as Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings, Times Higher Education (THE) University Rankings, 4 International Colleges and Universities (4ICU), and Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU). Meanwhile, the ministry which has the function to make coordination with higher education institutions in Indonesia has also conducted higher education institutional ratings, primarily for Indonesian internal needs. The criteria of a research university refer to those evaluated by the higher education institutional ratings in the international level. A research university is a new paradigm which encourages a higher education institution in Indonesia to become highly confident to globally compete with the others in the whole world.

Communicative Aspect of University Reputation Assessment (on the Case of RUDN University)

2021 ◽  
pp. 75-82
Author(s):  
A. Glagoleva ◽  
Yu. Zemskaya ◽  
Evgeniya Kuznecova ◽  
Irina Aleshina
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
Communicative Interaction ◽  
World University Rankings ◽  
University Reputation ◽  
Emotional Assessment ◽  
Academic Ranking ◽  
The Relationship

This article is concerned with the communicative study of the issue of assessing the reputation of universities. The article presents the concept of "reputation" and its characteristics such as a long-term period of creation, the multiple nature of reputation, the relationship with the values that the audience gives to the company etc. Reputation is seen as the result of communicative interaction with the audience, which allows to create trust and inspire confidence in stakeholders. The authors review the characteristics of the three leading world university rankings: Times Higher Education World University Rankings; Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings; The Academic Ranking of World Universities. And also, the article describes the criteria by which these rankings are built. It either observes the indicators that are taken into account in the compilation of reputational ratings for companies and brands. It turns out during the comparing of the criteria for assessing the ratings of universities and the ratings of companies and brands, that emotional components are completely dismissed from the ratings of universities. While compilers of the company’s reputation rankings RepTrak ™ Pulse and the brand’s reputation rankings Interbrand always include them. The article presents the data from a study of the reputation of RUDN University, which the authors conducted by methods of survey and interview in November 2019. They show that an emotional assessment of a university's reputation is more important for an internal audience than a rational one.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document