A path for ranking success: what does the expanded indicator-set of international university rankings suggest?

Uslu, Barış

doi:10.1007/s10734-020-00527-0

Cited by 36 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To date, the aim of university rankings has only been to evaluate universities' academic and research reputation or their performance for promotion purposes [71,72], which does not necessarily mean that HEIs make any societal contribution [73][74][75]. In fact, as part of the metric management model included in the higher education system worldwide, university leaders have carefully paid attention to the quantitative metrics considered by international rankings (QS World Ranking, Shanghai Ranking, The World University Ranking, Scimago Institutions Ranking), such as the citation indicators in research evaluation and funding [73][74][75][76], whereas other qualitative dimensions, e.g., HEIs' societal contribution, have been neglected. If this were true, then HEIs' leaders would be responsible for promoting elitism instead of equity and diversity through performance-based incentives [50,[76][77][78].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This suggests that institutions with fewer resources cannot afford full-on participation and need to moderate the expectations of how well they are likely to perform in this ranking. Moreover, the fact that HEIs self-report data, as [76] stated, highlights the issue of institutions' reliability. Further analyses of how HEIs have evolved over time in incorporating the SDGs is necessary.…”

Section: Logistic Regression Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Universities’ Reporting on SDGs: Using THE Impact Rankings to Model and Measure Their Contribution to Sustainability

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Higher education institutions (HEIs) have voiced growing concerns about sustainability issues since Agenda 2030 was approved, but this is not enough for societal stakeholders seeking and delivering innovation and excellence. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted by all UN Member States in 2015 as a universal call to action, and pose a challenge for HEIs as for the efforts made to fulfill them and knowing how to assess their performance. However, the metric management system implemented by HEIs quickly led to rankings emerging, which compare HEIs to metrics not related to the sustainability dimensions of the 17 SDGs. The main aim of the paper is to assess the level of reporting and alignment of SDG achievements with the overall the Times Higher Education (THE) ranking score. For this purpose, our study (i) models and quantifies the impact of HEIs’ disclosure of SDG information on HEIs’ overall THE Impact Rankings score, (ii) analyzes whether the best ranked universities are indeed significantly related to different SDGs than other not-so-well-ranked ones, and (iii) models the differences in the overall score and its alignment with distinct SDGs by dimensions, subjects, and geographical regions. In order to do so, a descriptive analysis, non-parametric tests, and linear and logistic regression analyses were performed. Our results reveal that the overall ranking is related to the reporting of HEIs’ SDG achievements. Moreover, the more positive actions related to health, education, industry, responsible consumption and production, climate action, and partnerships there were, the higher the position of HEIs in the general ranking was. However, we found differences between top-ranking universities and others in geographical location, disclosed information, and impact. Thus, the best-ranked universities are more committed to transferring knowledge to industry to satisfy its needs (SDG9), support strong institutions in their countries, and promote peace and justice (SDG16). Finally, SDG9 and SDG17 are the most relevant and constant SDGs when modeling the alignment of SDGs with HEIs’ dimensions (teaching, research, citations, industry income, international outlook) and subjects (technological and social sciences and humanities). HEIs integrating SDG actions into the strategic management of universities and, consequently, reporting their SDG performance to promote sustainability and contribute to sustainable development, is advisable.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Logistic Regression Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Universities’ Reporting on SDGs: Using THE Impact Rankings to Model and Measure Their Contribution to Sustainability

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Aynı zamanda günümüzde üniversitelerin bu listelere girmek için çaba gösterdikleri ve listelere girmeyi başaran üniversitelerin bu durumu nitelikli akademisyen ve öğrencileri çekme ve üniversite tanıtımı noktasında bir argüman olarak kullandıkları da bilinmektedir. Akademisyenler de üniversitelerin sıralamalardaki yerinin fon sağlayıcıları, akademisyenler ve öğrencilerin tercihleri üzerinde etkili olduğunu kabul etmektedir (Heffernan ve Heffernan 2018;Kehm, 2013;Pusser ve Marginson, 2013;Uslu, 2020). Yine bu sıralamalarda yer almak Türk üniversitelerinin uluslararası öğrenciler tarafından tercih edilmesinde önemli rol oynamaktadır (Araklı Olcay ve Bulu, 2016).…”

Section: Times Yükseköğretim Kuruluşu (The)unclassified

Uluslararası Üniversite Derecelendirme Kuruluşlarında Türk Üniversitelerinin Yeri: Times Yükseköğretim (THE) Örneği

ASMA¹,

Ünal

2022

Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study was conducted to present a clear-cut picture of Turkish universities based on Times Higher Education (THE) statistics from 2010-2020, as well as to provide practical information to the stakeholders. The systematic review design, one of the qualitative research methods, was used in the study. THE Higher Education Institution released 11 reports between 2010 and 2020, which comprised the research data. The document analysis method was used to collect the research data, which were examined using the content analysis method. The data analysis revealed that the number of Turkish universities in the relevant rankings has steadily increased over the years. However, it was found that most of the universities ranked in recent years were in the last step of the ranking. The analysis results also indicated that Turkish universities drew a graphic below the world averages in teaching, research, and international outlook categories in terms of overall scores and individual averages of public and private universities over the ten-year period. In terms of citations, public university averages generally remained below the world averages, while private university averages were above the world averages except for the last three years. In terms of industrial income, public universities outperformed the world averages after the first two years, and this trend continued throughout the process. A similar trend occurred in this category for private universities. The average of private universities, which stayed below the world average between 2010 and 2014, surpassed the world average as of 2015 and this success continued in the subsequent years.

show abstract

“…Global university rankings have been criticized for a number of reasons [11][12][13]. One of the main reasons for criticism is to analyze only aspects related to research and teaching [14]. This point is especially relevant if we recognize the importance of rankings in providing information to stakeholders and as a force for promoting specific university policies [1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ranking the Performance of Universities: The Role of Sustainability

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

University rankings assess the performance of universities in various fields and aggregate that performance into a single value. In this way, the aggregate performance of universities can be easily compared. The importance of rankings is evident, as they often guide the policy of Higher Education Institutions. The most prestigious multi-criteria rankings use indicators related to teaching and research. However, many stakeholders are now demanding a greater commitment to sustainable development from universities, and it is therefore necessary to include sustainability criteria in university rankings. The development of multi-criteria rankings is subject to numerous criticisms, including the subjectivity of the decision makers when assigning weights to the criteria. In this paper we propose a methodology based on goal programming that allows objective, transparent and reproducible weighting of the criteria. Moreover, it avoids the problems associated with the existence of correlated criteria. The methodology is applied to a sample of 718 universities, using 11 criteria obtained from two prestigious university rankings covering sustainability, teaching and research. A sensitivity analysis is carried out to assess the robustness of the results obtained. This analysis shows how the weights of the criteria and the universities’ rank change depending on the λ parameter of the goal programming model, which is the only parameter set by the decision maker.

show abstract

A path for ranking success: what does the expanded indicator-set of international university rankings suggest?

Cited by 36 publications

References 38 publications

Universities’ Reporting on SDGs: Using THE Impact Rankings to Model and Measure Their Contribution to Sustainability

Universities’ Reporting on SDGs: Using THE Impact Rankings to Model and Measure Their Contribution to Sustainability

Uluslararası Üniversite Derecelendirme Kuruluşlarında Türk Üniversitelerinin Yeri: Times Yükseköğretim (THE) Örneği

Ranking the Performance of Universities: The Role of Sustainability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About