Search results

As the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have been widely adopted since 2015, higher education institutions (HEIs) are experimenting with ways they can be measured, reported and incorporated into all realms of the university. In this process, the challenges of SDG integration into HEIs have become more evident, from lack of resources and sustainability literacy to having multiple disconnected programs that feature the SDGs.

A mixed methods approach using archival materials, literature reviews, interviews and participant observation has been adopted for a case study at a university in the process of adopting the SDGs in multiple areas.

The University of South Florida began with efforts to incorporate SDGs at the undergraduate level, such as the Global Citizens Project that brands both events and courses with SDGs. Institutional changes coupled with the launch of the Times Higher Education University Impact Rankings provided more opportunities to have broader conversations about SDGs in all areas of campus.

Much has been analyzed regarding the origins and the impact of rankings and metrics on policies, behaviors, and missions of universities. Surprisingly, little attention has been allocated to describing and analyzing the emergence of metrics as a new action field. This industry, fueled by the “new public management” policy perspectives that operate at the backstage of the contemporary pervasive “regime of excellence,” still remains a black box worth exploring in depth. This paper intends to fill this loophole. It first sets the stage for this new action field by stressing the differences between the policy fields of higher education in the United States and Europe, as a way to understand the specificities of the use of metrics and rankings on both continents. The second part describes the actors of the field, which productive organizations they build, what skills they combine, which products they put on the market, and their shared norms and audiences.

University rankings and metrics have become an increasingly prominent basis of student decisions, generalized university reputation, and the resources university’s attract. We review the history of metrics in higher education and scholarship about the influence of ranking on the position and strategic behavior of universities and students. Most quantitative analyses on this topic estimate the influence of change in university rank on performance. These studies consistently identify a small, short-lived influence of rank shift on selectivity (e.g., one rank position corresponds to ≤1% more student applicants), comparable to ranking effects documented in other domains. This understates the larger system-level impact of metrification on universities, students, and the professions that surround them. We explore one system-level transformation likely influenced by the rise of rankings. Recent years have witnessed the rise of enrollment management and independent educational consultation. We illustrate a plausible pathway from ranking to this transformation: In an effort to improve rankings, universities solicit more applications from students to reduce their acceptance rate. Lower acceptance rates lead to more uncertainty for students about acceptance, leading them to apply to more schools, which decreases the probability that accepted students will attend. This leads to greater uncertainty about enrollment for students and universities and generates demand for new services to manage it. Because these and other system-level transformations are not as cleanly measured as rank position and performance, they have not received the same treatment or modeling attention in higher education scholarship, despite their importance for understanding and influencing education policy.

The region's universities are “riding a tiger” of university rankings in East Asian higher education, in a race to gain in the list of the world's top 100 universities. While this race impacts universities throughout the world, it takes on particular importance in East Asia due to the stage of university development and the needs of regional societies. The purposes of this paper are to: To examine the emergent global emphasis on world university ranking as a driver of change in higher education, To discuss how the world university rankings are impacting East Asian universities, To assess consequences for higher education in the region, To explore options for leading universities in a more meaningful direction in East Asia.

This paper examines research and commentary on the impact of world university rankings on universities in East Asia.

This paper proposes that the world university rankings have, over a relatively short period of time, had unanticipated but potentially insidious effects on higher education in East Asia. This paper proposes that the “tiger” is carrying most East Asian universities towards goals that may not reflect the aspirations of their societies, or the people that work and study in them. Yet, climbing off the “tiger” often feels just as risky as hanging on to its back. Instead of seeking to lay blame at any one party, the paper suggests that the problem is systemic in nature. Multiple parts of the system need to change in order to achieve effects in the distal parts (e.g. faculty, students, and society). Only leadership can bring about this type of change. The scholarly community must gain some degree of input and monitoring over the rules of the rankings game. Only by joining hands can university leaders in the region change the “Ranking Game” to reflect the reality and needs of university development and social contribution in East Asia. Only by cooperation can the region's university leaders create reciprocal pressure on other parts of the system. In response to systemic problems, “I” may be powerless, but “we” are not.

The originality and value of this paper lie in its aim to elevate underlying dissatisfaction with the rankings into a broader and more explicit debate over the direction in which East Asian universities are riding on the back of the tiger.

This study aims to analyse and evaluate the methodology followed by the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings (THE-IR), as well as the coverage obtained and the data offered by this ranking, to determine if its methodology reflects the degree of sustainability of universities, and whether their results are accurate enough to be used as a data source for research and strategic decision-making.

A summative content analysis of the THE-IR methodology was conducted, paying special attention to the macro-structure (university score) and micro-structure (sustainable development goals [SDG] score) levels of the research-related metrics. Then, the data published by THE-IR in the 2019, 2020 and 2021 edition was collected via web scraping. After that, all the data was statistically analysed to find out performance rates, SDGs’ success rates and geographic distributions. Finally, a pairwise comparison of the THE-IR against the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE-WUR) was conducted to calculate overlap measures.

Severe inconsistencies in the THE-IR methodology have been found, offering a distorted view of sustainability in higher education institutions, allowing different strategic actions to participate in the ranking (interested, strategic, committed and outperformer universities). The observed growing number of universities from developing countries and the absence of world-class universities reflect an opportunity for less-esteemed institutions, which might have a chance to gain reputation based on their efforts towards sustainability, but from a flawed ranking which should be avoided for decision-making.

University managers can be aware of the THE-IR validity when demanding informed decisions. University ranking researchers and practitioners can access a detailed analysis of the THE-IR to determine its properties as a ranking and use raw data from THE-IR in other studies or reports. Policy makers can use the main findings of this work to avoid misinterpretations when developing public policies related to the evaluation of the contribution of universities to the SDGs. Otherwise, these results can help the ranking publisher to improve some of the inconsistencies found in this study.

Given the global audience of the THE-IR, this work contributes to minimising the distorted vision that the THE-IR projects about sustainability in higher education institutions, and alerts governments, higher education bodies and policy makers to take precautions when making decisions based on this ranking.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this contribution is the first providing an analysis of the THE-IR’s methodology. The faults in the methodology, the coverage at the country-level and the overlap between THE-IR and THE-WUR have unveiled the existence of specific strategies in the participation of universities, of interest both for experts in university rankings and SDGs.

This paper aims to examine whether the position of universities in the times higher education (THE) impact rankings (IR) is related to the different dimensions of academic quality of universities according to the THE world universities ranking.

The research, based on universities ranked in the top 100 of THE IRs, uses a regression model obtained by the panel data method, using the fixed effects approach, to identify the relationship of academic quality dimensions with that ranking.

The results show an increase in the dissemination of information on sustainable development goals (SDGs) by universities. In addition, it is shown that research, number of citations and international outlook are positively associated with a higher score obtained by universities in THE IRs, which implies a higher impact on the SDGs by these universities.

Based on multifaceted theories, the study highlighted the universities that are best positioned in the THE IRs in relation to their contribution to the SDGs.

The higher education system has been entrusted globally to provide quality education, especially to the youth, and equip them with required skills and capabilities. The visionaries and policymakers of the countries around the world have been working relentlessly to improve the standard of the higher education system by establishing national and global accreditation and ranking bodies and expecting measuring performance through setting up accreditation and ranking parameters. This paper focuses on the review of Indian university accreditation and ranking system and determining its efficacy in improving academic quality for achieving good position in global quality accreditation and ranking.

The study employed exploratory research approach to know about the accreditation and ranking issues of Indian higher education institutions to overcome the challenges for being globally competitive. The accreditation and ranking parameters and score of leading Indian universities was collected from secondary data sources. Similarly, the global ranking parameters and scores of these Indian universities with top global universities was explored. The performance gaps of Indian university in global academic quality parameter is assessed by comparing it with scores of global top universities. Further, each domestic and global accreditation and ranking parameters have been taken up for discussion.

The study identified teaching and learning, research and industry collaboration as common parameter in the accreditation and ranking by Indian and global accreditation and ranking body. Furthermore, the study revealed that Indian accreditation and ranking body assess leniently on parameters and award high scores as compared to rigorous global accreditation and ranking practice. The study revealed that “research” and “citations” are important parameters for securing prestigious position in global ranking, this is the reason Indian universities are trailing. The study exposed that Indian academic fraternity lack prominence in research, publication and citations as per need of global accreditation and ranking standards.

The limitation of this study is that it focused only on few Indian and global accreditation and ranking bodies. The future implication of this study will be the use of methodology designed in this study for comparing accreditation and ranking bodies’ parameters of different continents and countries in different economic development stages i.e. emerging and developed economies to know the disparity and shortcomings in their higher education system.

The article is a review and comparison of national and global accreditation and ranking parameters. The article explored the important criteria and key indicators of accreditation and ranking that would provide an important and meaningful insight to academic institutions of the emerging economies of the world to develop its competitiveness. The study contributed to the literature on identifying benchmark for improving academic and higher education institution quality. This study would be further helpful in fostering new ideas toward setting up of contemporary globally viable and acceptable academic quality standard.

This is possibly the first study conducted with novel methodology of comparing the Indian and global accreditation and ranking parameters to identify the academic quality performance gap and suggesting ways to attain academic benchmark through continuous improvement activity and process for global competitiveness.

The manuscript reflects on the future of higher education from an emerging country perspective. The authors specifically answer how new education policies, ranking and accreditation are impacting the current state of Indian higher education institutions (IHEIs) and how IHEIs can cultivate their path towards positioning themselves internationally. This study aims to bring together existing scenarios and to serve as a springboard for future research and applications.

The manuscript is designed and executed as a conceptual study exploring the current state and prospects for IHEIs. The study synthesizes the concepts of positioning strategies in context to IHEIs. A conceptual diagram integrating existing concepts from marketing, total quality management and business education is created to understand the phenomenon among the IHEIs stakeholders.

The authors found that IHEIs started showing their international presence yet they are facing various challenges (government bureaucracy; international salary standards; global student population; and cultural sensitivity). The authors also found that the positioning problem is not a one-time attempt; the complexity of higher education is a “wicked problem” and, hence needs to be evaluated, changed and executed continuously. The manuscript offers relevant information to IHEIs leaders and stakeholders to improve on their international positioning strategies and proposes avenues for future research.

The study outlines future development and positioning strategic plans that IHEIs may consider and reflect in their strategic plan. The conceptual diagram on achieving successful international positioning and problem areas is expected to act as a guidebook for the key decision-makers. The focus is on distinguishing the imperatives, creating a key guide for meeting immediate requirements, allotting assets prudently to update their international presence. The study will provide IHEIs with a new lease of life in the future.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a common framework for benchmarking practices used in higher education.

An electronic questionnaire survey was distributed to senior management team and senior administrators among the top 200 UK universities in the world.

A review of the current practices of benchmarking among the universities in the UK is presented and the types of performance indicators adopted within universities in relation to research, teaching and administration are outlined.

The suitability of performance indicators adopted in the current national and international rankings is also investigated. Opinions of respondents on important factors for successful benchmarking are also compiled and analysed.