Search results

The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between quality assurance, the traditional a priori approach, and a more recently developed empirical classification of universities, as a means of assessing whether the different classification systems fulfill their original purpose. The study analyzes Chilean university classifications because they have been used in setting up higher education public policies.

The existing classifications of Chilean universities were identified in the literature. Researchers determined categories, criteria and/or indicators used, as well as their main purposes as described by the authors of the classifications. All the criteria and indicators identified were directly related to the quality of academic activities and to the results of the university accreditation processes. The institutional accreditation outcomes and variables were studied using univariate and multivariate statistical analysis.

The a priori approach proved to be consistent with the results of institutional quality assurance, despite of the variability in individual performances. The empirical systems, however, do not show any contribution to the improvement of public policies in higher education. The results clearly show that classifications based on performance do not necessarily ensure improvements in institutional quality.

To the authors’ knowledge, this analysis is the first study of the relationship between university classification and quality assurance. The growing number of proposals for different empirical classifications in Chilean universities is evidence of institutional diversity only. However, the classification designs did not respond to purposes such as public policies improvements and other expected results from these instruments.

This paper aims to improve the Commission of Higher Education (CHE)'s current university classification and develop the Thai Higher Education Classification Model (THEC‐model). This study supports the CHE's initiative to ensure that the future is more science‐oriented by encouraging universities to become National Research Universities (NRUs).

The research applies empirical data and a statistical approach for the THEC‐model's development. The model's results are then compared with the decisions reached earlier by the CHE in selecting public universities as research‐intensive.

The proposed classification criteria for NRUs consist of: research funding; the variety of instructional programmes; the level of instructional programmes; instructors and research staff body; and student body, which have significantly statistically influenced the differences in Y‐variables: research output, citation, and research awards at alpha 0.05. The initial results show that eight universities are selected. The findings are consistent with the 2008 announcement, except for two universities.

The developed THEC‐model benefits academic researchers, university administrators, and policymakers for many reasons. For example, the THEC‐model provides information for academic researchers to determine the important variables for a research university. The model provides information for policymakers to manage higher education effectively to raise the targets for a university.

The THEC‐model criteria were generated by reviewing the classification system in different locations. Such criteria could be applied extensively at domestic and international level. Moreover, the developed THEC‐model is based on a statistical approach and empirical data improved the reliability and would be beneficial to the CHEs in Thailand for further improvement on research‐focused HEI classification criteria in the future.

Classification schemes make things happen. The Australian Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), which derives its classification system from the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), legislates for adjustments to support the inclusion of people with disability. This study explores how students with disability enrolled in a university experience the systems intended to facilitate their studying “on the same basis” as students without disability.

Through an online questionnaire and interviews comprising open and closed questions made available to students registered with the disability services unit of a university and follow-up interviews with a small number of students, students’ views of their own disability and effects on their participation in learning were gathered, alongside reports of their experiences of seeking support in their learning. Interview data and responses to open-ended questions were analysed using a priori and emergent coding.

The findings demonstrate that students are aware of the workings of the classification scheme and that most accept them. However, some students put themselves outside of the scheme, often as a way to exercise autonomy or to assert their “ability”, while others are excluded from it by the decisions of academic staff. Thus, the principles of fairness and equity enshrined in legislation and policy are weakened.

Through the voices of students with disability, it is apparent that, even though a student's classification according to the DDA and associated university policy remains constant, the outcomes of the workings of the scheme may reveal inconsistencies, emerging from the complexity of bureaucracy, processes and the exercises of power.

This chapter demonstrates how the University of Waikato in New Zealand adapted a global standard (the Library of Congress Classification) for local use by inscribing topics related to and about Māori history and people.

The findings are the result of using library catalogs and classifications as primary historical documents.

The University of Waikato’s classification simultaneously uses and implicitly critiques a universal system written from a U.S. vantage point. It seems to acknowledge the benefits and necessities of using a globally recognized standard, as well as a need to inscribe local, anticolonial perspectives into that system.

The research relies on historical documents, and some aspects related to purpose and attribution are difficult to ascertain.

The local adaptation of the Library of Congress Classification may serve as a model for other local adaptations.

This may bring new dimensions to thinking about colonialism and anticolonialism in knowledge organization systems. It contributes to ongoing conversations regarding indigenous knowledge organization practices.

Although scholars have examined Māori subject headings, research on local shelf classifications in New Zealand have not been objects of study in the context of global and local knowledge organization. This chapter brings an important classification to light.

This study aims to analyse current practices and cooperation between the Turkish university libraries related to cataloguing processes and present cataloguing librarians’ evaluations about clarity and comprehensiveness of the given information in library catalogues.

In line with the literature review, a Web-based questionnaire was developed concerning the cataloguing practices implemented at university libraries in Turkey. The questionnaire was submitted to 316 cataloguing librarians. In all, 104 cataloguing librarians from 61 different libraries responded to the survey. The collected data were analysed through descriptive statistics. The responses given to some open-ended questions were assessed with respective expressions presented verbatim in the study and some of them visualised via VOSViewer software.

The findings reflect that analysed university libraries implement different cataloguing processes. It is seen that some libraries use the necessary systems and services related to cataloguing and classification while others use individual solutions without using such systems and services. Findings reveal that there is cooperation between the analysed libraries about sharing catalogue records. In this regard, it is understood that cataloguing librarians mostly prefer transferring catalogue records from the catalogues of university libraries they trusted. Findings also indicate that analysed librarians think that the descriptive information provided via Online Public Access Catalogues are in moderate level in terms of clarity and comprehensibility.

The study contributes to the existing literature of a limited number of relevant studies by establishing the baseline pertaining to cataloguing processes undertaken at university libraries in Turkey.

The paper aims to share experiences in Thailand's higher educational reforms in which academic excellence cannot be sustained without proper financial and fiscal consideration. The overall goal is to disclose the experiences and future issues facing public universities.

The paper is based on actual involvement by Kasetsart University in assisting the Commission of Higher Education's (CHE) university reform efforts. In addition to projects supported financially by CHE, Kasetsart University has also participated as a committee member and an invited expert. The paper is narrative in nature. It begins by showing the positive impacts from higher education on a country's level of competitiveness, and the inter‐relationship between higher education and innovation. The paper describes the country's recent major reform initiatives to achieve academic excellence and raises concerns over sustainability for public universities.

The experiences from Thailand can be helpful for many countries as the country is moving from an industrial‐based economy towards a knowledge‐based economy. The major concern is that academic excellence for public universities cannot be sustained without more effective fiscal management and public‐private partnership. Finally, despite the fact that the article is descriptive; the knowledge and lessons learned should be beneficial to scholars and practitioners who are interested in higher education reforms.

Academic excellence has often been discussed within the context of quality and innovation without explicitly considering fiscal management. The potential use of public‐private partnerships, which can improve the effectiveness of fiscal management, is revealed and discussed. The knowledge and lessons learned should be beneficial to scholars and practitioners who are interested in higher education reforms.

Using bibliometrics to examine eight core journals in the year 2000 for the disciplines of higher education and library science, characteristics of the authors were determined, including gender or sex; Carnegie Classification or institutional affiliation; and position of the authors. Characteristics of the articles were also examined, including the research methods used such as descriptive statistics, inferential statistics, or qualitative analysis. A content analysis of each article was performed to determine the subjects discussed in each literature. For both disciplines, it was learned that males publish more, the highest Carnegie Classification, extensive research institutions, were represented the most, and authors came from academic departments other than their own disciplines. In higher education, inferential statistics were used frequently; in library and information descriptive statistics were used frequently; both disciplines failed to use research methodologies regularly. From these findings, it appears that both disciplines are still emerging and are in their early stages of development.

Higher education plays a critical role in the health of the US national economy. At the same time, there are increasing concerns regarding the cost of higher education and the effectiveness with which universities are using their money. Accordingly, the purpose of this paper is to examine changes in higher education productivity over the past 15 years across a sample of more than 500 public universities spanning multiple Carnegie classifications. By utilizing measures generated by a commission of the National Education Council, however, attention is more finely focused on the specific costs and outputs related to instructional activity than previous studies.

This research utilizes the recommendations of the National Education Center committee to examine productivity changes in higher education over the past 14 years. To that end, the hypotheses put forth in this research utilize 15 years data of Institutional Primary Education Data, 549 institutions and 3 productivity measures to assess how productivity in higher education has changed between 2002 and 2015.

The results of the present research suggest that instructional activity (measured as multifactor productivity) has increased in all Carnegie classifications between 2002 and 2016.

The present study, organized by Carnegie classification, does not specify the cost of increased instructional productivity. As noted, there are concerns regarding whether at least some of the choices a university might make to increase instructional productivity – such as increased class size and/or an increased use of non-tenure track faculty – could adversely influence the quality of instruction and/or diminish student learning. Further, this research does not examine the relationship between research productivity and increasing instructional productivity.

The present study does not address the bigger question of whether the increasing costs of higher education are justified, because universities produce much more than student credit hours. While, in an ideal world, these various outputs will complement one another and utilize at least some of the same resources, each has its own unique inputs and associated expenses. Given this, an overall assessment of the value or productivity of a university as a whole is a very difficult thing to determine and is well beyond the scope of a single study.

The present study explicitly focuses on the instructional component of universities and relationship between output and inputs. Ultimately, providing a clearer picture of how instructional productivity in higher education has been increasing over the past 14 years.

This research is the only research of its kind to the best knowledge of the researchers.

Classification systems play a fundamental role in the organization, display, retrieval and access to the knowledge materials in libraries. These systems have served the purpose adequately in most of knowledge areas; nevertheless, some grey areas lack proper place and enumeration in these systems. Islamic knowledge is among the areas that have not been properly addressed. The purpose of this paper is to examine this problem and indicate a potential solution.

This paper expands on the author's earlier research which focused on Pakistan library collections. Empirical data have been collected from 16 LIS scholars who have interest in or expertise on this issue through interviews. Scholars are from Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UK, the USA and Canada. A review of the literature is also presented.

A number of approaches have been taken to work around the deficiencies of the standard classification systems when it comes to Islamic knowledge and publications, including indigenous systems and expansions. Details of some of these are presented. A range of possible improvements to existing classification systems was suggested by scholars, and an outline of what is required in a new, independent system is discussed, along with ideas about the best way for this system to be developed.

The paper discusses an area of professional concern that has been discussed widely in Islamic countries, but only in a limited fashion outside of Islamic countries. Thus, the paper should be of interest to researchers and practitioners interested in cataloguing and classification theory.

Given the magnitude of the literature, a researcher must be selective of research papers and publications in general. In other words, only papers that meet strict standards of academic integrity and adhere to reliable and credible sources should be referenced. The purpose of this paper is to approach this issue from the prism of scientometrics according to the following research questions: Is it necessary to judge the quality of scientific production? How do we evaluate scientific production? What are the tools to be used in evaluation?

This paper presents a comparative study of scientometric evaluation practices and tools. A systematic literature review is conducted based on articles published in the field of scientometrics between 1951 and 2022. To analyze data, the authors performed three different aspects of analysis: usage analysis based on classification and comparison between the different scientific evaluation practices, type and level analysis based on classifying different scientometric indicators according to their types and application levels and similarity analysis based on studying the correlation between different quantitative metrics to identify similarity between them.

This comparative study leads to classify different scientific evaluation practices into externalist and internalist approaches. The authors categorized the different quantitative metrics according to their types (impact, production and composite indicators), their levels of application (micro, meso and macro) and their use (internalist and externalist). Moreover, the similarity analysis has revealed a high correlation between several scientometric indicators such as author h-index, author publications, citations and journal citations.

The interest in this study lies deeply in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of research groups and guides their actions. This evaluation contributes to the advancement of scientific research and to the motivation of researchers. Moreover, this paper can be applied as a complete in-depth guide to help new researchers select appropriate measurements to evaluate scientific production. The selection of evaluation measures is made according to their types, usage and levels of application. Furthermore, our analysis shows the similarity between the different indicators which can limit the overuse of similar measures.