Search results

The purpose of this research is to determine the competitive advantages of higher education institutions (HEIs) and create a new methodology to rank universities according to the competitive advantages.

The research determines the competitive advantages of HEIs by analysing expert opinions through a semi-structured interview form, matches codes and themes to performance indicators using Saldana's two-cycle coding methods, evaluates content validity through Lawshe and reveals the item weights of the ranking with analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Simple additive weighting (SAW) and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity (TOPSIS) methods were used for ranking universities.

Seven dimensions stand out in regard to what should be considered while ranking HEIs: research and publication, education, management, infrastructure, financial resources, human resources and social and economic contribution. Under the 7 dimensions, 69 indicators were determined.

The research provides a scientific reference point where HEIs can compare themselves with other HEIs regarding where they are in the sector, especially in terms of competitive advantages.

Although there are many different ranking methods that rank universities in the national and international literature, almost all these methods are largely based on the outputs of the university such as the number of publications, the number of patents, the number of projects, etc. A framework which ranks universities by considering different aspects of the institution, such as management, human resources and financial resources, has not been developed yet. In this respect, this research aims to fill this gap in the literature.

This study aims to investigate the relationship between university rankings and sustainability reporting among Australia and New Zealand universities. Even though sustainability reporting is an established area of investigation, prior research has paid inadequate attention to the nexus of university ranking and sustainability reporting.

This study covers 46 Australian and New Zealand universities and uses a data set, which includes sustainability reports and disclosures from four reporting channels including university websites, and university archives, between 2005 and 2018. Ordinary least squares regression was used with Pearson and Spearman’s rank correlations to investigate the likelihood of multi-collinearity and the paper also calculated the variance inflation factor values. Finally, this study uses the generalized method of moments approach to test for endogeneity.

The findings suggest that sustainability reporting is significantly and positively associated with university ranking and confirm that the four reporting channels play a vital role when communicating with university stakeholders. Further, this paper documents that sustainability reporting through websites, in addition to the annual report and a separate environment report have a positive impact on the university ranking systems.

This paper contributes to extant knowledge on the link between university rankings and university sustainability reporting which is considered a vital communication vehicle to meet the expectation of the stakeholder in relevance with the university rankings.

This study evaluates the correlations between the universities' type of property (public, private associative and private corporate), institutional seniority (<20, 20–45 and >45 years) and the presence and position in national and international university rankings.

It considers 90 Peruvian universities certified by SUNEDU (public agency for the accreditation of universities in Peru). According to their presence in 20 university rankings (yes/no) and the position (tertiles) in two world rankings: Webometrics and SIR Iberoamericano, four universities participated in 10 or more rankings and only 16 (18%) in six or more.

The private corporate universities were the least old (p < 0.01). No association was found with the type of property both in the presence in rankings and in the positioning (p > 0.05), except in one where there was less participation of public institutions. Long-lived universities had higher participation and better positioning in rankings than those with less seniority (p < 0.01). The presence and better positioning in university rankings depend on institutional seniority and not on the type of ownership in Peruvian licensed universities.

This research highlights the lack of equity in several international rankings for the evaluation of the quality of universities, in the respect that most of them give priority to aspects related to institutional seniority and size. At the same time, the results of younger and smaller institutions are not put into perspective.

The purpose of this study is to present an alternative to university ranking lists published in U.S. News & World Report, Times Higher Education, Academic Ranking of World Universities and Money Magazine. A strategy is proposed to mine a collection of university data obtained from Twitter and publicly available online academic sources to compute social media metrics that approximate typical academic rankings of US universities.

The Twitter application programming interface (API) is used to rank 264 universities using two easily collected measurements. The University Twitter Engagement (UTE) score is the total number of primary and secondary followers affiliated with the university. The authors mine other public data sources related to endowment funds, athletic expenditures and student enrollment to compute a ranking based on the endowment, expenditures and enrollment (EEE) score.

In rank-to-rank comparisons, the authors observed a significant, positive rank correlation (τ = 0.6018) between UTE and an aggregate reputation ranking, which indicates UTE could be a viable proxy for ranking atypical institutions normally excluded from traditional lists.

The UTE and EEE metrics offer distinct advantages because they can be calculated on-demand rather than relying on an annual publication and they promote diversity in the ranking lists, as any university with a Twitter account can be ranked by UTE and any university with online information about enrollment, expenditures and endowment can be given an EEE rank. The authors also propose a unique approach for discovering official university accounts by mining and correlating the profile information of Twitter friends.

This study aims to examine if there exists a relation between scholarly output and institutional ranking based on National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) of India. This paper also aims to analyze and compare the parameters of NIRF with those of leading world ranking university rankings.

The data for the study were collected through Web content analysis. The major parts of data were collected from the official websites of NIRF, Times Higher Education World University Rankings and QS World University rankings.

The study found that the parameters fixed for the assessment of Indian institutions under NIRF are par with those of other world university ranking agencies. Scholarly output of a university is one of the major parameters of university ranking schemes. Indian universities who scored high for research productivity came top in NIRF. These universities were also figured in world university rankings. Universities from South India excel in NIRF and there is a close relationship between scholarly productivity and institutional ranking.

Correlation between h-index and scholarly productivity has been dealt with in several studies. This paper is the first attempt to find the relationship between scholarly productivity and ranking of universities in India based on NIRF.

The purpose of this paper is to test Shattock’s legacy reputation thesis that non-leading universities in the UK face insuperable resource barriers to entering the leading group.

Employing regression analysis, the authors examine whether prioritizing research performance is a viable strategy for non-leading UK universities aiming to improve their organizational effectiveness. The dependent variable, organizational effectiveness, is measured by the annual Guardian rankings of universities. The main independent variable, research performance, is measured using “research power” (“RP”). RP is derived from the UK Research Excellence Framework.

For 2008-2014, the authors find that changes in research performance impacted university rankings. However, the authors also find that changes to the rankings are largely confined to non-leading universities and have not led to these institutions breaking into the group of leading universities. Therefore, Shattock’s thesis is supported.

Failing to maintain research performance can have significant negative consequences for the rankings of non-leading universities.

This is the first study that examines the relationship between the research performance of universities in the UK with a measure of their overall organizational effectiveness.

The purpose of this paper is to study the effects of the choice of database and data retrieval methods on the research performance of a number of selected Asian universities from 33 countries using two different indicators (publication volume and citation count) and three subject fields (energy, environment and materials) during the period 2005‐2009.

To determine the effect of the choice of database, Scopus and Web of Science databases were queried to retrieve the publications and citations of the top ten Asian universities in three subject fields. In ascertaining the effect of data retrieval methods, the authors proposed a new data retrieval method called Keyword‐based Data Retrieval (KDR), which uses relevant keywords identified by independent experts to retrieve publications and their citations of the top 30 Asian universities in the Environment field from the entire Scopus database. The results were then compared with those retrieved using the Conventional Data Retrieval (CDR) method.

The Asian university ranking order is strongly affected by the choice of database, indicator, and the data retrieval method used. The KDR method yields many more publications and citation counts than the CDR method, shows better understanding of the university ranking results, and retrieves publications and citations in source titles outside those classified by the database. Moreover the publications found by the KDR method have a multidisciplinary research focus.

The paper concludes that KDR is a more suitable methodology to retrieve data for measuring university research performance, particularly in an environment where universities are increasingly engaging in multidisciplinary research.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The purpose of this study is to compare of the way intellectual capital (IC) is disclosed in the websites of the universities in three European countries to assess the way universities decide to communicate IC to their stakeholders and identify potential patterns and trends. In addition, the relation between the level and the type of IC Web disclosure in universities and academic rankings as a proxy of performance is explored to reveal interrelations.

The study is based on a sample of 128 universities coming from Greece (22), Italy (58) and Spain (48). The websites of the universities are content-analysed to measure the level of IC disclosure. The IC disclosure metrics are then correlated with the academic rankings of the World Ranking.

While the level of IC disclosure among universities and among countries is not homogeneous, human capital and internal capital items are more heavily disclosed compared to external capital items in all three countries. In addition, larger universities in terms of number of students tend to disclose more on IC. Moreover, there is a positive correlation between the level of IC Web disclosure and the academic ranking that challenges the IC disclosure strategies followed by the universities.

The paper represents an innovative contribution to the existing literature as it investigates websites to assess the level of IC disclosure provided by universities in a comparative perspective. Furthermore, it analyses the relationship between the online IC disclosure and European universities’ academic rankings and provides evidence on the interaction between the IC disclosure and the ecosystem in which the universities operate contributing to the fourth stage of IC research.