Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the similarity of intra-indicators used in research-focused international university rankings (Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), NTU, University Ranking by Academic Performance (URAP), Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) and Round University Ranking (RUR)) over years, and show the effect of similar indicators on overall rankings for 2015. The research questions addressed in this study in accordance with these purposes are as follows: At what level are the intra-indicators used in international university rankings similar? Is it possible to group intra-indicators according to their similarities? What is the effect of similar intra-indicators on overall rankings?

Indicator-based scores of all universities in five research-focused international university rankings for all years they ranked form the data set of this study for the first and second research questions. The authors used a multidimensional scaling (MDS) and cosine similarity measure to analyze similarity of indicators and to answer these two research questions. Indicator-based scores and overall ranking scores for 2015 are used as data and Spearman correlation test is applied to answer the third research question.

Results of the analyses show that the intra-indicators used in ARWU, NTU and URAP are highly similar and that they can be grouped according to their similarities. The authors also examined the effect of similar indicators on 2015 overall ranking lists for these three rankings. NTU and URAP are affected least from the omitted similar indicators, which means it is possible for these two rankings to create very similar overall ranking lists to the existing overall ranking using fewer indicators.

CWTS, Mapping Scientific Excellence, Nature Index, and SCImago Institutions Rankings (until 2015) are not included in the scope of this paper, since they do not create overall ranking lists. Likewise, Times Higher Education, CWUR and US are not included because of not presenting indicator-based scores. Required data were not accessible for QS for 2010 and 2011. Moreover, although QS ranks more than 700 universities, only first 400 universities in 2012–2015 rankings were able to be analyzed. Although QS’s and RUR’s data were analyzed in this study, it was statistically not possible to reach any conclusion for these two rankings.

The results of this study may be considered mainly by ranking bodies, policy- and decision-makers. The ranking bodies may use the results to review the indicators they use, to decide on which indicators to use in their rankings, and to question if it is necessary to continue overall rankings. Policy- and decision-makers may also benefit from the results of this study by thinking of giving up using overall ranking results as an important input in their decisions and policies.

This study is the first to use a MDS and cosine similarity measure for revealing the similarity of indicators. Ranking data is skewed that require conducting nonparametric statistical analysis; therefore, MDS is used. The study covers all ranking years and all universities in the ranking lists, and is different from the similar studies in the literature that analyze data for shorter time intervals and top-ranked universities in the ranking lists. It can be said that the similarity of intra-indicators for URAP, NTU and RUR is analyzed for the first time in this study, based on the literature review.

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.

Rankings have become a popular topic in the social sciences over the past two decades. Adding to these debates, the present volume assembles studies that explore a variety of empirical settings, emphasizing the importance of acknowledging that there are multiple “Worlds of Rankings.” To this end, the first part of the chapter addresses the implications of two modes of criticism that characterize much of the scholarly work on rankings and summarizes extant conceptual debates. Taking stock of what we know, the second part distinguishes three areas of empirical research. The first area concerns the activities of those who produce rankings, such as the collection of data or different business strategies. Studies in the second area focus on inter-organizational, field-level, or discursive phenomena, particularly how rankings are received, interpreted, and institutionalized. The third area covers the manifold effects that research has unveiled, ranging from the diffusion of practices and changes in organizational identities to emotional distress. Taken together, the contributions to this volume expand our knowledge in all three areas, inviting new debates and suggesting pathways forward.

Extant research conceptualizes rankings as measures that fundamentally shape modern life by virtue of being publicly available. Yet, studies seldom explore the act of publishing when accounting for the attention rankings raise in larger stakeholder audiences. In short, we know a lot about the impact of rankings, but considerably less about the organizational practices devised by those who produce them – the rankers. Borrowing from Goffman, the paper conceptualizes modern rankings as public performances carefully prepared on backstages and unfolding on multiple frontstages. Using a qualitative data set, the paper traces the full spectrum of organizational practices that make rankings public performances: on the backstage, launch dates have to be set, numbers packaged, and “teams” prepared; on the frontstage, performances are held through face-to-face interactions (at launch events) as well as in a variety of mediated settings. Overall, the findings indicate that the more ranking organizations seek the attention of larger stakeholder audiences, the more the publication process is transformed into what one of the informants describes as “a big firework.”

Rankings are widely regarded as particularly well-suited for capturing the public eye, which is considered a reason why they have become ubiquitous. However, we know little about how rankings direct media attention, as well as how media in turn shape and help sustain careers of specific rankings in the public over longer periods of time. To advance our understanding of the discursive dynamics at the intersection of rankings and the press, this study examines the media career of the Global Slavery Index (GSI) by analyzing 361 newspaper and magazine articles, published between the release of index’s inaugural edition in 2013 and until the end of 2019. To interpret the media coverage, the study draws attention to GSI’s universality, highly rationalized character, and a pledge to spotlight violation of the global moral order. The examination of the media coverage points to the following properties of the index as having shaped and helped sustain its career in the public: (1) repeated publication; (2) broad conceptualization of modern slavery; and (3) the construction thereof as a measurable global burden. The study finds that, throughout the period, the media were remarkably consistent in amplifying the most dramatic elements of the index. Over time, however, the index was increasingly more invoked for other purposes, usually either to lend credibility to a story or as a way of embedding local and situational concerns into global narratives.

It is unfortunate yet true that in India, research starts and ends with a Ph.D. The steady decline in the quality of doctoral research has been an articulated concern among Indian academics at a time when research and innovation should be a priority. One of the feasible ways of resurrecting or reconstructing Indian research is to open up to examine contemporary international trends. Against this backdrop, the study aimed to make a comparative analysis of doctoral research in education in top-ranking international and top-ranking Indian universities.

Adopting a comparative education methodology, this paper examines 100 doctoral dissertations from the top 10 international universities as per Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) ranking and 100 doctoral theses from the top 10 Indian universities following National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) submitted in the past decade. Four significant issues were investigated during the comparison – topic, procedure, presentation, and dissemination – based on the premeditated Research Quality Relevance Metrics (RQRM) designed by the authors for quality improvement of research.

Findings revealed stark differences between two trends in all four domains. The top international universities focus on the contemporariness scattered across diverse issues while Indian studies continue to engage on a few archetypal conventional issues with dreary reiterations. The newness of thought is rare in Indian research, while the interdisciplinary mixing of methods and practices had been the hallmark of its international comportment. Practice orientation has been a unique research attribute found in the top 10 international universities. The methods applied have attempted to reduce the age-old gap between educational research and practice. Methodological innovativeness, structural orientation, readability, and dissemination of research were also exemplary in those international theses, whereas Indian theses are still reeling under orthodox surveys with hesitant reporting.

This study put an exclusive mirror in front of Indian doctoral research on its current state in respect of international standards. At the same time, it upholds a framework to promote research quality and impact. Dimensions of research quality relevance matrices and recommendations for effective doctoral research are two vibrant contributions to the intelligentsia in general for bringing Indian research out of its cocoon to make it internationally comparable.

It reports a study conducted by the researchers and the write-up is based on the empirical findings only.

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.

Academic rankings are facing various issues, including the use of data sources that are not publicly verifiable, subjective parameters, a narrow focus on research productivity and regional biases and so forth. This research work is intended to enhance creditability of the ranking process by using the objective indicators based on publicly verifiable data sources.

The proposed ranking methodology – OpenRank – drives the objective indicators from two well-known publicly verifiable data repositories: the ArnetMiner and DBpedia.

The resultant academic ranking reflects common tendencies of the international academic rankings published by the Shanghai Ranking Consultancy (SRC), Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) and Times Higher Education (THE). Evaluation of the proposed methodology advocates its effectiveness and quick reproducibility with low cost of data collection.

Implementation of the OpenRank methodology faced the issue of availability of the quality data. In future, accuracy of the academic rankings can be improved further by employing more relevant public data sources like the Microsoft Academic Graph, millions of graduate's profiles available in the LinkedIn repositories and the bibliographic data maintained by Association for Computing Machinery and Scopus and so forth.

The suggested use of open data sources would offer new dimensions to evaluate academic performance of the higher education institutions (HEIs) and having comprehensive understanding of the catalyst factors in the higher education.

The research work highlighted the need of a purposely built, publicly verifiable electronic data source for performance evaluation of the global HEIs. Availability of such a global database would help in better academic planning, monitoring and analysis. Definitely, more transparent, reliable and less controversial academic rankings can be generated by employing the aspired data source.

We suggested a satisfying solution for improvement of the HEIs' ranking process by making the following contributions: (1) enhancing creditability of the ranking results by merely employing the objective performance indicators extracted from the publicly verifiable data sources, (2) developing an academic ranking methodology based on the objective indicators using two well-known data repositories, the DBpedia and ArnetMiner and (3) demonstrating effectiveness of the proposed ranking methodology on the real data sources.

Over the past two decades, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has become an influential actor in the education sector. This has been accomplished, partly, by the administration of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) since 2000. Overall, PISA is intended to inform the public, parents, teachers, and those who run education systems of the status of education in their country. Research shows that policymakers draw on PISA results when they launch and design education reforms. To date, however, we know very little about whether PISA is successfully informing the general public, which is the main sponsor and benefactor of PISA. Using public opinion surveys from the United States and Israel, this chapter examines knowledge and perception of PISA. Recent reports suggest that both countries are in the middle ranks of all countries participating in PISA, with the United States being in the middle ranks of OECD countries and Israel being in the lower ranks of this group. Findings from public opinion surveys reveal three interesting patterns. First, in both countries, the public tend to underestimate how well 15-year olds perform on international standardized tests. Second, college graduates are more likely than those with less education to underestimate the performance of teens on international standardized tests. Third, although the public seems to be misinformed about PISA results, we find considerable public support for PISA and international standardized tests more generally. Implications of the findings for policy and future research in the field of international and comparative education are discussed.

The paper seeks to describe the rationale behind the Financial Times business school rankings and some of the problems inherent in developing and publishing them.

The rationale behind the Financial Times business school rankings is discussed, as are the ways in which business schools use the rankings.

Business schools have an ambivalent relationship to business schools rankings, openly criticising them but using favourable aspects of the rankings in their schools' marketing.

Business school rankings are probably here to stay. Most business schools are developing ways of using them for their own purposes.