Developing University Governance Indicators and their Weighting System Using a Modified Delphi Method

Abstract

The need to measure and benchmark university governance practices at institutional level has been growing, yet there is a lack of a comprehensive, weighted indicator system to facilitate the process. The paper discusses the development of university governance indicators and their weighting system using a three-round Delphi method. Discussions, a questionnaire, and interviews were used in Round 1 to 3, respectively, to collect experts' opinions to construct the indicator list and indicator weights, and to shed light on the divergence of expert judgements on some aspects. Non-parametric statistical techniques were applied to analyse the survey data. Ninety-one indicators grouped in five dimensions of university governance, namely Management and Direction, Participation, Accountability, Autonomy and Transparency, were proposed and rated in terms of their importance. The preliminary results show relatively high levels of importance for all of the proposed indicators, thus none was excluded. The weighting of the indicators and factors vary remarkably. Among the five dimensions, Participation is found to be the least important; experts' consensus is found to be low in Participation and Transparency. The study results also provide important implications to researchers and practitioners in university governance.

Characteristic Qualities Affecting Landed House Prices

“…Delphi Method can gather information and consensus without revealing the identity of expert panels between one another (Quyên, 2014). The two rounds of interview aim to give a review to the opinions and contributions given by all the panels, and the result is expected that all the panels will agree with the set of indicators achieved (Radeljak Kaufmann, 2016).…”

Characteristic Qualities Impacting Landed House Prices: Better homes, better livelihood

“…This was important as the researcher can gather up their views and opinions thus an indicator list was compiled, and the indicator list was used in the next round of the Delphi Method interview. Delphi Method can gather information and consensus without revealing the identity of expert panels between one another (Quyên, 2014). The two rounds of interview aim to give a review to the opinions and contributions given by all the panels, and the result is expected that all the panels will agree with the set of indicators achieved (Radeljak Kaufmann, 2016).…”

A Novel Approach for Assessing the Performance of Sustainable Urbanization Based on Structural Equation Modeling: A China Case Study

“…There are two main categories of methods in determining the weights: subjective method and objective method. For the subjective method, Delphi method and Analytic Hierarchy process (AHP) are usually used for determining the weights [39][40][41]. However, in application of Delphi method and Analytic Hierarchy process, the results greatly depend on the experience of experts.…”