Ranking of rankings: benchmarking twenty-five higher education ranking systems in Europe

Stolz, Ingo; Hendel, Darwin D.; Horn, Aaron S.

doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9312-z

Cited by 53 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, global university ranking systems have enjoyed increased adoption and validation in practice, and focus and scrutiny in academic research (e.g. Stolz, Hendel and Horn 2010;O'Connell 2012). While research reputation is not measured in all league tables, it is often used as a proxy for assessing research quality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The rhetoric and reality of research reputation: ‘fur coat and no knickers’

O’Loughlin

MacPhail

Msetfi

2013

Studies in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation systems including global university rankings have been recently introduced as mechanisms for assessing overall academic quality, appraising research reputation and as a basis for funding and policy decisions. This study explores the concept of research reputation in terms of how it is defined, constituted and assessed. Eight professor-level academics from a range of disciplines based at European universities were interviewed. The findings highlight the subjective and multidimensional nature of research reputation, the role of informal and formal communications in creating and building research reputation, and the inter-relationships between academics, departments and institutions in enabling research reputation, individually and collectively. Given the problematic nature of research reputation, it is critical that higher education institutions engage in effective strategic reputation management at all levels. Consistency of understanding of research reputation should also exist among all users of ranking systems, particularly those involved in higher education policy and research strategy decision-making.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The rhetoric and reality of research reputation: ‘fur coat and no knickers’

O’Loughlin

MacPhail

Msetfi

2013

Studies in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With the proliferation of international rankings of universities over the past decade have come concerns for how these rankings are constructed, what they measure and, more recently, which of them are trustworthy and reliable measures of performance and relative standing of world universities (Harvey, 2008;Stolz, Hendel & Horn, 2010). In part as a response to such concerns rankers and others involved in them have joined forces to develop a set of guidelines for developing and assessing the quality of different rankings and their measures, called the Berlin Principles (BP).…”

Section: Establishing Principles For Rankingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They furthermore see the IREG expert group as the best forum for developing the principles further (of which they themselves are a part). Stolz et al (2010) are no less positive to the expert group which 'is in a unique position to discuss and present such examples [i.e. practical guidance]'.…”

Section: Ranking the Rankingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…How have rankings established their positions as influential measures of performance of higher education organizations across the world? By investigating one of the recent efforts to establish criteria on which to judge and evaluate ranking practices, we seek to increase understanding of how ranking practices become legitimate elements of the global higher education landscape.With the proliferation of international rankings of universities over the past decade have come concerns for how these rankings are constructed, what they measure and, more recently, which of them are trustworthy and reliable measures of performance and relative standing of world universities (Harvey, 2008;Stolz, Hendel & Horn, 2010). In part as a response to such concerns rankers and others involved in them have joined forces to develop a set of guidelines for developing and assessing the quality of different rankings and their measures, called the Berlin Principles (BP).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Standards for quality? A critical appraisal of the Berlin Principles for international rankings of universities

Hägg

Wedlin

2013

Quality in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the principles developed to assure the quality of international ranking practices for higher education, the so called Berlin Principles, and the role given to them in the higher education community. While the principles are generally regarded as proper quality assurance principles, we argue that they are problematic both in their content and form. By examining the process leading up to the principles as well as their use, we underline some legitimacy principles with these principles and the potential impact this may have on the further development of the higher education field. The study is based on official documents and published material. 2 Standards for quality?A critical appraisal of the Berlin Principles for international rankings of universities Abstract This paper discusses the principles developed to assure the quality of international ranking practices for higher education, the so called Berlin Principles, and the role given to them in the higher education community. While the principles are generally regarded as proper quality assurance principles, we argue that they are problematic both in their content and form. By examining the process leading up to the principles as well as their use, we underline some legitimacy principles with these principles and the potential impact this may have on the further development of the higher education field. The study is based on official documents and published material. Establishing principles for rankingsInternational rankings have become a core feature of the competitive landscape of universities and higher education institutions. These rankings proclaim to provide students and other interested stakeholders with information and guides to value for money of educational offerings, and to provide universities and higher education institutions with benchmarking standards and assessments of the relative standing and competitive position of its programs and the institution. Such rankings have proliferated over the past decade, and increased in number as well as in scope. That these rankings have a significant impact on the higher education landscape is by now well-documented (Hazelkorn, 2007; Kehm & Stensaker, 2009;King 2009;Locke et al., 2008;Wedlin, 2006).The issue for this paper is not on the impact of rankings, but on the legitimacy and development of the rankings as measurement practices. How have rankings established their positions as influential measures of performance of higher education organizations across the world? By investigating one of the recent efforts to establish criteria on which to judge and evaluate ranking practices, we seek to increase understanding of how ranking practices become legitimate elements of the global higher education landscape.With the proliferation of international rankings of universities over the past decade have come concerns for how these rankings are constructed, what they measure and, more recently, which of them are trustworthy and reliable measures of performance and relative standing of wo...

show abstract

“…Measuring performance in higher education has become an important issue in OECD countries (OECD, 2013; Stolz et al, 2010). There is a permanent search for lodestone of academic quality and prestige, which contributes to increase the controversy that fuels the university ranking industry.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A biclustering approach to university performances: an Italian case study

Raponi

Martella

Maruotti

2015

Journal of Applied Statistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

University evaluation is a topic of increasing concern in Italy as well as in other countries. In empirical analysis, university activities and performances are generally measured by means of indicator variables, summarizing the available information under different perspectives. In this paper, we argue that the evaluation process is a complex issue that can not be addressed by a simple descriptive approach and thus association between indicators and similarities among the observed universities should be accounted for. Particularly, we examine faculty-level data collected from different sources, covering 55 Italian Economics faculties in the academic year 2009/2010. Making use of a clustering framework, we introduce a biclustering model that accounts for both homogeneity/heterogeneity among faculties and correlations between indicators.Our results show that there are two substantial different performances between universities which can be strictly related to the nature of the institutions, namely the Private and Public profiles . Each of the two groups has its own peculiar features and its own group-specific list of priorities, strengths and weaknesses. Thus, we suggest that caution should be used in interpreting standard university rankings as they generally * Dipartimento di Scienze Statistiche, Sapienza Università di Roma, Roma, Italy † Dipartimento di Scienze Statistiche, Sapienza Università di Roma, Roma, Italy ‡ Southampton Statistical Sciences Research Institute, Southampton, UK 1 do not account for the complex structure of the data.

show abstract

Ranking of rankings: benchmarking twenty-five higher education ranking systems in Europe

Cited by 53 publications

References 24 publications

The rhetoric and reality of research reputation: ‘fur coat and no knickers’

The rhetoric and reality of research reputation: ‘fur coat and no knickers’

Standards for quality? A critical appraisal of the Berlin Principles for international rankings of universities

A biclustering approach to university performances: an Italian case study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About