Research discourses surrounding global university rankings: exploring the relationship with policy and practice recommendations

O’Connell, Catherine

doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9572-x

Cited by 28 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerous studies have analyzed and criticized higher education rankings and their methodologies (Van Raan, 2005; Buela-Casal et al, 2007; Ioannidis et al, 2007; Hazelkorn, 2007; Aguillo et al, 2010; Benito & Romera, 2011; Hazelkorn, 2011; Rauhvargers, 2011; Tofallis, 2012; Saisana, d’Hombres & Saltelli, 2011; Safon, 2013; Rauhvargers, 2013; Bougnol & Dula, 2014). This casts justified doubt on a sensible comparison of universities hailing from different higher education systems and varying in size, mission and endowment based on mono-dimensional rankings and league tables and hence on the usability of such rankings for university management and policy making (O’Connell, 2013; Hazelkorn, 2014). Several studies have demonstrated that data used to calculate ranking scores can be inconsistent.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inconsistent year-to-year fluctuations limit the conclusiveness of global higher education rankings for university management

Sorz

Wallner

Seidler

et al. 2015

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Backround. University rankings are getting very high international media attention, this holds particularly true for the Times Higher Education Ranking (THE) and the Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s Academic Ranking of World Universities Ranking (ARWU). We therefore aimed to investigate how reliable the rankings are, especially for universities with lower ranking positions, that often show inconclusive year-to-year fluctuations in their rank, and if these rankings are thus a suitable basis for management purposes.Methods. We used the public available data from the web pages of the THE and the ARWU ranking to analyze the dynamics of change in score and ranking position from year to year, and we investigated possible causes for inconsistent fluctuations in the rankings by the means of regression analyses.Results. Regression analyses of results from the THE and ARWU from 2010–2014 show inconsistent fluctuations in the rank and score for universities with lower rank positions (below position 50) which lead to inconsistent “up and downs” in the total results, especially in the THE and to a lesser extent also in the ARWU. In both rankings, the mean year-to-year fluctuation of universities in groups of 50 universities aggregated by descending rank increases from less than 10% in the group of the 50 highest ranked universities to up to 60% in the group of the lowest ranked universities. Furthermore, year-to-year results do not correspond in THES- and ARWU-Rankings for universities below rank 50.Discussion. We conclude that the observed fluctuations in the THE do not correspond to actual university performance and ranking results are thus of limited conclusiveness for the university management of universities below a rank of 50. While the ARWU rankings seems more robust against inconsistent fluctuations, its year to year changes in the scores are very small, so essential changes from year to year could not be expected. Furthermore, year-to-year results do not correspond in THES- and ARWU-Rankings for universities below rank 50. Neither the THES nor the ARWU offer great value as a tool for university management in their current forms for universities ranked below 50, thus we suggest that both rankings alter their ranking procedure insofar as universities below position 50 should be ranked summarized only in groups of 25 or 50. Additionally, the THE should omit the peer reputation survey, which most likely contributes heavily to the inconsistent year-to-year fluctuations in ranks, and ARWU should be published less often to increase its validity.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inconsistent year-to-year fluctuations limit the conclusiveness of global higher education rankings for university management

Sorz

Wallner

Seidler

et al. 2015

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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%

“…Commentators acknowledge the direct influence of global ranking systems on the international standing and reputation of universities among a range of stakeholders including students, faculty, employers and government (Williams and Van Dyke 2007). Some have highlighted the transformation of current global ranking systems from being benchmarking instruments to policy instruments which are used directly to determine where research funding is allocated nationally and internationally (O'Connell 2012). Consequently, leaders in education have become increasingly concerned about the impact of research rankings and the mounting importance they have on key aspects of academic reputation and success (Wilkins and Hulsman 2012;Locke et al 2008).…”

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

“…Notwithstanding the considerable body of critical research, the appetite for rankings within the higher education community (and higher education stakeholders) persists and national and institutional reforms are in evidence that are associated with the aim of improving rankings position (Hazelkorn, 2011). An empirical examination of research perspectives applied in this research domain demonstrated that the prevailing research orientation was normative, evaluating global rankings against established theories of knowledge (O'Connell, 2013). These normative studies demonstrated a tendency towards systemic, policyoriented recommendations and were published in journals and publications addressed towards policy communities.…”

Section: Research On Rankingsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…An empirical examination of research perspectives applied in this research domain demonstrated that the prevailing research orientation was normative, evaluating global rankings against established theories of knowledge (O'Connell, ). These normative studies demonstrated a tendency towards systemic, policy‐oriented recommendations and were published in journals and publications addressed towards policy communities.…”

Section: Research On Rankingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Close‐Up Examination of Discourses Associated with Global University Rankings: Counter‐Narratives in UK Policy Context

O’Connell

2015

Higher Education Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In little over a decade since their introduction, global rankings are perceived as having significant and problematic effects. The dominant 'normative' research orientation applied to the research domain of rankings is identified as a contributory factor to the sustained interest in rankings. The paper argues for a 'close-up' research orientation at this juncture to open up the debate and draw attention to alternative narratives of excellence in higher education through a discourse-analytic approach. The paper draws on an analysis of the use of global rankings by higher education sector 'mission groups' to influence national policy in UK, with particular focus on lobbying texts produced by these groups in the period surrounding the UK general election. The analysis demonstrates the strategic struggle for positioning in relation to higher education policy and reflects the different narratives of self-identification of the mission groups. The study draws attention to ways global university rankings mediate discourse and activity and illuminates alternative discourses which respond to rankings.

show abstract

Research discourses surrounding global university rankings: exploring the relationship with policy and practice recommendations

Cited by 28 publications

References 32 publications

Inconsistent year-to-year fluctuations limit the conclusiveness of global higher education rankings for university management

Inconsistent year-to-year fluctuations limit the conclusiveness of global higher education rankings for university management

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

Close‐Up Examination of Discourses Associated with Global University Rankings: Counter‐Narratives in UK Policy Context

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About