Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
The article is devoted to the substantiation of the general (framework) methodology for creating correct methodologies of university ranking, which capable of correctly (truly, in accordance with reality) ranking universities, primarily top ones. The conceptual foundations of such a methodology are formulated. It is based on a mission-based approach to the definition of university and ranking excellence, which involves the determination of the criterion-indicator base of the ranking both by its mission and by the mission of the university, especially a globally leading institution. Essential definitions of relevant missions as key system-creating factors are given. A criterion for the formulation of the true mission is proposed. The principle of mission minimisation of the list of necessary and sufficient ranking criteria / indicators and the principle of their mission synergy for the unambiguous orientation of university development are substantiated. The general methodology prevents the de-specification of the ranking and university missions, the dissynergisation of ranking criteria and indicators, their divergence and fragmentation, and the disorienting action. This methodology covers methodologies both simple (mono) and complex (combined), as well as general (institutional) and sectoral (by academic subjects) rankings. The methodology built on these foundations will contribute to the adoption of rankings as objective and reliable evaluation tools, the effective use of the IREG Berlin principles for the creation of ranking methodologies, the acceleration of the formation of a university ranking culture and its legislative regulation in Ukraine, and the further development of science about universities. This is important for the development of a strategy for the formation of leading universities of the highest excellence (strategy-2), the implementation of the second dimension of the European higher education area in terms of achieving its competitiveness and attractiveness, the approaching victory of Ukraine in the war, the innovative recovery of the country, the establishment of Ukraine as a strong European integrated state.
The article is devoted to the substantiation of the general (framework) methodology for creating correct methodologies of university ranking, which capable of correctly (truly, in accordance with reality) ranking universities, primarily top ones. The conceptual foundations of such a methodology are formulated. It is based on a mission-based approach to the definition of university and ranking excellence, which involves the determination of the criterion-indicator base of the ranking both by its mission and by the mission of the university, especially a globally leading institution. Essential definitions of relevant missions as key system-creating factors are given. A criterion for the formulation of the true mission is proposed. The principle of mission minimisation of the list of necessary and sufficient ranking criteria / indicators and the principle of their mission synergy for the unambiguous orientation of university development are substantiated. The general methodology prevents the de-specification of the ranking and university missions, the dissynergisation of ranking criteria and indicators, their divergence and fragmentation, and the disorienting action. This methodology covers methodologies both simple (mono) and complex (combined), as well as general (institutional) and sectoral (by academic subjects) rankings. The methodology built on these foundations will contribute to the adoption of rankings as objective and reliable evaluation tools, the effective use of the IREG Berlin principles for the creation of ranking methodologies, the acceleration of the formation of a university ranking culture and its legislative regulation in Ukraine, and the further development of science about universities. This is important for the development of a strategy for the formation of leading universities of the highest excellence (strategy-2), the implementation of the second dimension of the European higher education area in terms of achieving its competitiveness and attractiveness, the approaching victory of Ukraine in the war, the innovative recovery of the country, the establishment of Ukraine as a strong European integrated state.
The article is devoted to the analysis of the processes of integration and differentiation of leadership higher education in the world's leading state associations of various degrees of unitarity - the EU, the USA, China. In 2023, they concentrated 69% of world-class universities (WCU), ranked 1-500 in the ShanghaiRanking (ShR), its general version (ARWU), compared to 67% in 2004. During this time of unchanged rating methodology, the number of WCU in the EU decreased by 15%, in the USA by 31%, on the other hand, in China it increased by 7.3 times. At the same time, averaged by country/state(district)/region(province, etc.), the best university place in the ranking in the EU deteriorated by 9%, in the USA by 44%, while in China it improved by 2.8 times. At the same time, the 1st university place for the USA remains stable, the EU in the comparative composition of countries (without the United Kingdom) moved from 5th to 3rd position (thanks to France), China – from 25th to 5th place, bypassing Japan and Canada within the group of extra-class universities (ECU), which are on 1-30 places of the extremely steep section of the rating. In terms of the level of university achievements, between the USA and the EU and between the EU and China, there are two European countries that are not members of the European Union: The United Kingdom (2nd position) and Switzerland (4th place), respectively. Examining the dynamics of university achievements of individual countries, states (district), regions (provinces, etc.) in the EU, the USA, and China, respectively, shows that the integration of universities into the single spaces of higher education in the EU, the USA, and China does not protect against university differentiation as a result of competition. Success is observed in those countries/states(district)/regions (provinces, etc.) that independently or together with the central union/federal/national government purposefully support the formation and development of WCU. Own institutional efforts are not enough. In this regard, in the period 2004-2023, no such universities were created in 10 EU countries, instead, Hungary lost all 3 that it had. In the same way, 2 states of the USA have not created USC, and 11 states have lost those that they had. In China, on the contrary, thanks to the strong and consistent state policy regarding the development of USCs, for which ShR was created, WCUs have appeared in 19 regions, in 3 - their number has increased many times, and only in 7 - there are none yet such institutions. It was concluded that the development of WCU requires, in addition to endo-institutional, also exo-institutional targeted measures. Taking into account the experience of the EU, the USA, and China will contribute to the formation of leading universities in Ukraine, which is important for the approaching victory in the war, the post-war recovery of the country in terms of its entry into the European Union. At the same time, the findings of the study characterize the state of implementation of the second dimension of the European area of higher education regarding competitiveness and attractiveness.
The authors of the article analysed the achievements of Ukrainian universities according to the modernised version of the QS World University Rankings 2024. The ranking positions and parameters of Ukrainian institutions are compared with similar characteristics of the world’s leading universities and progressive universities of Kazakhstan. The crucial impact on the ranking distribution of the QS Rankings features, its methodology, criteria and indicators, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of universities, and the losses of Ukrainian institutions as a result of the Russian-Ukrainian war are considered. Among the problematic aspects of QS Rankings is the weakening of the features of a university ranking due to the despecification of the university and ranking missions and, as a result, the disorienting role of its criteria, indicators and results for universities. The state of the university rankings and classification culture in Ukraine and the national university network is assessed. Relevant recommendations for their development are provided in order to bring the victory in the Russian-Ukrainian war closer and for the post-war reconstruction of Ukraine on an innovative, highly intellectual and high-tech basis, as well as for successful European integration, in particular into the European Higher Education Area in both its dimensions (“compatibility and comparability” and “competitiveness and attractiveness”).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.