Skip to main content

2015 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

A Critical Review on World University Ranking in Terms of Top Four Ranking Systems

verfasst von : Farzana Anowar, Mustakim A. Helal, Saida Afroj, Sumaiya Sultana, Farhana Sarker, Khondaker A. Mamun

Erschienen in: New Trends in Networking, Computing, E-learning, Systems Sciences, and Engineering

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Now-a-days ranking of universities and institutions has become an appealing topic to study or research, and it has got wide attention to all over the world to recognize the top higher education institutes. Therefore, study on the strategies of the ranking system is vital to ensure the acceptability. There are number of strategies have been developed to rank higher education institutions worldwide. This Study has focused to critically evaluate the potential shortcomings of the top four widely accepted ranking systems. These are the Times World University Rankings, QS World University Rankings, Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) and Webometrics Ranking. We critically reviewed and analyzed these four higher education ranking systems to identify potential shortcomings in their strategies. Based on our investigation, it was observed that none of these ranking systems can provide satisfactory evaluation in terms of their construct validity and other parameters related to disputation. Nevertheless, these ranking systems are the most popular for what they have been doing over the decades but unfortunately each and every one of them has to some extent lacking as far as ranking excellency is concerned. Lack of availability of data and publications through which ranking is done is one major obstacle faced to determine the authenticity of ranking systems. Overall observation of these four ranking systems reflects the fact that generic challenges include adjustment for institutional size, differences between average and extreme, defining the institutions, measurement of time frame, credit allocation, excellency factors as well as adjustment for scientific fields. Misinterpretation of measurement data is also responsible for some of the ranking disputes. We have proposed a number of recommendations that could address the identified inadequacy and considerably improve the ranking system as well as incorporate more participation of higher education institutes form developing world.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Shanghai Jiao Tong University and S. J. T. University, Academic Ranking of World Universities 2007. Graduate School of Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 2007. Shanghai Jiao Tong University and S. J. T. University, Academic Ranking of World Universities 2007. Graduate School of Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 2007.
3.
Zurück zum Zitat K. Soh, “Times Higher Education 100 under 50 ranking: old wine in a new bottle?,” Quality in Higher Education, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 111–121, 2013. K. Soh, “Times Higher Education 100 under 50 ranking: old wine in a new bottle?,” Quality in Higher Education, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 111–121, 2013.
4.
7.
Zurück zum Zitat J. P. Ioannidis, N. A. Patsopoulos, F. K. Kavvoura, A. Tatsioni, E. Evangelou, I. Kouri, D. G. Contopoulos-Ioannidis, and G. Liberopoulos, “International ranking systems for universities and institutions: a critical appraisal,” BMC Medicine, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 30, 2007. J. P. Ioannidis, N. A. Patsopoulos, F. K. Kavvoura, A. Tatsioni, E. Evangelou, I. Kouri, D. G. Contopoulos-Ioannidis, and G. Liberopoulos, “International ranking systems for universities and institutions: a critical appraisal,” BMC Medicine, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 30, 2007.
8.
Zurück zum Zitat G. Buela-Casal, O. Gutiérrez-Martínez, M. P. Bermúdez-Sánchez, and O. Vadillo-Muñoz, “Comparative study of international academic rankings of universities,” Scientometrics, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 349–365, 2007. G. Buela-Casal, O. Gutiérrez-Martínez, M. P. Bermúdez-Sánchez, and O. Vadillo-Muñoz, “Comparative study of international academic rankings of universities,” Scientometrics, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 349–365, 2007.
10.
Zurück zum Zitat H. Jöns and M. Hoyler, “Global geographies of higher education: The perspective of world university rankings,” Geoforum, vol. 46, pp. 45–59, May 2013. H. Jöns and M. Hoyler, “Global geographies of higher education: The perspective of world university rankings,” Geoforum, vol. 46, pp. 45–59, May 2013.
11.
Zurück zum Zitat K. Chen and P. Liao, “A comparative study on world university rankings: a bibliometric survey,” Scientometrics, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 89–103, Apr. 2012. K. Chen and P. Liao, “A comparative study on world university rankings: a bibliometric survey,” Scientometrics, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 89–103, Apr. 2012.
12.
Zurück zum Zitat M. Devlin, “Policy, preparation , prevention and punishment: One Faculty’s holistic approach to minimising plagiarism,” In proceedings of the Inaugural Educational Integrity Conference, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, 21–22 November, 2003, pp. 39–47. M. Devlin, “Policy, preparation , prevention and punishment: One Faculty’s holistic approach to minimising plagiarism,” In proceedings of the Inaugural Educational Integrity Conference, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, 21–22 November, 2003, pp. 39–47.
13.
Zurück zum Zitat L. Gourlay and J. Deane, “Loss, responsibility, blame? Staff discourses of student plagiarism,” Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 19–29, Feb. 2012. L. Gourlay and J. Deane, “Loss, responsibility, blame? Staff discourses of student plagiarism,” Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 19–29, Feb. 2012.
14.
Zurück zum Zitat T. L. Elliott, L. M. Marquis, and C. S. Neal, “Business Ethics Perspectives: Faculty Plagiarism and Fraud,” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 112, pp. 91–99, Feb. 2012. T. L. Elliott, L. M. Marquis, and C. S. Neal, “Business Ethics Perspectives: Faculty Plagiarism and Fraud,” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 112, pp. 91–99, Feb. 2012.
15.
Zurück zum Zitat H. Maurer and F. Kappe, “Plagiarism - A Survey,” vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 1050–1084, 2006. H. Maurer and F. Kappe, “Plagiarism - A Survey,” vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 1050–1084, 2006.
16.
Zurück zum Zitat M.-H. Huang, “Opening the black box of QS World University Rankings,” Research Evaluation, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 71–78, Feb. 2012. M.-H. Huang, “Opening the black box of QS World University Rankings,” Research Evaluation, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 71–78, Feb. 2012.
17.
Zurück zum Zitat J.-C. Billaut, D. Bouyssou, P. Vincke, “Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? An MCDM view,” Scientometrics, vol. 84, pp. 237–263, 2010. J.-C. Billaut, D. Bouyssou, P. Vincke, “Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? An MCDM view,” Scientometrics, vol. 84, pp. 237–263, 2010.
Metadaten
Titel
A Critical Review on World University Ranking in Terms of Top Four Ranking Systems
verfasst von
Farzana Anowar
Mustakim A. Helal
Saida Afroj
Sumaiya Sultana
Farhana Sarker
Khondaker A. Mamun
Copyright-Jahr
2015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06764-3_72

Neuer Inhalt