What Do(‘nt) University Rankings Tell Us? The Visible and Invisible Side of the Iceberg

Year 2023, , 257 - 271, 13.10.2023

Bilal Saraç , Bayram Zafer Erdoğan

https://doi.org/10.53478/yuksekogretim.1274645

Abstract

University rankings are curiously awaited by higher education stakeholders each year to compare the relative performance of universities globally. The interest shown by the stakeholders in the rankings has led to the emergence of new ranking institutions. It is believed that the ranking results based on the indicator scores in which the academic characteristics of the universities are quantified provide generally valid information about the academic achievements of the universities. For this reason, rankings shape higher education institutions and deeply affect the decisions of stakeholders. Therefore, how rankings should (not) shape higher education stakeholders must be considered from various perspectives. In this study, first of all, the methodological and theoretical foundations of the rankings and performance criteria were evaluated. Next, the perspectives in the literature were examined functionally, and new perspectives were put forward to expand the perspective on rankings. The incomplete and inconsistent aspects of the rankings were emphasized by the analysis, and the invisible side of the iceberg was pointed out so that stakeholders could evaluate the direct or indirect effects of the ranking results beyond the visible or shown, contrary to the perception created by these organizations through the media.

Keywords

World üniversity rankings, New perspectives on rankings, Effects of rankings

Üniversite Sıralamaları Ne Söyle(mez)r? Buz Dağının Görünen ve Görünmeyen Yüzü

Abstract

Üniversite sıralamaları, yükseköğretim paydaşları tarafından küresel çaptaki üniversitelerin göreli performanslarını kıyaslayabilmek için her yıl merakla beklenmektedir. Sıralamalara paydaşların göstermiş olduğu ilgi yeni sıralama kuruluşlarının ortaya çıkmasını beraberinde getirmiştir. Üniversitelerin akademik özelliklerinin nicelleştirildiği gösterge puanlarına dayandırılan sıralama sonuçlarının üniversitelerin akademik başarıları hakkında genel geçer bilgiler sağladığına inanılmaktadır. Bu nedenle sıralamaların yükseköğretim kurumlarını biçimlendirmekte, paydaşların kararlarını da derinden etkilemektedir. Dolayısıyla sıralamaların, yükseköğretim paydaşlarını nasıl şekillendirme(me)si gerektiği çeşitli perspektiflerden ele alınmalıdır. Bu çalışmada öncelikle sıralamaların metodolojik ve teorik temelleri ile birlikte performans ölçütleri değerlendirilmiştir. Daha sonra literatürde yer alan perspektifler işlevsel olarak incelenmiş, sıralamalara yönelik bakış açısını genişletmek için yeni perspektifler ortaya konmuştur. Sıralamaların eksik ve tutarsız yönleri yapılan analizlerle vurgulanmış, bu kuruluşların medya yoluyla oluşturduğu algının aksine paydaşların sıralama sonuçlarının doğrudan ya da dolaylı etkilerini, görünen ya da gösterilenlerin ötesinde değerlendirebilmeleri için buz dağının görünmeyen yüzüne dikkat çekilmiştir.

Keywords

Dünya üniversite sıralamaları, sıralamalarda yeni perspektifler, sıralamaların etkileri

References

• Aguillo, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Ortega, J. (2010). Comparing university rankings. Scientometrics, 85(1), 243-256.
• Altbach, P. (2003). The costs and benefits of world-class universities. International higher education, (33), 5-8.
• Altbach, P. G. (2012). The globalization of college and university rankings. Change: The magazine of higher learning, 44(1), 26-31.
• Arteaga, E., Joya, M., & Bastidas, G. A. (2014). Identidad estudiantil universitaria en la Escuela de Medicina, Sede Carabobo, Universidad de Carabobo, Venezuela. Revista de Educación en Ciencias de la Salud, 11(1), 3.
• Avrupa Patent Enstitüsü (EPO). (2021). Patent endeksi raporu. https://eforpatent.com.tr/avrupa-patent-ofisi-epo-patentendeksi- 2021-raporu/. (Erişim Tarihi: 07.12.2022).
• Aziz, N. A. A., Janor, R. M., & Mahadi, R. (2013). Approach. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 540–548.
• Belenkuyu, C., & Karadag, E. (2022). Hegemony in global rankings: A Gramscian analysis of bibliometric indices and ranking results. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 16(2), 253-277.
• Chen, K. H., & Liao, P. Y. (2012). A comparative study on world university rankings: a bibliometric survey. Scientometrics, 92(1), 89-103.
• Chen, P. (2019). Effects of normalization on the entropy-based TOPSIS method. Expert Systems with Applications, 136, 33-41.
• Clarke, M. (2005). Quality assessment lessons from Australia and New Zealand. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 183-197.
• Clarke, M. (2007). The impact of higher education rankings on student access, choice, and opportunity. Higher Education in Europe, 32(1), 59-70.
• Collins, F. L., & Park, G.S. (2016). Ranking and the multiplication of reputation: Reflections from the frontier of globalizing higher education. Higher Education, 72, 115–129.
• Cortés V., D. (2011). Aportes para el estudio de la identidad institucional universitaria: El caso de la UNAM. Perfiles educativos, 33(SPE), 78-90.
• Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher education, 49, 495-533.
• Dhawi, B. M., Al-Maliji, R. I. (2010). Directives of the Effective Educational Department. Cairo: Arab Thought House. Eacea-Education, A. (2012). Culture Executive Agency (2012). Citizenship Education in Europe.
• Eccles, C. (2002). The use of university rankings in the United Kingdom. Higher Education in Europe, 27(4), 423-432.
• Erkoç, T. E. (2016). Measuring efficiencies of Turkish public universities with non-parametric efficiency estimation method. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(3), 124-136.
• Euronews. (2022). Çin bilimsel makale sayısı ve etkinliği açısından ABD›yi geçerek dünyada lider oldu. https:// tr.euronews.com/2022/08/14/cin-bilimsel-makale-sayisi-veetkinligi- acisindan-abdyi-gecerek-dunyada-lider-oldu. (Erişim Tarihi: 07.12.2022).
• Fauzi, M. A., Tan, C. N. L., Daud, M., & Awalludin, M. M. N. (2020). University rankings: A review of methodological flaws. Issues in Educational Research, 30(1), 79-96.
• Faust, D. (2007). Installation address:unleashing our most ambitious imaginings. https://www.harvard.edu/president/speechesfaust/ 2007/installation-address-unleashing-our-mostambitious- imaginings/ (Erişim Tarihi: 16.01.2023).
• Federkeil, G. (2008). Rankings and quality assurance in higher education. Higher education in Europe, 33(2-3), 219-231.
• Fowles, J., Frederickson, H. G., & Koppell, J. G. (2016). University rankings: Evidence and a conceptual framework. Public Administration Review, 76(5), 790-803.
• Gadd, E. (2020). University rankings need a rethink. Nature, 587(7835), 523-524.
• Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of management Review, 25(1), 63-81.
• Gornitzka, A., & Maassen, P. (2000). Hybrid steering approaches with respect to European higher education. Higher education policy, 13(3), 267-285.
• Hansson, S. O. (1994). Decision theory. A brief introduction. Department of Philosophy and the History of technology. Royal Institute of Technology. Stockholm.
• Hazelkorn, E. (2009). Rankings and the battle for world-class excellence: Institutional strategies and policy choices. Higher education management and Policy, 21(1), 1-22.
• Hazelkorn, H. (2011). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Hazelkorn, E. (2013). How rankings are reshaping higher education. In V. Climent, F. Michavila & M. Ripolle´s, (Eds.), Los rankings universitarios, Mitos y Realidades.
• Hazelkorn, H. (Ed.). (2017). Global rankings and the geopolitics of higher education: Understanding the influence and impact of rankings on higher education, policy and society. Oxford: Routledge.
• Johnes, J. (2018). University rankings: What do they really show?. Scientometrics, 115(1), 585-606.
• Hazelkorn, E (2019). The ‘Best’ üniversities in the world: Can global üniversity ranking systems identify quality education?. https:// wenr.wes.org/2019/09/the-best-universities-in-the-world-canglobal- university-ranking-systems-identify-quality-education. (Erişim Tarihi: 23.04.2023).
• Kaycheng, S. (2015). Multicolinearity and indicator redundancy problem in world university rankings: an example using times higher education world university ranking 2013–2014 data. Higher Education Quarterly, 69(2), 158-174.
• Knight, J. (2008). Higher education in turmoil: The changing world of internationalization. Rotterdam: Sense Publisher
• Labianca, G., Fairbank, J. F., Thomas, J. B., Gioia, D. A., & Umphress, E. E. (2001). Emulation in academia: Balancing structure and identity. Organization Science, 12(3), 312-330.
• Marginson, S., & Van der Wende, M. (2007). To rank or to be ranked: The impact of global rankings in higher education. Journal of studies in international education, 11(3-4), 306-329.
• Özdağoğlu, A. (2014). Normalizasyon Yöntemlerinin Çok Ölçütlü Karar Verme Sürecine Etkisi–Moora Yöntemi İncelemesi. Ege Academic Review, 14(2).
• Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. OUP Oxford.
• Pusser, B., & Marginson, S. (2013). University rankings in critical perspective. The journal of higher education, 84(4), 544-568.
• Resnik, M. D. (1987). Choices: An introduction to decision theory. U of Minnesota Press.
• Rhein, D., & Nanni, A. (2023). The impact of global university rankings on universities in Thailand: don’t hate the player, hate the game. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 21(1), 55-65.
• Rodrik, D. (1999). The new global economy and the developing countries: Making openness work. Washington, DC: Overseas Development Council.
• Rust, V. D., & Kim, S. (2015). Globalization and global university rankings. Second international handbook on globalisation, education and policy research, 167-180.
• Satıcı, S. (2021). Farklı normalizasyon tekniklerinin çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerine etkisi: WASPAS örneği. İşletme Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 350-361.
• Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. N. (2009). The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American sociological review, 74(1), 63-82.
• Shin, J. C., & Harman, G. (2009). New challenges for higher education: Global and Asia-Pacific perspectives. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10, 1-13.
• Shin, J. C., & Toutkoushian, R. K. (2011). The past, present, and future of university rankings. In K. Jung Cheol S., Robert, K., T., & Ulrich, T. (Eds.), University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education (Vol. 3, pp. 1-16). Dordrecht: Springer.
• Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2015). Audit culture revisited: Rankings, ratings, and the reassembling of society. Current Anthropology, 56(3), 421-444.
• Snellman, C. L. (2015). University in knowledge society: Role and challenges. Journal of System and Management Sciences, 5(4), 84- 113.
• Stack, M. (2016). Global university rankings and the mediatization of higher education. Springer.
• Stansaker, B., & Kehm, B. (2009). Introduction. In M. K. Barbara & S. Bjorn (Eds.), University rankings, diversity, and the new landscape of higher education (pp. vii–xix). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
• Stansaker, B. R. (2003). Trance, transparency and transformation: the impact of external quality monitoring on higher education. Quality in higher education, 9(2), 151-159.
• Stella, A., & Woodhouse, D. (2006). Australian Universities Quality Agency: Ranking of Higher Education Institutions. Australian Universities Quality Agency.
• Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: Norton.
• Stuart, D. L. (1995). Reputational Rankings: Background and Development. New directions for institutional research, 88, 13-20.
• Teodoro, A., Santos, E., & Costa Junior, R. D. (2018). University rankings: between market regulation and the diffusion of organizational models: The Brazilian case. Revista Lusófona de Educação, 41, 175-191.
• Tofallis, C. (2012). A different approach to university rankings. Higher Education, 63, 1-18.
• Tosunoğlu N., & Apaydın A., (2020). Üniversite sıralama göstergelerinin bulanık analitik hiyerarşi prosesi (AHP) ile sıralanması. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi/Journal of Higher Education and Science, 10(3), 451-460.
• Tyagi, P., Yadav, S. P., & Singh, S. P. (2009). Relative performance of academic departments using DEA with Sensitivity Analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32, 168–177.
• Usher, A., & Medow, J. (2009). A global survey of university rankings and league tables. In M. K. Barbara & S. Bjorn (Eds.), University rankings, diversity, and the new landscape of higher education (pp. 3–18). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
• Uslu, A., Ertaş, F. C., & Yayar, R. (2018). Performansa dayalı etkinlik analizi: Devlet üniversiteleri örneği. International Journal of Social Inquiry, 11(1), 255-276.
• Van Raan, A. F. (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62, 133-143.
• Van Vught, F. (2007). Diversity and differentiation in higher education systems. In CHET anniversary conference (Vol. 16).
• Wahid Jerges, A. (2020). Egyptian Universities in Knowledge Society and Improving their Ranking in the World University Rankings. International Journal of research in Educational Sciences., 3(2), 311- 360.
• Woelert, P., & Yates, L. (2015). Too little and too much trust: Performance measurement in Australian higher education. Critical Studies in Education, 56, 175–189.
• Yüce, H., & Özkan, A. O. (2021). Normalizasyon yöntemlerinin biyomedikal verilerde sınıflandırma performansına etkisi. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, (30), 35-43.