Yüzdelik Sıralama Tabanlı EWM – VIKOR Yöntemi ile Türkiye’deki Devlet Üniversitelerinin Sıralanması

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2, 263 - 280, 07.08.2025

Sinan Aydın , Önder Dorak , Nedime Selin Çöpgeven

https://doi.org/10.53478/yuksekogretim.1526182

Öz

Bu çalışmada 2023 yılı YÖK (Yüksek Öğretim Kurulu) Üniversite İzleme ve Değerlendirme Raporu’nda yer alan kriterleri göz önüne alınarak Türkiye’deki devlet üniversitelerinin performansları değerlendirilmesi ve sıralanması amaçlanmıştır. Bu amacı gerçekleştirmek için raporda yer alan dört ana gösterge (“Eğitim ve Öğretim”, “Araştırma-Geliştirme, Proje ve Yayın”, “Uluslararasılaşma”, “Topluma Hizmet ve Sosyal Sorumluluk”) altında verilen 56 kriter esas alınarak genel bir sıralama ile birlikte, her bir ana gösterge için sıralama yapılarak toplam beş adet sıralama gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmada karar matrisi oluşturulduktan sonra yüzde sıralaması (percentile rank) yöntemi ile normalleştirilerek kriterlerin ağırlıklandırılmasında Entropi Ağırlık Yöntemi (EWM), sıralama için ise VIKOR yöntemi uygulanmıştır. EWM sıralama tabanlı farklılıkları göz ardı edip nicel farklılıkları göz önüne aldığından dolayı ve karar matrisinde çok sayıda sıfır değeri yer aldığında kriterlerin önemlerini yanlış ağırlıklandırabildiği için bu sorunların üstesinden gelebilmek adına bu çalışmada yüzde sıralaması (percentile rank) yöntemi ile karar matrisinin normalleştirilmesi önerilmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda herhangi bir devlet üniversitesinin tüm alanlarda üstün olmadığı, farklı kategorilerde farklı üniversitelerin başarı performanslarının yüksek olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Bu çalışma, yöntemi ve sonuçları itibariyle yüksek öğretim kurumlarının performanslarının değerlendirilmesi ve sıralanmasında bir rehber olmayı gözetmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Entropi Ağırlık Yöntemi , Yükseköğretim Sıralaması , Çok Kriterli Karar Verme , Yüzde Sıralaması , VIKOR

Teşekkür

Çalışma sürecinde rehberliği ile destek veren sayın Prof. Dr. Fikret ER'e teşekkürlerimizi sunarız.

Ranking Turkish Public Universities by Percentile Rank Based EWM–VIKOR Method

Öz

The aim of this study is to evaluate and rank the performance of state universities in Türkiye based on the criteria provided in the 2023 Higher Education Council (YÖK) University Monitoring and Evaluation Report. To achieve this objective, a general ranking, as well as rankings for each of the four main categories (“Education and Training”, “Research and Development, Projects, and Publications”, “Internationalization”, and “Social Responsibility”), were conducted. A total of the 56 criteria listed under these main categories are taken into account. We normalized the decision matrix using the percentile rank method, and then, applied the Entropy Weighting Method (EWM) to weigh the criteria. Later, we used the well-known VIKOR method for ranking. This study suggests to use of the percentile rank method for normalizing the decision matrix to overcome the limitations of EWM, which disregards ranking-based differences and only considers numerical differences, potentially leading to incorrect weighting or misinterpreting the importance of criteria when there are numerous zero values in the decision matrix. The study concluded that no single public university outclasses in all categories. Different universities demonstrated high performance in different categories. Hence, this study aims to serve as a guide in the evaluation and ranking of the performance of higher education institutions in terms of its methodology and results.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Entropy Weighting Method , Higher Education Ranking , Multicriteria Decision Making , Percentile Rank , VIKOR

Teşekkür

We extend our gratitude to Prof. Dr. Fikret ER for his guidance and support during the research process.

Kaynakça

• Akyol Özcan, K. (2023). Sustainability ranking of turkish universities with different weighting approaches and the TOPSIS method. Sustainability, 15(16), 12234. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612234
• Aliyev, R., Temizkan, H., & Aliyev, R. (2020). Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process-based multi-criteria decision making for universities ranking. Symmetry, 12(8), 1351. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12081351
• Alshuwaikhat, H. M., & Abubakar, I. (2008). An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: Assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(16), 1777–1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.12.002
• Arora, A., Jain, J., Gupta, S., & Sharma, A. (2020). Identifying sustainability drivers in higher education through fuzzy AHP. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 11(4), 823–836. https://doi.org/10.1108/heswbl-03-2020-0051
• Ayan, B., Abacıoğlu, S., & Basilio, M. P. (2023). A comprehensive review of the novel weighting methods for multi-criteria decision-making. Information, 14(5), 285. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14050285
• Ayyildiz, E., Murat, M., Imamoglu, G., & Kose, Y. (2023). A novel hybrid MCDM approach to evaluate universities based on student perspective. Scientometrics, 128(1), 55–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04534-z
• Billaut, J.- C., Bouyssou, D., & Vincke, P. (2010). Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? An MCDM view. Scientometrics, 84(1), 237–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0115-x
• Bookstein, F. L., Seidler, H., Fieder, M., & Winckler, G. (2010). Too much noise in the Times Higher Education rankings. Scientometrics, 85(1), 295–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0189-5
• Burmann, C., García, F., Guijarro, F., & Oliver, J. (2021). Ranking the performance of universities: The role of sustainability. Sustainability, 13(23), 13286. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313286
• Castro-Lopez, A., Cervero, A., Galve-González, C., Puente, J., & Bernardo, A. B. (2022). Evaluating critical success factors in the permanence in Higher Education using multi-criteria decision-making. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(3), 628–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1877631
• Elevli, S., & Elevli, B. (2024). A study of entrepreneur and innovative university index by entropy-based grey relational analysis and PROMETHEE. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05033-z
• Er, F., & Yıldız, E. (2018). Türkiye girişimci ve yenilikçi üniversite endeksi 2016 ve 2017 sonuçlarının ORESTE ve faktör analizi ile incelenmesi. Alphanumeric Journal, 6(2), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.17093/alphanumeric.431034
• Ertuğrul, İ., Öztaş, T., Özçil, A., & Öztaş, G. Z. (2016). Grey relational analysis approach in academic performance comparison of university: A case study of Turkish universities. European Scientific Journal, 2016, (Special Edition), 128-139. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2016.v12n10p%25p
• 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.
• Gadd, E. (2021). Mis-measuring our universities: Why global university rankings don’t add up. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 6, 680023. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/gxbn5
• Gul, M., & Yucesan, M. (2022). Performance evaluation of Turkish Universities by an integrated Bayesian BWM-TOPSIS model. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 80, 101173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2021.101173
• Hou, Y.-W., & Jacob, W. J. (2017). What contributes more to the ranking of higher education institutions? A comparison of three world university rankings. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 16(4), 29–46.
• Ishizaka, A., Pickernell, D., Huang, S., & Senyard, J. M. (2020). Examining knowledge transfer activities in UK universities: Advocating a PROMETHEE-based approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(6), 1389–1409. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-01-2020-0028
• Jódar, L., & De la Poza, E. (2020). How and Why the Metric Management Model Is Unsustainable: The Case of Spanish Universities from 2005 to 2020. Sustainability, 12(15), 6064. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156064
• Johnes, J. (2018). University rankings: What do they really show? Scientometrics, 115(1), 585–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2666-1
• Kabak, M., & Dağdeviren, M. (2014). A hybrid MCDM approach to assess the sustainability of students’ preferences for university selection. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(3), 391–418. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.883340
• Keleş, M. K., Özdağoğlu, A., & Özdağoğlu, G. (2020). YÖK izleme ve değerlendirme ölçütlerine göre üniversite sıralamaları: Farklı yöntemler sıralamaları ne kadar etkileyeb. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 41, 326–350. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.681381
• Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2021). Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC). Symmetry, 13(4), 525. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13040525
• Kiani Mavi, R. (2014). Indicators of Entrepreneurial University: Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(2), 370–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-014-0197-4
• López, B. (2023). Social impact through the SDGs: Case studies in higher education. In L. Waller & S. K. Waller (Ed.), Higher education (Chapter 4). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109811
• Mardani, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Govindan, K., Amat Senin, A., & Jusoh, A. (2016). VIKOR technique: A systematic review of the state of the art literature on methodologies and applications. Sustainability, 8(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010037
• Nisel, S. (2014). An extended VIKOR method for ranking online graduate business programs. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 4(1), 103. https://doi.org/10.7763/ijiet.2014.v4.378
• Ömürbek, N., Karaatlı, M., & Yetim, T. (2014). Analitik hiyerarşi sürecine dayalı TOPSIS ve VIKOR yöntemleri ile ADIM üniversitelerinin değerlendirilmesi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 31(1), 189–207.
• Opricovic, S. (1998). Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade, 2(1), 5–21.
• Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0377-2217(03)00020-1
• Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2007). Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 178(2), 514–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.01.020
• Pamucar, D., Stevic, Ž., & Sremac, S. (2018). A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in mcdm models: Full consistency method (fucom). Symmetry, 10(9), 393. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10090393
• Polatgil, M., & Güler, A. (2024). The use of different criteria weighting and multi-criteria decision making methods for university ranking: Two-layer copeland. Üniversite Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(1), 60–73. https://doi.org/10.32329/uad.1398302
• Quan, L., & Zhou, H. (2018). Evaluation of innovation and entrepreneurship education capability in colleges and universities based on entropy TOPSIS-A case study. Educational Sciences-Theory & Practice, 18(5). https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.5.003
• Roscoe, J. T. (1969). Fundamental research statistics for the behavioral sciences. Holt, Reinhart, & Winston Inc.
• Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
• Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423. https://doi.org/10.1109/9780470544242.ch1
• Singh, M., & Pant, M. (2021). A review of selected weighing methods in MCDM with a case study. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 12(1), 126–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-020-01033-3
• Taherdoost, H., ve Madanchian, M. (2023). VIKOR method—An effective compromising ranking technique for decision making. Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29969-9
• Thomas, S. (2024). Does higher ranking ensure higher student satisfaction: Evidence from higher education institutions in India. Quality Assurance in Education, 32(2), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-08-2023-0182
• Wang, T.-C., Thu Nguyen, T. T., & Phan, B. N. (2022). Analyzing higher education performance by entropy - TOPSIS method: A case study in Viet Nam private universities. Measurement and Control, 55(5–6), 385–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/00202940221089504
• Wu, H. Y., Chen, J. K., Chen, I. S., & Zhuo, H. H. (2012). Ranking universities based on performance evaluation by a hybrid MCDM model. Measurement, 45(5), 856–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2012.02.009
• Yükseköğretim Kurulu. (2023). Üniversite izleme ve değerlendirme genel raporu 2023. https://www.yok.gov.tr/yayinlar/yayinlarimiz
• Yükseköğretim Kurulu. (n.d.). Yükseköğretim Bilgi Yönetim Sistemi. https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/
• Yüksel, F. Ş., Kayadelen, A. N., & Antmen, F. (2023). A systematic literature review on multi-criteria decision making in higher education. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 10(1), 12–28. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1104005
• Zhu, G.-N., Hu, J., Qi, J., Gu, C. C., & Peng, Y. H. (2015). An integrated AHP and VIKOR for design concept evaluation based on rough number. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 29(3), 408–418. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2015.01.010
• Zhu, Y., Tian, D., & Yan, F. (2020). Effectiveness of Entropy Weight Method in Decision-Making. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2020(1), 3564835. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3564835
• Zolfani, S. H., & Ghadikolaei, A. S. (2013). Performance evaluation of private universities based on balanced scorecard: empirical study based on Iran. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 14(4), 696–714. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2012.665383