Scientometrics

, Volume 109, Issue 3, pp 2263–2278 | Cite as

How can differences in international university rankings be explained?

Article

Abstract

University rankings are typically presenting their results as league tables with more emphasis on final scores and positions, than on the clarification of why the universities are ranked as they are. Finding out the latter is often not possible, because final scores are based on weighted indicators where raw data and the processing of these are not publically available. In this study we use a sample of Scandinavian universities, explaining what is causing differences between them in the two most influential university rankings: Times Higher Education and the Shanghai-ranking. The results show that differences may be attributed to both small variations on what we believe are not important indicators, as well as substantial variations on what we believe are important indicators. The overall aim of this paper is to provide a methodology that can be used in understanding universities’ different ranks in global university rankings.

Keywords

University rankings Performance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper is based on a NIFU-report (Piro et al. 2014) commissioned by the Ministry of Education and Research.

References

  1. Bookstein, F. L., Seidler, H., Fieder, M., & Winckler, G. (2010). Too much noise in the Times Higher Education rankings. Scientometrics, 85(1), 295–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowman, N. A., & Bastedo, M. N. (2011). Anchoring effects in world university rankings: Exploring biases in reputation scores. Higher Education, 61(4), 431–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carter, N., Klein, R., & Day, P. (1992). How organizations measure success. The use of performance indicators in government. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Dichev, I. (2001). New or noise? Estimating the noise in the US News university rankings. Research in Higher Education, 42(3), 237–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Docampo, D., & Cram, L. (2015). On the effects of institutional size in university classifications: The case of the Shanghai ranking. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1325–1346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elken, M., Hovdhaugen, E., & Stensaker, B. (2016). Global rankings in the Nordic region: Challenging the identity of research-intensive universities? Higher Education. doi: 10.1007/s10734-015-9975-6.
  7. Gnolek, S. L., Falciano, V. T., & Kuncel, R. W. (2014). Modeling change and variation in U.S. News and World Report College Rankings: What would it really take to be in the Top 20? Research in Higher Education, 55, 761–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harvey, L. (2008). Rankings of higher education institutions: A critical review. Quality in Higher Education, 14(3), 187–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kehm, B., & Stensaker, B. (Eds.). (2009). University rankings, diversity and the new landscape of higher education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Liu, N. C., & Cheng, Y. (2005). The academic ranking of world universities. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 127–136.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Piro, F. N., Hovdhaugen, E., Elken, M., Sivertsen, G., Benner, M., & Stensaker, B. (2014): Nordiske universiteter og internasjonale universitetsrangeringer. Hva forklarer nordiske plasseringer og hvordan forholder universitetene seg til rangeringene? NIFU Report 25/2014. Oslo: NIFU.Google Scholar
  12. Safón, V. (2013). What do global university rankings really measure? The search for the X factor and the X entity. Scientometrics, 97, 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Waltman, L., Calero-Medina, C., Kosten, J., Noyons, E. C. M., Tijssen, R. J. W., van Eck, N. J., et al. (2012). The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. CWTS Working Paper Series (CWTS-WP-2012-007). Leiden: Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU)Tøyen, OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations