IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eaa/eerese/v12y2012i3_5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact Of Weighting Preferences On University Rankings: The Example Of Bulgaria

Author

Listed:
  • ZAHARIEV, Boyan
  • BOYADJIEVA, Pepka

Abstract

On the basis of data from the official Bulgarian University Ranking System (BURS launched in 2011 and updated in 2012), the selection of weights for different indicators in a university ranking system is discussed. Weights represent the importance assigned to the different dimensions of performance measured through ranking, and can therefore be regarded as quantified value statements. Weight preferences differ across groups of stakeholders or even from one agent to another. In this paper a number of stochastic simulations using 4 initial sets of weights are made. The actual weights applied to BURS —simple uniform weights— are derived from a survey encompassing 15,000 university students as well as weights determined by university rectors. The results show that rankings, whose value is relatively neutral —with a set of weights closer to uniformity— are more vulnerable to small random fluctuations. Value laden rankings with asymmetric weights as in the case of BURS are more resilient to slight disturbance(s) however are very unstable in the case of the rearrangement of priorities. A consistent ranking system demands asymmetric weighting, which means strong value statements and prioritisation. The problem however with such a ranking system is that if heavily weighted preferences do not capture important elements of performance, the whole system can become not just marginally imprecise but also very erroneous.

Suggested Citation

  • ZAHARIEV, Boyan & BOYADJIEVA, Pepka, 2012. "The Impact Of Weighting Preferences On University Rankings: The Example Of Bulgaria," Regional and Sectoral Economic Studies, Euro-American Association of Economic Development, vol. 12(3).
  • Handle: RePEc:eaa:eerese:v:12:y2012:i:3_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.usc.es/economet/reviews/eers1235.pdf
    Download Restriction: No.
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Mayer & Frank Ziegele, 2009. "Competition, autonomy and new thinking: Transformation of higher education in Federal Germany," Higher Education Management and Policy, OECD Publishing, vol. 21(2), pages 1-20.
    2. repec:cte:wsrepe:ws112015 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Aleks Asher & Massimo Savino, 2007. "A Global Survey of Rankings and League Tables/ College and University Ranking Systems Global Perspectives and American Challenges / Institute for Higher Education Policy (editor). April 2007. P. 23–34," Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 4, pages 201-216.
    4. Andrew Codling & Lynn V. Meek, 2006. "Twelve Propositions on Diversity in Higher Education," Higher Education Management and Policy, OECD Publishing, vol. 18(3), pages 1-24.
    5. Bernardino, Pedro & Marques, Rui, 2009. "Academic rankings: an approach to a Portuguese ranking," MPRA Paper 17297, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. M. Benito & R. Romera, 2011. "Improving quality assessment of composite indicators in university rankings: a case study of French and German universities of excellence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 153-176, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Arega Yirdaw, 2016. "Quality of Education in Private Higher Institutions in Ethiopia," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(1), pages 21582440156, January.
    2. Giménez, Víctor & Thieme, Claudio & Prior, Diego & Tortosa-Ausina, Emili, 2022. "Evaluation and determinants of preschool effectiveness in Chile," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    3. Ruiz, Francisco & El Gibari, Samira & Cabello, José M. & Gómez, Trinidad, 2020. "MRP-WSCI: Multiple reference point based weak and strong composite indicators," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    4. Rosalia Castellano & Antonella Rocca, 2015. "Assessing the gender gap in labour market index: volatility of results and reliability," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 42(8), pages 749-772, August.
    5. Elio Atenógenes Villaseñor & Ricardo Arencibia-Jorge & Humberto Carrillo-Calvet, 2017. "Multiparametric characterization of scientometric performance profiles assisted by neural networks: a study of Mexican higher education institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 77-104, January.
    6. Alfio Ferrara & Silvia Salini, 2012. "Ten challenges in modeling bibliographic data for bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 765-785, December.
    7. Gonçalo Rodrigues Brás, 2021. "Awarding PhD Powers to Polytechnics: An Academic Trap?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, May.
    8. Yang Ding & Yelin Fu & Kin Keung Lai & W. K. John Leung, 2018. "Using Ranked Weights and Acceptability Analysis to Construct Composite Indicators: A Case Study of Regional Sustainable Society Index," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 139(3), pages 871-885, October.
    9. M. M. Segovia-González & I. Contreras, 2023. "A Composite Indicator to Compare the Performance of Male and Female Students in Educational Systems," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 181-212, January.
    10. M. Ryan Haley, 2020. "Combining the weighted and unweighted Euclidean indices: a graphical approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 103-111, April.
    11. Teichler, Ulrich, 2018. "Recent changes of financing higher education in Germany and their intended and unintended consequences," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 37-46.
    12. Yelin Fu & Kong Xiangtianrui & Hao Luo & Lean Yu, 2020. "Constructing Composite Indicators with Collective Choice and Interval-Valued TOPSIS: The Case of Value Measure," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 117-135, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    university rankings; selection of indicators; stochastic weights;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I21 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Analysis of Education
    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eaa:eerese:v:12:y2012:i:3_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: M. Carmen Guisan (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.usc.es/economet/eaa.htm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.