IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceps/v80y2022ics0038012121001658.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Performance evaluation of Turkish Universities by an integrated Bayesian BWM-TOPSIS model

Author

Listed:
  • Gul, Muhammet
  • Yucesan, Melih

Abstract

This study aims to develop a university ranking model with the aid of performance measures in the “University monitoring and evaluation reports-2019” published by the Council of Higher Education Institution in Turkey. In this context, some of the performance criteria stated in these reports are filtered and 34 sub-criteria under five main criteria are weighted using the Bayesian Best-Worst Method (BBWM). Then, 189 listed public and private universities are ranked using the TOPSIS multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) method. We have adopted the MCDM concept because many evaluation criteria/sub-criteria and alternative universities are taken into account. For this study, we apply an integrated MCDM model. First, we use BBWM to accomplish the first goal and adopt the TOPSIS method for the second purpose, using the BBWM results. Our purpose in using BBWM is due to its probabilistic structure that reduces the loss of information when handling group decisions. In this context, the evaluations of 11 academic experts are combined and a solid weighting is made by obtaining the credal rankings of performance criteria. Using TOPSIS is its logic of proximity to ideal and the ability to evaluate many alternatives. In the context of the study, state-private university-based, nomenclature of territorial units for statistics-2 (NUTS-2)-based and classical geographical regions-based rankings are also discussed. The study seeks to help universities optimize their performance efficiently. The results of the study can be adapted as a reference for other educational institutions and public institutions in their efforts to evaluate, improve their performance and form various policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Gul, Muhammet & Yucesan, Melih, 2022. "Performance evaluation of Turkish Universities by an integrated Bayesian BWM-TOPSIS model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceps:v:80:y:2022:i:c:s0038012121001658
    DOI: 10.1016/j.seps.2021.101173
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038012121001658
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.seps.2021.101173?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sarita Gajbhiye Meshram & Ehsan Alvandi & Chandrashekhar Meshram & Ercan Kahya & Ayad M. Fadhil Al-Quraishi, 2020. "Application of SAW and TOPSIS in Prioritizing Watersheds," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(2), pages 715-732, January.
    2. Melih Yucesan & Suleyman Mete & Faruk Serin & Erkan Celik & Muhammet Gul, 2019. "An Integrated Best-Worst and Interval Type-2 Fuzzy TOPSIS Methodology for Green Supplier Selection," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-19, February.
    3. Wu, Hung-Yi & Lin, Yi-Kuei & Chang, Chi-Hsiang, 2011. "Performance evaluation of extension education centers in universities based on the balanced scorecard," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 37-50, February.
    4. Lei Xiong & Shuqi Zhong & Sen Liu & Xiao Zhang & Yanfeng Li, 2020. "An Approach for Resilient-Green Supplier Selection Based on WASPAS, BWM, and TOPSIS under Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2020, pages 1-18, July.
    5. Chou, Shuo-Yan & Chang, Yao-Hui & Shen, Chun-Ying, 2008. "A fuzzy simple additive weighting system under group decision-making for facility location selection with objective/subjective attributes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(1), pages 132-145, August.
    6. Jen-Jen Yang & Huai-Wei Lo & Chen-Shen Chao & Chih-Chien Shen & Chin-Cheng Yang, 2020. "Establishing a Sustainable Sports Tourism Evaluation Framework with a Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model to Explore Potential Sports Tourism Attractions in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, February.
    7. Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Abdolhamid Safaei Ghadikolaei, 2013. "Performance evaluation of private universities based on balanced scorecard: empirical study based on Iran," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(4), pages 696-714, September.
    8. Osmo Kivinen & Juha Hedman & Kalle Artukka, 2017. "Scientific publishing and global university rankings. How well are top publishing universities recognized?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 679-695, July.
    9. Domingo Docampo, 2011. "On using the Shanghai ranking to assess the research performance of university systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(1), pages 77-92, January.
    10. Sandra Mara Iesbik Valmorbida & Sandra Rolim Ensslin, 2017. "Performance evaluation of university rankings : literature review and guidelines for future research," International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 14(4), pages 479-501.
    11. Veljko Jeremic & Milica Bulajic & Milan Martic & Zoran Radojicic, 2011. "A fresh approach to evaluating the academic ranking of world universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 587-596, June.
    12. Jean-Charles Billaut & Denis Bouyssou & Philippe Vincke, 2010. "Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 237-263, July.
    13. Huang, Chun-Nen & Liou, James J.H. & Lo, Huai-Wei & Chang, Fu-Jung, 2021. "Building an assessment model for measuring airport resilience," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    14. Mohammadi, Majid & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Bayesian best-worst method: A probabilistic group decision making model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    15. Jean-Charles Billaut & Denis Bouyssou & Philippe Vincke, 2010. "Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 237-263, July.
    16. Dalibor Fiala, 2013. "Science Evaluation in the Czech Republic: The Case of Universities," Societies, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-14, June.
    17. Jingda Ding & Junping Qiu, 2011. "An approach to improve the indicator weights of scientific and technological competitiveness evaluation of Chinese universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(2), pages 285-297, February.
    18. Sen Guo & Wenyue Zhang & Xiao Gao, 2020. "Business Risk Evaluation of Electricity Retail Company in China Using a Hybrid MCDM Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-21, March.
    19. Ishizaka, Alessio & Resce, Giuliano, 2021. "Best-Worst PROMETHEE method for evaluating school performance in the OECD's PISA project," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    20. repec:dau:papers:123456789/2947 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    22. Domingo Docampo, 2011. "Erratum to: On using the Shanghai ranking to assess the research performance of university systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(1), pages 237-237, January.
    23. Kuang-hua Chen & Pei-yu Liao, 2012. "A comparative study on world university rankings: a bibliometric survey," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(1), pages 89-103, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lo, Huai-Wei & Fang, Tzu-Yi & Lin, Sheng-Wei, 2024. "Integrating technological and strategic analysis: Evaluating the key determinants of transportation sustainability in taipei Mass Rapid Transit using the Rough-Fermatean DEMATEL approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    2. Göçmen Polat, Elifcan & Yücesan, Melih & Gül, Muhammet, 2023. "A comparative framework for criticality assessment of strategic raw materials in Turkey," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    3. Bao, Tiantian & Liu, Yifan & Yang, Zhongzhen & Wu, Shanhua & Yan, Zhenli, 2024. "Evaluating sustainable service quality in higher education from a multi-stakeholder perspective: An integrated fuzzy group decision-making method," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    4. Badiee, Aghdas & Moshtari, Mohammad & Berenguer, Gemma, 2024. "A systematic review of operations research and management science modeling techniques in the study of higher education institutions," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).

    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. Antonio Fernández-Cano & Elvira Curiel-Marin & Manuel Torralbo-Rodríguez & Mónica Vallejo-Ruiz, 2018. "Questioning the Shanghai Ranking methodology as a tool for the evaluation of universities: an integrative review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2069-2083, September.
    2. Massucci, Francesco Alessandro & Docampo, Domingo, 2019. "Measuring the academic reputation through citation networks via PageRank," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 185-201.
    3. Milica Jovanovic & Veljko Jeremic & Gordana Savic & Milica Bulajic & Milan Martic, 2012. "How does the normalization of data affect the ARWU ranking?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(2), pages 319-327, November.
    4. Vicente Safón, 2013. "What do global university rankings really measure? The search for the X factor and the X entity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 223-244, November.
    5. Veljko Jeremic & Milica Bulajic & Milan Martic & Zoran Radojicic, 2011. "A fresh approach to evaluating the academic ranking of world universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 587-596, June.
    6. Osmo Kivinen & Juha Hedman & Kalle Artukka, 2017. "Scientific publishing and global university rankings. How well are top publishing universities recognized?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 679-695, July.
    7. Berlemann, Michael & Haucap, Justus, 2015. "Which factors drive the decision to opt out of individual research rankings? An empirical study of academic resistance to change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1108-1115.
    8. Göçmen Polat, Elifcan & Yücesan, Melih & Gül, Muhammet, 2023. "A comparative framework for criticality assessment of strategic raw materials in Turkey," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    9. Domingo Docampo, 2013. "Reproducibility of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities results," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 567-587, February.
    10. Teodoro Luque-Martínez & Salvador Barrio-García, 2016. "Constructing a synthetic indicator of research activity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1049-1064, September.
    11. Leo Freyer, 2014. "Robust rankings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(2), pages 391-406, August.
    12. Olcay, Gokcen Arkali & Bulu, Melih, 2017. "Is measuring the knowledge creation of universities possible?: A review of university rankings," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 153-160.
    13. Wan-Chi Jackie Hsu & Huai-Wei Lo & Chin-Cheng Yang, 2021. "The Formulation of Epidemic Prevention Work of COVID-19 for Colleges and Universities: Priorities and Recommendations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, February.
    14. Lutz Bornmann & Loet Leydesdorff, 2011. "Which cities produce more excellent papers than can be expected? A new mapping approach, using Google Maps, based on statistical significance testing," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(10), pages 1954-1962, October.
    15. Hiran H. Lathabai & Abhirup Nandy & Vivek Kumar Singh, 2021. "x-index: Identifying core competency and thematic research strengths of institutions using an NLP and network based ranking framework," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9557-9583, December.
    16. Aparna Basu & Sumit Kumar Banshal & Khushboo Singhal & Vivek Kumar Singh, 2016. "Designing a Composite Index for research performance evaluation at the national or regional level: ranking Central Universities in India," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1171-1193, June.
    17. Yana Duan & Yang Sun & Yu Zhang & Xiaoqi Fan & Qinghuan Dong & Sen Guo, 2021. "Risk Evaluation of Electric Power Grid Investment in China Employing a Hybrid Novel MCDM Method," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-22, February.
    18. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2015. "On the effects of institutional size in university classifications: the case of the Shanghai ranking," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1325-1346, February.
    19. Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Ramin Bazrafshan & Fatih Ecer & Çağlar Karamaşa, 2022. "The Suitability-Feasibility-Acceptability Strategy Integrated with Bayesian BWM-MARCOS Methods to Determine the Optimal Lithium Battery Plant Located in South America," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(14), pages 1-18, July.
    20. El Gibari, Samira & Gómez, Trinidad & Ruiz, Francisco, 2018. "Evaluating university performance using reference point based composite indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1235-1250.

    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:eee:soceps:v:80:y:2022:i:c:s0038012121001658. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/seps .

    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.