IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jdataj/v9y2024i5p67-d1392745.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unveiling University Groupings: A Clustering Analysis for Academic Rankings

Author

Listed:
  • George Matlis

    (Department of Informatics, University of Western Macedonia, 52100 Kastoria, Greece)

  • Nikos Dimokas

    (Department of Informatics, University of Western Macedonia, 52100 Kastoria, Greece)

  • Petros Karvelis

    (Department of Informatics and Telecommunications, University of Ioannina, 47100 Arta, Greece)

Abstract

The evaluation and ranking of educational institutions are of paramount importance to a wide range of stakeholders, including students, faculty members, funding organizations, and the institutions themselves. Traditional ranking systems, such as those provided by QS, ARWU, and THE, have offered valuable insights into university performance by employing a variety of indicators to reflect institutional excellence across research, teaching, international outlook, and more. However, these linear rankings may not fully capture the multifaceted nature of university performance. This study introduces a novel clustering analysis that complements existing rankings by grouping universities with similar characteristics, providing a multidimensional perspective on global higher education landscapes. Utilizing a range of clustering algorithms—K-Means, GMM, Agglomerative, and Fuzzy C-Means—and incorporating both traditional and unique indicators, our approach seeks to highlight the commonalities and shared strengths within clusters of universities. This analysis does not aim to supplant existing ranking systems but to augment them by offering stakeholders an alternative lens through which to view and assess university performance. By focusing on group similarities rather than ordinal positions, our method encourages a more nuanced understanding of institutional excellence and facilitates peer learning among universities with similar profiles. While acknowledging the limitations inherent in any methodological approach, including the selection of indicators and clustering algorithms, this study underscores the value of complementary analyses in enriching our understanding of higher educational institutions’ performance.

Suggested Citation

  • George Matlis & Nikos Dimokas & Petros Karvelis, 2024. "Unveiling University Groupings: A Clustering Analysis for Academic Rankings," Data, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-41, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jdataj:v:9:y:2024:i:5:p:67-:d:1392745
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5729/9/5/67/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5729/9/5/67/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shahryar Rahnamayan & Sedigheh Mahdavi & Kalyanmoy Deb & Azam Asilian Bidgoli, 2020. "Ranking Multi-Metric Scientific Achievements Using a Concept of Pareto Optimality," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-46, June.
    2. Marie-Laure Bougnol & José Dulá, 2006. "Validating DEA as a ranking tool: An application of DEA to assess performance in higher education," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 339-365, July.
    3. Ying Cheng & Nian Cai Liu, 2006. "A first approach to the classification of the top 500 world universities by their disciplinary characteristics using scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(1), pages 135-150, July.
    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. Franceschini, Fiorenzo & Maisano, Domenico, 2011. "Structured evaluation of the scientific output of academic research groups by recent h-based indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 64-74.
    2. Bougnol, M.-L. & Dulá, J.H. & Estellita Lins, M.P. & Moreira da Silva, A.C., 2010. "Enhancing standard performance practices with DEA," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(1-2), pages 33-45, February.
    3. Kristof De Witte & Laura López-Torres, 2017. "Efficiency in education: a review of literature and a way forward," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 68(4), pages 339-363, April.
    4. Ortega, José Luis & López-Romero, Elena & Fernández, Inés, 2011. "Multivariate approach to classify research institutes according to their outputs: The case of the CSIC's institutes," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 323-332.
    5. Corrado Lo Storto, 2016. "Ecological Efficiency Based Ranking of Cities: A Combined DEA Cross-Efficiency and Shannon’s Entropy Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-29, January.
    6. Tzeremes, Nickolaos & Halkos, George, 2010. "A DEA approach for measuring university departments’ efficiency," MPRA Paper 24029, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. Cui, Yuan & Ren, Xian-tong & He, Xi-jie & Yang, Guo-liang, 2023. "Is human and financial investment in Chinese universities effective?," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    10. Sanjeet Singh & Prabhat Ranjan, 2018. "Efficiency analysis of non-homogeneous parallel sub-unit systems for the performance measurement of higher education," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 269(1), pages 641-666, October.
    11. Cottafava, Dario & Ascione, Grazia Sveva & Corazza, Laura & Dhir, Amandeep, 2022. "Sustainable development goals research in higher education institutions: An interdisciplinarity assessment through an entropy-based indicator," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 138-155.
    12. Isabel Gómez & María Bordons & M. Teresa Fernández & Fernanda Morillo, 2009. "Structure and research performance of Spanish universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(1), pages 131-146, April.
    13. Bodin Singpai & Desheng Wu, 2020. "Using a DEA–AutoML Approach to Track SDG Achievements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-26, December.
    14. Larrán-Jorge, Manuel & García-Correas, Ángel, 2015. "¿Influyen los modelos de financiación autonómicos en la eficiencia de las universidades públicas españolas?," Revista de Contabilidad - Spanish Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 162-173.
    15. Contreras, I. & Lozano, S., 2020. "Allocating additional resources to public universities. A DEA bargaining approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    16. Jill Johnes, 2018. "University rankings: What do they really show?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 585-606, April.
    17. Alexandr Gedranovich & Mykhaylo Salnykov, 2012. "Productivity analysis of Belarusian higher education system," BEROC Working Paper Series 16, Belarusian Economic Research and Outreach Center (BEROC).
    18. Feng Li & Qingyuan Zhu & Liang Liang, 2019. "A new data envelopment analysis based approach for fixed cost allocation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 274(1), pages 347-372, March.
    19. Mette Asmild & Jens Hougaard & Dorte Kronborg, 2013. "Do efficiency scores depend on input mix? A statistical test and empirical illustration," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 211(1), pages 37-48, December.
    20. Agnes Gold & Stefan Gold, 2019. "Drivers of Farm Efficiency and Their Potential for Development in a Changing Agricultural Setting in Kerala, India," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 31(4), pages 855-880, September.

    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:gam:jdataj:v:9:y:2024:i:5:p:67-:d:1392745. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.