IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i15p6064-d390986.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How and Why the Metric Management Model Is Unsustainable: The Case of Spanish Universities from 2005 to 2020

Author

Listed:
  • Lucas Jódar

    (Instituto Universitario de Matemática Multidisciplinar, Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 València, Spain)

  • Elena De la Poza

    (Centro de Ingeniería Económica, Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain)

Abstract

The metric management model is a method based on quantitative indicators called metrics and is used to evaluate individuals and organizations. Organizations’ sustainability is related to risk and expectation concepts and both are, in turn, related to the metric management model (MMM). The main objective of the present research work is to analyze the MMM applied to the Spanish university system (SUS) and the propagation of its consequences. The secondary objective is to study alternatives to the metric management system applied to the SUS to avoid its negative socio-economic consequences. Our results reveal how applying the MMM to the SUS, based on the metric evaluation and the ranking monitor model, deteriorates research quality, students’ levels of education and working people’s well-being at university. Finally, university managerial boards, teased with the “mirror” of university rankings and the picture a simulacrum of reality, are still unaware of the damage.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucas Jódar & Elena De la Poza, 2020. "How and Why the Metric Management Model Is Unsustainable: The Case of Spanish Universities from 2005 to 2020," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-19, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:15:p:6064-:d:390986
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/15/6064/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/15/6064/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giovanni Abramo & Tindaro Cicero & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2011. "The dangers of performance-based research funding in non-competitive higher education systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 641-654, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Mario Biagioli, 2016. "Watch out for cheats in citation game," Nature, Nature, vol. 535(7611), pages 201-201, July.
    4. Jacek Pietrucha, 2018. "Country-specific determinants of world university rankings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1129-1139, March.
    5. Campbell, Donald T., 1979. "Assessing the impact of planned social change," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 67-90, January.
    6. Daniele Fanelli, 2009. "How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-11, May.
    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. Christoph Burmann & Fernando García & Francisco Guijarro & Javier Oliver, 2021. "Ranking the Performance of Universities: The Role of Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-16, November.
    2. Elena De la Poza & Paloma Merello & Antonio Barberá & Alberto Celani, 2021. "Universities’ Reporting on SDGs: Using THE Impact Rankings to Model and Measure Their Contribution to Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-28, February.

    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. Siler, Kyle & Larivière, Vincent, 2022. "Who games metrics and rankings? Institutional niches and journal impact factor inflation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    2. Foroudi, Pantea & Yu, Qionglei & Gupta, Suraksha & Foroudi, Mohammad M., 2019. "Enhancing university brand image and reputation through customer value co-creation behaviour," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 218-227.
    3. Moustafa, Khaled, 2018. "Don't fall in common science pitfall!," FrenXiv ycjha, Center for Open Science.
    4. Jesse Rothstein, 2015. "Teacher Quality Policy When Supply Matters," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 100-130, January.
    5. Love, Peter E.D. & Ika, Lavagnon A. & Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic D., 2019. "On de-bunking ‘fake news’ in a post truth era: Why does the Planning Fallacy explanation for cost overruns fall short?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 397-408.
    6. Jeremy Hall & Ben R. Martin, 2019. "Towards a Taxonomy of Academic Misconduct: The Case of Business School Research," SPRU Working Paper Series 2019-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    7. Adrian G Barnett & Pauline Zardo & Nicholas Graves, 2018. "Randomly auditing research labs could be an affordable way to improve research quality: A simulation study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, April.
    8. Daniel O. Gilligan & Naureen Karachiwalla & Ibrahim Kasirye & Adrienne M. Lucas & Derek Neal, 2022. "Educator Incentives and Educational Triage in Rural Primary Schools," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 57(1), pages 79-111.
    9. Kartal, Melis & Tremewan, James, 2018. "An offer you can refuse: The effect of transparency with endogenous conflict of interest," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 44-55.
    10. Robert J Warren II & Joshua R King & Charlene Tarsa & Brian Haas & Jeremy Henderson, 2017. "A systematic review of context bias in invasion biology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-12, August.
    11. Annamaria Demarinis Loiotile & Francesco De Nicolò & Adriana Agrimi & Loredana Bellantuono & Marianna La Rocca & Alfonso Monaco & Ester Pantaleo & Sabina Tangaro & Nicola Amoroso & Roberto Bellotti, 2022. "Best Practices in Knowledge Transfer: Insights from Top Universities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-23, November.
    12. Brian Gill, 2022. "What Should The Future Of Educational Accountability Look Like?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(4), pages 1232-1239, September.
    13. Marton Demeter & Agnes Jele & Zsolt Balázs Major, 2022. "The model of maximum productivity for research universities SciVal author ranks, productivity, university rankings, and their implications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4335-4361, August.
    14. Jasper Brinkerink, 2023. "When Shooting for the Stars Becomes Aiming for Asterisks: P-Hacking in Family Business Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 304-343, March.
    15. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.
    16. Hensel, Przemysław G., 2019. "Supporting replication research in management journals: Qualitative analysis of editorials published between 1970 and 2015," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 45-57.
    17. Yue-Yi Hwa & Clare Leaver, 2021. "Management in education systems," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 37(2), pages 367-391.
    18. Cinzia Daraio & Simone Di Leo & Loet Leydesdorff, 2022. "Using the Leiden Rankings as a Heuristics: Evidence from Italian universities in the European landscape," LEM Papers Series 2022/08, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    19. Csató, László & Tóth, Csaba, 2020. "University rankings from the revealed preferences of the applicants," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(1), pages 309-320.
    20. Bergemann, Dirk & Ottaviani, Marco, 2021. "Information Markets and Nonmarkets," CEPR Discussion Papers 16459, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    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:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:15:p:6064-:d:390986. 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.