IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v102y2015i2d10.1007_s11192-014-1488-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the effects of institutional size in university classifications: the case of the Shanghai ranking

Author

Listed:
  • Domingo Docampo

    (Universidad de Vigo)

  • Lawrence Cram

    (Australian National University)

Abstract

University rankings frequently struggle to delineate the separate contributions of institutional size and excellence. This presents a problem for public policy and university leadership, for example by blurring the pursuit of excellence with the quest for growth. This paper provides some insight into the size/excellence debate by exploring the explicit contribution of institutional size to the results of the Shanghai ranking indicators. Principal components analysis of data from the Shanghai ranking (2013 edition) is used to explore factors that contribute to the variation of the total score. The analysis includes the five non-derived ARWU indicators (Alumni, Award, HiCi, S&N and PUB) and uses the number of equivalent full-time academic staff (FTE) as a measure of size. Two significant but unequal factors are found, together explaining almost 85 % of the variance in the sample. A factor clearly associated with the size of the institution explains around 30 % of the variance. To sharpen the interpretation of the smaller factor as a measure of the effect of size, we extend the analysis to a larger set of institutions to eliminate size-dependent selection effects. We also show that eliminating outlying universities makes little difference to the factors. Our inferences are insensitive to the use of raw data, compared with the compressed and scaled indicators used by ARWU. We conclude that around 30 % of the variation in the ARWU indicators can be attributed to variation in size. Clearly, size-related factors cannot be overlooked when using the ranking results. Around 55 % of the variation arises from a component which is uncorrelated with size and which measures the quality of research conducted at the highest levels. The presence of this factor encourages further work to explore its nature and origins.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:102:y:2015:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1488-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1488-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-014-1488-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-014-1488-z?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. Catherine Dehon & Alice McCathie & Vincenzo Verardi, 2010. "Uncovering excellence in academic rankings: a closer look at the Shanghai ranking," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 515-524, May.
    2. Ravallion, Martin & Wagstaff, Adam, 2010. "On measuring scientific influence," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5375, The World Bank.
    3. Philippe Aghion & Mathias Dewatripont & Caroline Hoxby & Andreu Mas-Colell & André Sapir, . "Higher aspirations- an agenda for reforming European universities," Blueprints, Bruegel, number 1, June.
    4. Domingo Docampo, 2013. "Reproducibility of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities results," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 567-587, February.
    5. 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.
    6. Adcock, Robert & Collier, David, 2001. "Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(3), pages 529-546, September.
    7. 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.
    8. repec:dau:papers:123456789/2947 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2014. "On the internal dynamics of the Shanghai ranking," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1347-1366, February.
    10. Anthony F. J. van Raan, 2005. "Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 62(1), pages 133-143, January.
    11. 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.
    12. Todorov, Valentin & Filzmoser, Peter, 2009. "An Object-Oriented Framework for Robust Multivariate Analysis," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 32(i03).
    13. Henry Kaiser, 1974. "An index of factorial simplicity," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 39(1), pages 31-36, March.
    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. Milica Maricic & Jose A. Egea & Veljko Jeremic, 2019. "A Hybrid Enhanced Scatter Search—Composite I-Distance Indicator (eSS-CIDI) Optimization Approach for Determining Weights Within Composite Indicators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 497-537, July.
    2. Jacek Pietrucha, 2018. "Country-specific determinants of world university rankings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1129-1139, March.
    3. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2017. "Academic performance and institutional resources: a cross-country analysis of research universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 739-764, February.
    4. D. Docampo & D. Egret & L. Cram, 2015. "The effect of university mergers on the Shanghai ranking," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 175-191, July.
    5. Vicente Safón & Domingo Docampo, 2020. "Analyzing the impact of reputational bias on global university rankings based on objective research performance data: the case of the Shanghai Ranking (ARWU)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2199-2227, December.
    6. Fredrik Niclas Piro & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2016. "How can differences in international university rankings be explained?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2263-2278, December.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2014. "On the internal dynamics of the Shanghai ranking," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1347-1366, February.
    4. Mehdi Rhaiem & Nabil Amara, 2020. "Determinants of research efficiency in Canadian business schools: evidence from scholar-level data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 53-99, October.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. D. Docampo & D. Egret & L. Cram, 2015. "The effect of university mergers on the Shanghai ranking," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 175-191, July.
    8. 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.
    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. 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.
    11. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2019. "Highly cited researchers: a moving target," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1011-1025, March.
    12. Saisana, Michaela & d'Hombres, Béatrice & Saltelli, Andrea, 2011. "Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 165-177, February.
    13. 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).
    14. Avenali, Alessandro & Daraio, Cinzia & Di Leo, Simone & Wolszczak-Derlacz, Joanna, 2024. "Heterogeneity of national accounting systems, world-class universities and financial resources: What are the links?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    15. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2015. "Evaluating university research: Same performance indicator, different rankings," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 514-525.
    16. Alan Peter Matthews, 2012. "South African universities in world rankings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(3), pages 675-695, September.
    17. Vicente Safón & Domingo Docampo, 2020. "Analyzing the impact of reputational bias on global university rankings based on objective research performance data: the case of the Shanghai Ranking (ARWU)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2199-2227, December.
    18. 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.
    19. Domingo Docampo, 2012. "Adjusted sum of institutional scores as an indicator of the presence of university systems in the ARWU ranking," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 701-713, February.
    20. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2017. "Academic performance and institutional resources: a cross-country analysis of research universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 739-764, February.

    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:spr:scient:v:102:y:2015:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1488-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.