IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/zbw/entr16/183729.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Measuring the Stability of University Rankings in the Field of Education

In: Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference, Rovinj, Croatia, 8-9 September 2016

Author

Listed:
  • Zornić, Nikola
  • Dobrota, Marina
  • Jeremić, Veljko

Abstract

The stability of ranking entities is one of the majorly discussed topics when concerning the ranking methodology. It is an important property which increases rankings reliability and credibility. Ranking of universities is, among others, an often examined topic in the terms of its stability, making the researchers worldwide agree that a statistically solid and firm ranking of universities is needed. This paper provides the stability analysis of the particular subject of the QS (Quacquarelli Symonds) World University Rankings compared to the University Ranking by Academic Performance (URAP). Namely, institutions that rank universities have turned the alertness from global academic rankings to more particular rankings in given scientific fields. In this paper, we particularly chose the field of Education, as one of the major factors that contribute to general well-being. We conducted the uncertainty and sensitivity analysis on the QS and URAP rankings in the field of Education to analyze the effects of their weighting schemes. The main goal of this paper is to compare the stability of QS and URAP ranking methodologies. Furthermore, we propose a Composite Idistance Indicator(CIDI) methodology as a tool for implementing the distinguishing innovations into the ranking methodology, in order to provide a more stable and solid ranking lists.

Suggested Citation

  • Zornić, Nikola & Dobrota, Marina & Jeremić, Veljko, 2016. "Measuring the Stability of University Rankings in the Field of Education," Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference (2016), Rovinj, Croatia, in: Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference, Rovinj, Croatia, 8-9 September 2016, pages 294-301, IRENET - Society for Advancing Innovation and Research in Economy, Zagreb.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:entr16:183729
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/183729/1/42-ENT92-Zornic.Dobrota.Jeremic-294-301.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paolo Paruolo & Michaela Saisana & Andrea Saltelli, 2013. "Ratings and rankings: voodoo or science?," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(3), pages 609-634, June.
    2. Milan Dobrota & Marina Dobrota, 2016. "ARWU ranking uncertainty and sensitivity: What if the award factor was Excluded?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(2), pages 480-482, February.
    3. Alasdair Cohen & Michaela Saisana, 2014. "Quantifying the Qualitative: Eliciting Expert Input to Develop the Multidimensional Poverty Assessment Tool," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(1), pages 35-50, January.
    4. Bryony Hoskins & Michaela Saisana & Cynthia Villalba, 2015. "Civic Competence of Youth in Europe: Measuring Cross National Variation Through the Creation of a Composite Indicator," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 123(2), pages 431-457, September.
    5. Marina Dobrota & Milica Bulajic & Lutz Bornmann & Veljko Jeremic, 2016. "A new approach to the QS university ranking using the composite I-distance indicator: Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(1), pages 200-211, January.
    6. 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.
    7. Oğuzhan Alaşehir & Murat Perit Çakır & Cengiz Acartürk & Nazife Baykal & Ural Akbulut, 2014. "URAP-TR: a national ranking for Turkish universities based on academic performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 159-178, October.
    8. Dobrota, Marina & Savic, Gordana & Bulajic, Milica, 2015. "A New Approach to the Evaluation of Countries’ Educational Structure and Development: The European Study," European Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 553-565, 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. 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. Maričić Milica & Bulajić Milica & Radojičić Zoran & Jeremić Veljko, 2019. "Shedding Light on the Doing Business Index: a Machine Learning Approach," Business Systems Research, Sciendo, vol. 10(2), pages 73-84, September.
    3. Olavarrieta, Sergio & Quinteros, María José & Villena, Mauricio, 2021. "A Strategic Impact Model for Latin American Business Schools," MPRA Paper 107813, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 17 Apr 2021.
    4. Jacqmin, Julien & Lefebvre, Mathieu, 2016. "Does sector-specific experience matter? The case of European higher education ministers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 987-998.
    5. Rosalia CASTELLANO & Antonella ROCCA, 2018. "Gender disparities in European labour markets: A comparison of conditions for men and women in paid employment," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 157(4), pages 589-608, December.
    6. Marozzi Marco & Chowdhury Shovan, 2020. "An index of teaching performance based on students’ feedback," Monte Carlo Methods and Applications, De Gruyter, vol. 26(2), pages 83-91, June.
    7. Meng-Chen Zhang & Bo-Wei Zhu & Chao-Meng Huang & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng, 2021. "Systematic Evaluation Model for Developing Sustainable World-Class Universities: An East Asian Perspective," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-20, April.
    8. Chao Shi & Kenneth C. Land, 2021. "The Data Envelopment Analysis and Equal Weights/Minimax Methods of Composite Social Indicator Construction: a Methodological Study of Data Sensitivity and Robustness," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 16(4), pages 1689-1716, August.
    9. Eric L. Sevigny & Michaela Saisana, 2016. "Measuring Interstate Variations in the Consequences of Illegal Drugs: A Composite Indicator Approach," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 128(2), pages 501-529, September.
    10. Julia Bock-Schappelwein, 2019. "Armutsindex," WIFO Working Papers 585, WIFO.
    11. 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.
    12. Wei-Chao Lin & Ching Chen, 2021. "Novel World University Rankings Combining Academic, Environmental and Resource Indicators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-15, December.
    13. A. Ferrer-Sapena & E. Erdogan & E Jiménez-Fernández & E. A. Sánchez-Pérez & F. Peset, 2020. "Self-defined information indices: application to the case of university rankings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2443-2456, September.
    14. Marta Kuc-Czarnecka & Samuele Lo Piano & Andrea Saltelli, 2020. "Quantitative Storytelling in the Making of a Composite Indicator," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 775-802, June.
    15. Dobrota, Marina & Martic, Milan & Bulajic, Milica & Jeremic, Veljko, 2015. "Two-phased composite I-distance indicator approach for evaluation of countries’ information development," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 406-420.
    16. Olga Bogdanov & Veljko Jeremiæ & Sandra Jednak & Mladen Èudanov, 2019. "Scrutinizing the Smart City Index: a multivariate statistical approach," Zbornik radova Ekonomskog fakulteta u Rijeci/Proceedings of Rijeka Faculty of Economics, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Economics and Business, vol. 37(2), pages 777-799.
    17. Giovanna Boccuzzo & Licia Maron, 2017. "Proposal of a composite indicator of job quality based on a measure of weighted distances," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(5), pages 2357-2374, September.
    18. Aleksandra Maksimovska & Aleksandar Stojkov, 2019. "Composite Indicator of Social Responsiveness of Local Governments: An Empirical Mapping of the Networked Community Governance Paradigm," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 669-706, July.
    19. Janina Isabel Steinert & Lucie Dale Cluver & G. J. Melendez-Torres & Sebastian Vollmer, 2018. "One Size Fits All? The Validity of a Composite Poverty Index Across Urban and Rural Households in South Africa," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 136(1), pages 51-72, February.
    20. Jill Johnes, 2018. "University rankings: What do they really show?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 585-606, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    education; university ranking; innovation; research; QS; URAP; ranking quality; knowledge; CIDI;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • 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:zbw:entr16:183729. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.entrenova.org/ .

    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.