Developing a Method for Evaluating Global University Rankings
Describes a method to provide an independent, community-sourced set of best practice criteria with which to assess global university rankings and to identify the extent to which a sample of six rankings, Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), CWTS Leiden, QS World University Rankings (QS WUR...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Levy Library Press
2021-04-01
|
Series: | Scholarly Assessment Reports |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://www.scholarlyassessmentreports.org/articles/31 |
id |
doaj-30889961c45a49e18f1a7b695ae10c4e |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-30889961c45a49e18f1a7b695ae10c4e2021-05-10T08:07:44ZengLevy Library PressScholarly Assessment Reports2689-58702021-04-013110.29024/sar.3121Developing a Method for Evaluating Global University RankingsElizabeth Gadd0Richard Holmes1Justin Shearer2Loughborough UniversityUniversity Ranking WatchUniversity of MelbourneDescribes a method to provide an independent, community-sourced set of best practice criteria with which to assess global university rankings and to identify the extent to which a sample of six rankings, Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), CWTS Leiden, QS World University Rankings (QS WUR), Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE WUR), U-Multirank, and US News & World Report Best Global Universities, met those criteria. The criteria fell into four categories: good governance, transparency, measure what matters, and rigour. The relative strengths and weaknesses of each ranking were compared. Overall, the rankings assessed fell short of all criteria, with greatest strengths in the area of transparency and greatest weaknesses in the area of measuring what matters to the communities they were ranking. The ranking that most closely met the criteria was CWTS Leiden. Scoring poorly across all the criteria were the THE WUR and US News rankings. Suggestions for developing the ranker rating method are described.https://www.scholarlyassessmentreports.org/articles/31university rankingsresponsible research assessmentevaluation framework |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Elizabeth Gadd Richard Holmes Justin Shearer |
spellingShingle |
Elizabeth Gadd Richard Holmes Justin Shearer Developing a Method for Evaluating Global University Rankings Scholarly Assessment Reports university rankings responsible research assessment evaluation framework |
author_facet |
Elizabeth Gadd Richard Holmes Justin Shearer |
author_sort |
Elizabeth Gadd |
title |
Developing a Method for Evaluating Global University Rankings |
title_short |
Developing a Method for Evaluating Global University Rankings |
title_full |
Developing a Method for Evaluating Global University Rankings |
title_fullStr |
Developing a Method for Evaluating Global University Rankings |
title_full_unstemmed |
Developing a Method for Evaluating Global University Rankings |
title_sort |
developing a method for evaluating global university rankings |
publisher |
Levy Library Press |
series |
Scholarly Assessment Reports |
issn |
2689-5870 |
publishDate |
2021-04-01 |
description |
Describes a method to provide an independent, community-sourced set of best practice criteria with which to assess global university rankings and to identify the extent to which a sample of six rankings, Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), CWTS Leiden, QS World University Rankings (QS WUR), Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE WUR), U-Multirank, and US News & World Report Best Global Universities, met those criteria. The criteria fell into four categories: good governance, transparency, measure what matters, and rigour. The relative strengths and weaknesses of each ranking were compared. Overall, the rankings assessed fell short of all criteria, with greatest strengths in the area of transparency and greatest weaknesses in the area of measuring what matters to the communities they were ranking. The ranking that most closely met the criteria was CWTS Leiden. Scoring poorly across all the criteria were the THE WUR and US News rankings. Suggestions for developing the ranker rating method are described. |
topic |
university rankings responsible research assessment evaluation framework |
url |
https://www.scholarlyassessmentreports.org/articles/31 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT elizabethgadd developingamethodforevaluatingglobaluniversityrankings AT richardholmes developingamethodforevaluatingglobaluniversityrankings AT justinshearer developingamethodforevaluatingglobaluniversityrankings |
_version_ |
1721453347610820608 |