Analysis of key university leadership factors based on their international rankings (QS World University Rankings and Times Higher Education)
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(4).2020.13
-
Article InfoVolume 18 2020, Issue #4, pp. 142-152
- Cited by
- 1041 Views
-
234 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
In the context of globalization of the educational services market, competition between universities is becoming more intense. This manifests itself, among other things, in the struggle for positions in international university rankings. Given that universities are evaluated according to many criteria in such rankings, it becomes necessary to identify the most significant factors in determining their positions.
This study aims to identify the key factors determining the world’s leading universities’ leadership in international university rankings. The numerical values of the criteria for compiling the QS World University Rankings (QS) and Times Higher Education (THE) rankings were an empirical basis for the study. The analysis covered the Top 50 universities (according to the QS ranking) and was conducted based on reports for 2020 and 2021.
At first, clustering was carried out (method – k-means); the data set was the combination of numerical values of QS and THE criteria (six and five criteria, respectively). The universities were divided into three clusters in 2020 (23, 19, 8 universities) and 2021 (23, 17, 10 universities). This showed the universities’ leadership relative to each other for each year.
At the second stage, classification processing was performed (method – decision trees). As a result, criteria combinations that give an absolute separation of all clusters (2020 – five combinations; 2021 – eight combinations) were identified. The obtained combinations largely determine universities’ affiliation to clusters; their criteria are recognized as key factors of their leadership in the rankings. This study’s results can serve as guidelines for improving universities’ positions in the rankings.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)C38, I23, M30
-
References31
-
Tables5
-
Figures0
-
- Table 1. List of criteria for calculating QS and THE, whose numerical values are combined in an OPT
- Table 2. Clustering results of the Top 50 universities by numerical values of the QS and THE calculation criteria, 2020
- Table 3. Clusterization results of the Top 50 universities by the numerical values of the criteria for calculating QS and THE, 2021
- Table 4. Combinations of criteria with 100% discriminating ability, with each of them belonging to the rankings and an assessment of individual significance, 2020
- Table 5. Combinations of criteria with 100% discriminating ability, with each of them belonging to the rankings and assessment of individual significance, 2021
-
- Abramo, G., Aksens, D. W., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2020). Comparison of research performance of Italian and Norwegian professors and universities. Journal of Informetrics, 14(2), 101023.
- Aguillo, I. F., Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Ortega, J. L. (2010). Comparing university rankings. Scientometrics, 85(1), 243-256.
- Buela-Casal, G., Gutiérrez-Martínez, O., Bermúdez-Sánchez, M. P., & Vadillo-Muñoz, O. (2007). Comparative study of international academic rankings of universities. Scientometrics, 71, 349-365.
- Cancino, C. A., Merigó, J. M., & Coronado, F. C. (2017). A bibliometric analysis of leading universities in innovation research. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 2(3), 106-124.
- Datta, S., Saad, M., & Sarpong, D. (2019). National systems of innovation, innovation niches, and diversity in university systems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 143(C), 27-36.
- Deiaco, E., Hughes, A., & Mckelvey, M. (2012). Universities as strategic actors in the knowledge economy. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(3), 525-541.
- Everitt, B., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D. (2011). Cluster Analysis. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
- García-Vega, M., & Vicente-Chirivella, Ó. (2020). Do university technology transfers increase firms’ innovation? European Economic Review, 123.
- Gosain, A. (2019). Universities in the National Innovation Systems: Experiences from the Asia-Pacific. Journal of Scientometric Research, 8(1), 62-67.
- Huang, M.-H., & Chen, D.-Z. (2017). How can academic innovation performance in university–industry collaboration be improved? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 210-215.
- Huang, S.-P. (2018). Effects of Innovative Education on Innovation Capability and Organizational Performance in High-Tech Industry. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(3), 777-784.
- Ishchenko-Padukova, O., Kazachanskaya, E., Movchan, I., & Nawrot, L. (2017). Economy of education: National and global aspects. Journal of International Studies, 10(4), 246-258.
- İskender, E., & Batı, G. B. (2015). Comparing Turkish Universities Entrepreneurship and Innovativeness Index’s Rankings with Sentiment Analysis Results on Social Media. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 1543-1552.
- Krishna, V. (2017). Asia Pacific universities in national innovation systems: Experiences from the Asia-Pacific. In Universities in the National Innovation Systems.
- Mendy, D., & Widodo, T. (2018). Do education levels matter on Indonesian economic growth? Economics & Sociology, 11(3), 133-146.
- Millot, B. (2015). International rankings: Universities vs. higher education systems. International Journal of Educational Development, 40, 156-165.
- Musselin, C. (2018). New forms of competition in higher education. Socio-Economic Review, 16(3), 657-683.
- Novikova, I., Stepanova, A., Zhylinska, O., & Bediukh, O. (2020). Knowledge and technology transfer networking platforms in modern research universities. Innovative Marketing, 16(1), 57-65.
- Petrunia, Y., Chentsov, V., Życzyński, N., & Petrunia, V. (2019). Marketing environment and marketing management of universities in Ukraine: national and regional dominants. Innovative Marketing, 15(1), 1-12.
- Rayevnyeva, O., Aksonova, I., & Ostapenko, V. (2018). Formation interaction and adaptive use of purposive forms of cooperation of university and enterprise structures. Innovative Marketing, 14(3), 44-56.
- Rust, V., & Kim, S. (2012). The Global Competition in Higher Education. World Studies in Education, 13(1), 5-20.
- Rust, V., & Kim, S. (2015). Globalization and Global University Rankings. In Second International Handbook on Globalization, Education and Policy Research (pp. 167-180). Springer.
- Singh, A., Wong, P.-K., & Ho, Y-P. (2015). The role of universities in the national innovation systems of China and the East Asian NIEs: An exploratory analysis of publications and patenting data. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 23(2), 140-156.
- Štimac, H., & Šimić, M. L. (2012). Competitiveness in Higher Education: a Need for Marketing Orientation and Service Quality. Economics and Sociology, 5(2), 23-34.
- Sułkowski, Ł., Dzimińska, M., & Fijałkowska, J. (2020). A Conceptual Model Proposal: Universities as Culture Change Agents for Sustainable Development. Sustainability, 12(11), 1-23.
- Sułkowski, Ł., Fijałkowska, J., & Dzimińska, M. (2019). Mergers in higher education institutions: a proposal of a novel conceptual model. Managerial Finance, 45(10/11), 1469-1487.
- Tvaronavičienė, M., Tarkhanova, E., & Durglishvili, N. (2018). Sustainable economic growth and innovative development of educational systems. Journal of International Studies, 11(1), 248-256.
- Valero, A., & Van Reenen, J. (2019). The economic impact of universities: Evidence from across the globe. Economics of Education Review, 68, 53-67.
- Vasylenko, Y. A., & Shevchenko, H. Y. (1979). Analytical Method for Test Finding. Avtomatyka, 2, 3-8.
- Volchik, V., Oganesyan, A., & Olejarz, T. (2018). Higher education as a factor of socio-economic performance and development. Journal of International Studies, 11(4), 326-340.
- Voropai, O., Pichyk, K., & Chala, N. (2019). Increasing competitiveness of higher education in Ukraine through value co-creation strategy. Economics and Sociology, 12(4), 228-240.