University rankings: a review of methodological flaws
University rankings have gradually become an issue for concern in the academic community worldwide. Several mechanisms with different methodologies have been developed to rank the universities appropriately. However, some ranking tools have notable issues, especially with the indicators adopted. S...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English English |
| Published: |
Western Australian Institute for Educational Research Inc.
2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://irep.iium.edu.my/79138/7/79138_University%20rankings%20%20A%20review%20of%20methodological%20flaws_SCOPUS.pdf http://irep.iium.edu.my/79138/13/79138_University%20rankings.pdf http://irep.iium.edu.my/79138/ |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| id |
my.iium.irep.79138 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
my.iium.irep.791382020-11-24T06:11:16Z http://irep.iium.edu.my/79138/ University rankings: a review of methodological flaws Fauzi, Muhammad Ashraf Nya-Ling Tan, Christine Daud, Mahyuddin Noor Awalludin, Muhammad Mukhtar L Education (General) University rankings have gradually become an issue for concern in the academic community worldwide. Several mechanisms with different methodologies have been developed to rank the universities appropriately. However, some ranking tools have notable issues, especially with the indicators adopted. Some are based merely on research performance, whilst others have focused solely on specific fields, such as science and technology – which could have deprived those in the arts and social sciences. This paper uses a narrative review to highlight a number of inconsistencies in the methodologies applied to rank universities. Five main ranking tools commonly applied to the world's universities are reviewed, namely Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), Times Higher Education (THE), Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Leiden University ranking and Webometrics ranking. We found that several flaws in the rankings caused inconsistencies in university placings in different rankings. Suggestions for integrating multiple criteria and indicators for better ranking exercises are proposed. © , Western Australian Institute for Educational Research Inc.. All rights reserved. Western Australian Institute for Educational Research Inc. 2020-02-08 Article PeerReviewed application/pdf en http://irep.iium.edu.my/79138/7/79138_University%20rankings%20%20A%20review%20of%20methodological%20flaws_SCOPUS.pdf application/pdf en http://irep.iium.edu.my/79138/13/79138_University%20rankings.pdf Fauzi, Muhammad Ashraf and Nya-Ling Tan, Christine and Daud, Mahyuddin and Noor Awalludin, Muhammad Mukhtar (2020) University rankings: a review of methodological flaws. Issues in Educational Research, 30 (1). pp. 79-96. ISSN 0313-7155 |
| institution |
Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia |
| building |
IIUM Library |
| collection |
Institutional Repository |
| continent |
Asia |
| country |
Malaysia |
| content_provider |
International Islamic University Malaysia |
| content_source |
IIUM Repository (IREP) |
| url_provider |
http://irep.iium.edu.my/ |
| language |
English English |
| topic |
L Education (General) |
| spellingShingle |
L Education (General) Fauzi, Muhammad Ashraf Nya-Ling Tan, Christine Daud, Mahyuddin Noor Awalludin, Muhammad Mukhtar University rankings: a review of methodological flaws |
| description |
University rankings have gradually become an issue for concern in the academic community worldwide. Several
mechanisms with different methodologies have been developed to rank the universities appropriately. However, some
ranking tools have notable issues, especially with the indicators adopted. Some are based merely on research
performance, whilst others have focused solely on specific fields, such as science and technology – which could have
deprived those in the arts and social sciences. This paper uses a narrative review to highlight a number of
inconsistencies in the methodologies applied to rank universities. Five main ranking tools commonly applied to the
world's universities are reviewed, namely Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), Times Higher Education (THE), Academic
Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Leiden University ranking and Webometrics ranking. We found that several
flaws in the rankings caused inconsistencies in university placings in different rankings. Suggestions for integrating
multiple criteria and indicators for better ranking exercises are proposed. © , Western Australian Institute for
Educational Research Inc.. All rights reserved. |
| format |
Article |
| author |
Fauzi, Muhammad Ashraf Nya-Ling Tan, Christine Daud, Mahyuddin Noor Awalludin, Muhammad Mukhtar |
| author_facet |
Fauzi, Muhammad Ashraf Nya-Ling Tan, Christine Daud, Mahyuddin Noor Awalludin, Muhammad Mukhtar |
| author_sort |
Fauzi, Muhammad Ashraf |
| title |
University rankings: a review of methodological flaws |
| title_short |
University rankings: a review of methodological flaws |
| title_full |
University rankings: a review of methodological flaws |
| title_fullStr |
University rankings: a review of methodological flaws |
| title_full_unstemmed |
University rankings: a review of methodological flaws |
| title_sort |
university rankings: a review of methodological flaws |
| publisher |
Western Australian Institute for Educational Research Inc. |
| publishDate |
2020 |
| url |
http://irep.iium.edu.my/79138/7/79138_University%20rankings%20%20A%20review%20of%20methodological%20flaws_SCOPUS.pdf http://irep.iium.edu.my/79138/13/79138_University%20rankings.pdf http://irep.iium.edu.my/79138/ |
| _version_ |
1684653047680073728 |
| score |
13.211869 |