1 / 27

Multi-dimensional, field-based rankings

Multi-dimensional, field-based rankings. Gero Federkeil, CHE, Germany. Special Workshop: Introduction to Academic Rankings for the Rectors of Universities of the Republlic of Kazakhstan Astana, 2009/06/13. Presentation. CHE – Centre for Higher Education Development

satya
Download Presentation

Multi-dimensional, field-based rankings

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Multi-dimensional, field-based rankings Gero Federkeil, CHE, Germany Special Workshop: Introduction to Academic Rankings for the Rectors of Universities of the Republlic of Kazakhstan Astana, 2009/06/13

  2. Presentation CHE – Centre for Higher Education Development Rankings and information about higher education The classical ranking-model The CHE ranking approach Multi-dimensional rankings| Gero Federkeil | Astana 2009/06/13

  3. I. CHE – Center of Higher Education Development • private, not-profit organisation • founded in 1994 by Bertelsmann Foundation and German Rectors Conference • purpose: promotion of reforms in German higher education • Ranking of German universities among founding tasks of CHE; first ranking in 1998 • activities: • HE policy issues • consulting • ranking, since 1998 • staff: ~ 30 people • more information: www.che.de DEAN Annual Conference / Barcelona 16 -18 Nov. 2008

  4. II. Users of rankings • (prospective) students: information about universities and programmes in the field the want to study • academics/researchers: comparison with colleagues in their field • rectors/university leaders : information about the position of their institution • policy makers: information about their national universities (international position, efficiency) • Diverse expectations / needs for information • Rankings have to find a balance between those needs • incl. Giving information for users with different knowledge about higher education Multi-dimensional rankings| Gero Federkeil | Astana 2009/06/13

  5. III. The „classical“ model: ranking orthodoxy • There is a “classical” league table approach of rankings used by most rankings: • ranking of whole institutions • aggregation indicators into a single composite overall indicator by using fixed weights • league table with individual numerical positions (like soccer table) DEAN Annual Conference / Barcelona 16 -18 Nov. 2008

  6. Exampe: THES World Rankings But: is Johns Hopkins exactly 92,9 % as good as Harvard? III. „Example: QS World Rankings ranking of whole universities weights of indicators ? composite overall score league table with clear rank positions

  7. III .Critical remarks: ranking whole institutions Example 1: Universities with identical score at a given indicator: Multi-dimensional rankings| Gero Federkeil | Astana 2009/06/13

  8. III. Critical remarks: rankingwholeinstitutions Example 2: results in the context of the respective fields: Multi-dimensional rankings| Gero Federkeil | Astana 2009/06/13

  9. III. Critical remarks: composite indicators U.S. News & World Report Ranking: Weights of indicators: But why not: Multi-dimensional rankings| Gero Federkeil | Astana 2009/06/13

  10. Rank groups top intermediate bottom IV. THE CHE approach – an alternative No ranking of whole universities Ranking of single fields / programmes No overall score from weighted indicators Multidimensional ranking No individual ranks in league tables

  11. city, university students study outcome internatio- nalisation teaching ressources research labour market, employability overall assessment (students, professors) IV. The CHE-Ranking: Indicators 20 – 25 indicators ...

  12. publications /citations (bibliometric analysis) • research grants (faculties/departments) • research reputation (professors survey) IV. The CHE-Ranking: Indicators ... from different data sources… research ACA Policy Seminar, 4 April 2008

  13. student-staff-ratio (fact) • student assessment of contact between students and professors • student assessment of course organisation IV. The CHE-Ranking:Indicators ... facts as well as judgements teaching ACA Policy Seminar, 4 April 2008

  14. IV. CHE ranking: presentation of results Lookingattheresultsispossibleeitherby ...  selecting a field ..  .... or a university Multi-dimensional rankings| Gero Federkeil | Astana 2009/06/13

  15. Step 1: Selecting a field 33 fields, covering 80 % of German students Multi-dimensional rankings| Gero Federkeil | Astana 2009/06/13

  16. First overview: 5 selectedindicators Alphabeticlistofuniversities Multi-dimensional rankings| Gero Federkeil | Astana 2009/06/13

  17. First overview: Sortbyindicator Withingroups: alphabetical order - no league table! Multi-dimensional rankings| Gero Federkeil | Astana 2009/06/13

  18. Details for a single university : Humboldt Berlin Facts as well as Multi-dimensional rankings| Gero Federkeil | Astana 2009/06/13

  19. Details for a single university : Humboldt Berlin subjectiveviewsbystudents andprofessors (aboutreputation) Multi-dimensional rankings| Gero Federkeil | Astana 2009/06/13

  20. Online: Interactive, personalised ranking STEP 1: Selectionof (upto ) 5 indicators ... ... accordingto personal preferences Multi-dimensional rankings| Gero Federkeil | Astana 2009/06/13

  21. Interactive, personalised ranking STEP 2: Decisionabout personal relevanceofindicators Multi-dimensional rankings| Gero Federkeil | Astana 2009/06/13

  22. Interactive, personalised ranking ... andtheresult: A personalisedranking Multi-dimensional rankings| Gero Federkeil | Astana 2009/06/13

  23. ... whichlooksquite different ifweselect different indicators Multi-dimensional rankings| Gero Federkeil | Astana 2009/06/13

  24. Conclusions • Rankings should define their aims and target groups • ... but they have different users anyway (students, researchers etc.) • Rankings should adress the specific need for information of different users • ...which in most cases is about fields/subjects • ... which differ with regard to the relevance of dimensions/ indicators (teaching, reasearch etc.) Multi-dimensional rankings| Gero Federkeil | Astana 2009/06/13

  25. Conclusions • So rankingsshouldbe • field-based in thefirstplace • multi-dimensional, • showingtheprofileofinstitutionsand • leavingthedecisionabouttheimportance/ weightofindicatorstousers • And, last but not least, theyshouldavoidgivingfalseimpressionsofexactnessof league tables Multi-dimensional rankings| Gero Federkeil | Astana 2009/06/13

  26. Berlin Principles Rankings should: 15. Provide consumers with a clear understanding of all of the factors used to develop a ranking, and offer them a choice in how rankings are displayed. Multi-dimensional rankings| Gero Federkeil | Astana 2009/06/13

  27. Thank you very much! More information: gero.federkeil@che-ranking.de or www.che.de/ranking Or www. Special Workshop: Introduction to Academic Rankings for the Rectors of Universities of the Republlic of Kazakhstan Astana, 2009/06/13

More Related