首页> 外文期刊>Higher Education >Ranking of rankings: benchmarking twenty-five higher education ranking systems in Europe
【24h】

Ranking of rankings: benchmarking twenty-five higher education ranking systems in Europe

机译:排名排名:以欧洲25个高等教育排名系统为基准

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the ranking practices of 25 European higher education ranking systems (HERSs). Ranking practices were assessed with 14 quantitative measures derived from the Berlin Principles on Ranking of Higher Education Institutions (BPs). HERSs were then ranked according to their degree of congruence with the BPs. Additionally, the three domains of methodology, transparency, and consumer-friendliness were proposed to underlie the BPs, and the measures were also applied for assessing HERSs regarding these domains. Results indicate that the cooperating HERSs by CHE (Germany), AQA (Austria) and swissUp (Switzerland) exhibit the highest congruence with the BPs. However, no European HERS demonstrates good overall congruence with the BPs, mainly due to methodological shortcomings. Results further show that HERSs compiled and published by non-profit research entities seem to perform better than the majority of HERSs published by for-profit news outlets. International comparisons indicate that HERSs published in German-speaking countries and the Netherlands tend to exhibit a higher congruence with the BPs. Overall, this study hopes to stimulate the improvement of ranking practices through benchmarking with existing exemplary models. The quantitative assessment tool further promises to be useful in explaining relative stability or change of higher education institutions in HERSs, as well as in helping to explain resource allocation pressures within higher education institutions.
机译:本研究的目的是评估25个欧洲高等教育排名系统(HERS)的排名做法。排名做法是根据《柏林高等教育机构排名原则》(BPs)中的14种量化指标进行评估的。然后根据其与BP的一致性程度对HERS进行排名。此外,提出了方法论,透明度和消费者友好性这三个领域作为BP的基础,并且这些措施也适用于评估这些领域的HERS。结果表明,CHE(德国),AQA(奥地利)和swissUp(瑞士)的合作HERS与BP的一致性最高。但是,没有欧洲的HERS与BP表现出良好的整体一致性,这主要是由于方法上的缺陷。结果进一步表明,由非营利研究机构编辑和出版的HERS的表现似乎要好于由营利性新闻机构发布的大多数HERS。国际比较表明,在德语国家和荷兰发布的HERS与BP的一致性更高。总体而言,本研究希望通过与现有示例性模型进行基准比较来刺激排名实践的改善。定量评估工具还有望在解释HERSs中高等教育机构的相对稳定性或变化,以及帮助解释高等教育机构内部的资源分配压力方面发挥作用。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Higher Education》 |2010年第5期|p.507-528|共22页
  • 作者单位

    Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development, University of Minnesota, 330 Wulling Hall, 86 Pleasant Street S.E., Minneapolis, MN, 55455-0221, USA;

    Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development, University of Minnesota, 330 Wulling Hall, 86 Pleasant Street S.E., Minneapolis, MN, 55455-0221, USA;

    Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development, University of Minnesota, 330 Wulling Hall, 86 Pleasant Street S.E., Minneapolis, MN, 55455-0221, USA;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

    University ranking; Higher education; Berlin Principles; Europe; Comparative; Benchmarking;

    机译:大学排名;高等教育;柏林原则;欧洲;比较;基准;

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号