Global Rankings: Reshaping the Spatial Landscape of Higher Education

Global university rankings serve as information tool for students in choosing their studies, whereas institutional leaders regard them as a management and strategic decision-making tool. However, little is known about the relevance of global university rankings for developing countries like the Philippines. Using cluster analysis and stepwise regression, this study investigated the competitiveness indicators among clusters of top-ranking universities from three different global university-ranking organizations namely. Furthermore, it also created a best-fit model that accurately predicts institutional performance that could be used by universities in the Philippines that have not made it yet in the global ranking. The data were gathered from the official results of the 2022 global rankings from Times Higher Education (THE), Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), and Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU). In assessing the data gathered, the study used cluster analysis and then stepwise regression to come up with the best-fit model. The results of the cluster analysis revealed that the three ranking organizations use diverse factors that contribute to institutional rankings. Each ranking system provides a different lens through which to view and understand the global landscape of higher education. On the other hand, the stepwise regression revealed that Model 3 that combined the THE, Shanghai, and QS rankings predictors serves as the best fit model as it showed a very high positive relationship. Hence, this study concluded that focusing on the key metrics common among the ranking organizations can help institutions drive effective strategies for elevating their rankings.

This chapter intends to explain how global university rankings can be understood as a mechanism holding Taiwan’s interests within the context of the emergence of an international higher education market and the prospect of regionalisation in East Asia. To illustrate Taiwan’s interests in university ranking systems, the chapter argues that league tables can be used to promote Taiwan’s interests in three ways. Firstly, it pointed out that university rankings have been taken by the Taiwanese government as a metric system to indicate the standard of universities, thereby reflecting their distance from the status of world-class university. In this sense, rankings are used as a governing tool to align the architecture of Taiwan’s higher education system, thereby advancing its competitiveness. Secondly, university rankings are seen as a zoning technology promoting the growing trends toward regionalisation of higher education in East Asia. Thirdly, university rankings are considered as a mechanism of agenda setting promoting the discourses of Chineseness in global higher education. These two anticipations are developed based on the context of China’s rise and the emergence of the idea of the Greater China in higher education. They are involved in Taiwan’s interests, as it is believed that the Taiwanese higher education sector can plausibly extend its influences in the process of regionalisation.

This chapter looks into the power relations in global higher education. By using Nye’s classification of power, the chapter conceptualises rankings as a type of institutions in the geo-politics of higher education. This conceptualisation illustrates the theoretical link between the notion of world-class university and ranking systems. On this basis, the chapter argues that rankings have two distinctive sides generating opposite effects on the global landscape of higher education. The bright side of rankings stresses the motivations for internationalising higher education and pursuing research excellence imposed by rankings. It presumes that the concept of world-class university does not favour any specific higher education paradigm, and hence views the ranking phenomenon as an opportunity of promoting world-class excellence in higher education. In contrast, the dark side of rankings reveals that the Anglo-American paradigm has dominated the discourse on the notion of world-class university. Thus, the prevalence of global university rankings means the predominance of the West in higher education. In the light of Gramsci’s work, global university rankings are interpreted as an institutionalised form of global hegemony or imperialism in higher education in the post-colonial era.

Global university rankings are a worldwide trend that emerged in times of the globalisation and internationalisation of higher education. Universities worldwide are now striving to become “world‐class” institutions and are constantly aiming to improve their ranking position. Global rankings of universities are thus perceived by many as an ultimate tool for assessing the level of internationalisation at individual higher education institutions. This article first discusses the meaning of and relationship between the globalisation and internationalisation of higher education, as their influence on the emergence of global rankings is undeniable. It then outlines the methodological designs of four main global university rankings which serve as key prerequisites for the subsequent analyses of both the international(‐isation) indicators that these rankings include and of the international ranking initiatives that focus exclusively on the international outlook of higher education institutions. In the concluding discussion, the article reveals that, due to the predominantly quantitative orientation of global university rankings (on the internationalisation of higher education), their results should not be generalised or understood as a means to improve the quality of (internationalisation of) higher education.

This paper discusses the relevance of global ranking systems as a policy instrument of strategic planning, quality management and public accountability of higher education institutions (HEI) in Kazakhstan. Being one of the world’s fastest growing economies, Kazakhstan has set priorities on developing a knowledge-based society for global competition. Celebrating its 20th anniversary of independence from the former Soviet Union, the nation has become the first of five Central-Asian countries to introduce its higher education institutions in global rankings. Yet, there is little empirical work or theoretical treatment of the influence of global rankings on the government’s educational policy of Central Asian states. In addition, both the increasing impact of global and national rankings of HEIs in Kazakhstan and the government’s decision to motivate local academic institutions to take top tiers in global ranking systems prompt us to better understand how higher education institutions respond to the rankings.

Global university rankings have existed for only a decade and yet they have received unprecedented attention from higher education policy experts and scholars, as well as from politicians and the general public (Cheng and Liu, 2006, 2007; Erkkilä and Kauppi, 2010; Hazelkorn, 2008; Marginson and van der Wende, 2007; Salmi and Saroyan, 2007; Salmi, 2009). Previous analyses of global university rankings have concentrated on the methodology they use and their social effects from the perspective of efficiency and quality assurance (Dehon, Vermandele and Jacobs, 2009; Shin, Toutkoushian and Teichler, 2011), their impacts on higher education institutions (HEIs) (Hazelkorn, 2011) and their ability to reshape the higher education landscape in terms of its diversity (Kehm and Stensaker, 2009). There are also studies on the global governance of higher education that identify university rankings as one of its elements (King, 2010; Shin and Kehm, 2013).Global university rankings have existed for only a decade and yet they have received unprecedented attention from higher education policy experts and scholars, as well as from politicians and the general public (Cheng and Liu, 2006, 2007; Erkkilä and Kauppi, 2010; Hazelkorn, 2008; Marginson and van der Wende, 2007; Salmi and Saroyan, 2007; Salmi, 2009). Previous analyses of global university rankings have concentrated on the methodology they use and their social effects from the perspective of efficiency and quality assurance (Dehon, Vermandele and Jacobs, 2009; Shin, Toutkoushian and Teichler, 2011), their impacts on higher education institutions (HEIs) (Hazelkorn, 2011) and their ability to reshape the higher education landscape in terms of its diversity (Kehm and Stensaker, 2009). There are also studies on the global governance of higher education that identify university rankings as one of its elements (King, 2010; Shin and Kehm, 2013).

Recent interest towards university rankings has led to the development of several ranking systems at national and global levels. Global ranking systems tend to rely on internationally accessible bibliometric databases and reputation surveys to develop league tables at a global level. Given their access and in-depth knowledge about local institutions, national ranking systems tend to include a more comprehensive set of indicators. The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic comparison of national and global university ranking systems in terms of their indicators, coverage and ranking results. Our findings indicate that national rankings tend to include a larger number of indicators that primarily focus on educational and institutional parameters, whereas global ranking systems tend to have fewer indicators mainly focusing on research performance. Rank similarity analysis between national rankings and global rankings filtered for each country suggest that with the exception of a few instances global rankings do not strongly predict the national rankings.

This research explores how China has responded to global university ranking systems and successfully positioned itself by examining the history and development of international university rankings and their impact on global higher education institutions (HEIs). China's rise within these rankings is the focus along with the policies and strategies that enabled its HEIs, particularly through initiatives like the 211 and 985 projects. These policies, aimed at fostering elite universities, have influenced the international status of Chinese universities. This chapter also looks at the socio-political factors that shape Chinese HEIs, including governance structures and academic freedom, highlighting challenges in aligning with global standards. Lastly, the research discusses the broader implications of these policies on Chinese HEIs and its role in the global landscape. The findings suggest that while China has made considerable strides in improving its HEIs' global rankings, challenges remain in achieving true academic autonomy and balancing domestic priorities with international recognition.

PurposeThe higher education system has been entrusted globally to provide quality education, especially to the youth, and equip them with required skills and capabilities. The visionaries and policymakers of the countries around the world have been working relentlessly to improve the standard of the higher education system by establishing national and global accreditation and ranking bodies and expecting measuring performance through setting up accreditation and ranking parameters. This paper focuses on the review of Indian university accreditation and ranking system and determining its efficacy in improving academic quality for achieving good position in global quality accreditation and ranking.Design/methodology/approachThe study employed exploratory research approach to know about the accreditation and ranking issues of Indian higher education institutions to overcome the challenges for being globally competitive. The accreditation and ranking parameters and score of leading Indian universities was collected from secondary data sources. Similarly, the global ranking parameters and scores of these Indian universities with top global universities was explored. The performance gaps of Indian university in global academic quality parameter is assessed by comparing it with scores of global top universities. Further, each domestic and global accreditation and ranking parameters have been taken up for discussion.FindingsThe study identified teaching and learning, research and industry collaboration as common parameter in the accreditation and ranking by Indian and global accreditation and ranking body. Furthermore, the study revealed that Indian accreditation and ranking body assess leniently on parameters and award high scores as compared to rigorous global accreditation and ranking practice. The study revealed that “research” and “citations” are important parameters for securing prestigious position in global ranking, this is the reason Indian universities are trailing. The study exposed that Indian academic fraternity lack prominence in research, publication and citations as per need of global accreditation and ranking standards.Research limitations/implicationsThe limitation of this study is that it focused only on few Indian and global accreditation and ranking bodies. The future implication of this study will be the use of methodology designed in this study for comparing accreditation and ranking bodies’ parameters of different continents and countries in different economic development stages i.e. emerging and developed economies to know the disparity and shortcomings in their higher education system.Practical implicationsThe article is a review and comparison of national and global accreditation and ranking parameters. The article explored the important criteria and key indicators of accreditation and ranking that would provide an important and meaningful insight to academic institutions of the emerging economies of the world to develop its competitiveness. The study contributed to the literature on identifying benchmark for improving academic and higher education institution quality. This study would be further helpful in fostering new ideas toward setting up of contemporary globally viable and acceptable academic quality standard.Originality/valueThis is possibly the first study conducted with novel methodology of comparing the Indian and global accreditation and ranking parameters to identify the academic quality performance gap and suggesting ways to attain academic benchmark through continuous improvement activity and process for global competitiveness.

This article contributes to the debate on university organisational actorhood by surveying the drivers of university strategic behaviour and choice. Utilising organisational literature and interviews with senior leaders from three Canadian research-intensive universities, the article elucidates the dynamics underlying universities’ behaviours associated with global university rankings. Contrary to previous studies, the analysis suggests that global rankings exert more influence on Canadian universities than it is commonly assumed. Findings show that (1) global rankings are integral to the case universities’ strategic positioning, legitimacy managing, and revenue-generating efforts in an era where government funding has become a source of constant concern; (2) global rankings are perceived more important than Maclean’s – Canada’s national university ranking – for institutional priorities and promotional strategies; and (3) specialised personnel and units have been created by universities to optimise data flows and improve their ranking positions. The article additionally examines contemporary issues on the academic landscape that create the conditions for institutionalising global rankings, a course of action commonly perceived as irreconcilable with the egalitarian ethos and flatter hierarchical structure of Canada’s postsecondary education. The article offers a new perspective on the determinants of strategic behaviour and organisational change in higher education and outlines directions for future research.

Purpose This paper aims to investigate how global university rankings interact with quality and quality assurance in higher education along the two lines of investigation, that is, from the perspective of their relationship with the concept of quality (assurance) and the development of quality assurance policies in higher education, with particular emphasis on accreditation as the prevalent quality assurance approach. Design/methodology/approach The paper firstly conceptualises quality and quality assurance in higher education and critically examines the methodological construction of the four selected world university rankings and their references to “quality”. On this basis, it answers the two “how” questions: How is the concept of quality (assurance) in higher education perceived by world university rankings and how do they interact with quality assurance and accreditation policies in higher education? Answers are provided through the analysis of different documentary sources, such as academic literature, glossaries, international studies, institutional strategies and other documents, with particular focus on official websites of international ranking systems and individual higher education institutions, media announcements, and so on. Findings The paper argues that given their quantitative orientation, it is quite problematic to perceive world university rankings as a means of assessing or assuring the institutional quality. Like (international) accreditations, they may foster vertical differentiation of higher education systems and institutions. Because of their predominant accountability purpose, they cannot encourage improvements in the quality of higher education institutions. Practical implications Research results are beneficial to different higher education stakeholders (e.g. policymakers, institutional leadership, academics and students), as they offer them a comprehensive view on rankings’ ability to assess, assure or improve the quality in higher education. Originality/value The existing research focuses principally either on interactions of global university rankings with the concept of quality or with processes of quality assurance in higher education. The comprehensive and detailed analysis of their relationship with both concepts thus adds value to the prevailing scholarly debates.

Global university rankings have reshaped the landscape of higher education (HE) across various parts of the globe. The intensified competition stirred by these rankings has significantly affected academic lifestyles. The quest for global university rankings has also inevitably increased the degree of homogenisation amongst universities. Given the negative impact of global university rankings on university development, these rankings have been criticised as game playing, whilst some countries and institutions are beginning to withdraw themselves from the competition. This article sets out against the above context to review Chinese government's response to the challenges and its policy changes. Findings suggest policy responses occur very differently in different areas. Instead of simply following the rules and criteria set by global university rankings, China is trying to set its own criteria. This article contributes to the theoretical and practical understanding of China's responses to the global rankings.

University rankings have altered the landscape of higher education around the world, and it is expected to continue to affect higher education institutions (HEI). The objective of this book chapter was to explore the implications of global university ranking systems on higher education in Ghana. Three ranking systems; times higher education (THE) world university rankings, webometrics ranking, and quacqarelli-symonds (QS) rankings in which the University of Ghana features were reviewed. Further, this book chapter discusses the impact that ranking systems have on higher education and its stakeholders. The study established that collaboration between the faculty and libraries is critical to ensuring higher scores by the ranking systems. This book chapter concludes that HEI in Ghana need to reposition libraries to better support universities in enhancing the visibility and ranking of the university globally. Finally, the authors have provided specific local solutions to be adopted by stakeholders in HEI.

The starting point of this study is the argument that not only rankings of higher education institutions (HEIs) are inescapable, but so is the constant criticism to which they are subjected. Against this background, the paper discusses how HEIs from Central and Eastern Europe countries (CEECs) are (non)represented in the main global university rankings. The analysis adopts two perspectives: 1) From the point of view of higher education in CEECs – what are the specificity, basic problems and perspectives of higher education in CEECs as seen through the prism of the global ranking systems? 2) From the point of view of the ranking systems – what strengths and weaknesses of the global ranking systems can be identified through the prism of higher education in CEECs? The study shows that most of the HEIs from CEECs remain invisible in the international and European academic world and tries to identify the main reasons for their (non)appearance in global rankings. It is argued that although global rankings are an important instrument for measuring and comparing the achievements of HEIs by certain indicators, they are only one of the mechanisms – and not a perfect one – for assessing the quality of higher education.

The discrepancies among various global university rankings derive us to compare and correlate their results. Thus, the 2015 results of six major global rankings are collected, compared and analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively using both ranking orders and scores of the top 100 universities. The selected six global rankings include: Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Quacquarelli Symonds World University Ranking (QS), Times Higher Education World University Ranking (THE), US News & World Report Best Global University Rankings (USNWR), National Taiwan University Ranking (NTU), and University Ranking by Academic Performance (URAP). Two indexes are used for comparison namely, the number of overlapping universities and Pearson's/Spearman's correlation coefficients between each pair of the studied six global rankings. The study is extended to investigate the intra-correlation of ARWU results of the top 100 universities over a 5-year period (2011---2015) as well as investigation of the correlation of ARWU overall score with its single indicators. The ranking results limited to 49 universities appeared in the top 100 in all six rankings are compared and discussed. With a careful analysis of the key performance indicators of these 49 universities one can easily define the common features for a world-class university. The findings indicate that although each ranking system applies a different methodology, there are from a moderate to high correlations among the studied six rankings. To see how the correlation behaves at different levels, the correlations are also conducted for the top 50 and the top 200 universities. The comparison indicates that the degree of correlation and the overlapping universities increase with an increase in the list length. The results of URAP and NTU show the strongest correlation among the studied rankings. Shortly, careful understanding of various ranking methodologies are of utmost importance before analysis, interpretation and usage of ranking results. The findings of the present study could inform policy makers at various levels to develop policies aiming to improve performance and thereby enhance the ranking position.