IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/umiodp/82011.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ein Ranking von Hochschulen und (Bundes-)Ländern am Beispiel der Betriebswirtschaftslehre

Author

Listed:
  • Müller, Harry
  • Dilger, Alexander

Abstract

Die Analyse und der Vergleich des Outputs wirtschaftswissenschaftlicher Fachbereiche erfahren eine anhaltend hohe Aufmerksamkeit. Evaluationen und Rankings schaffen für die Hochschule als Anbieter von Forschungs- und Lehrleistungen mehr Klarheit über den eigenen Output und verringern die Informationsasymmetrien auf den Märkten, auf denen die Hochschule mit potentiellen Studierenden oder den Nachfragern von Forschungsergebnissen interagiert. Das bekannteste Forschungsleistungsranking betriebswirtschaftlicher Fachbereiche ist 2009 vom Handelsblatt vorgelegt worden. Dessen Methodologie erweist sich allerdings sowohl hinsichtlich der Datenbasis als auch der verwendeten Aggregationsmethode als nicht unproblematisch. Bezugnehmend auf diese Kritik wird ein zitationsbasiertes Ranking mit Google Scholar entworfen. Es soll den aktuellen Output der betriebswirtschaftlichen Fachbereiche in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz abbilden. Für die Rangfolgebildung werden drei alternative Kriterien vorgeschlagen. Im Anschluss sollen mittels einer ökonometrischen Schätzung mögliche Einflussfaktoren auf die Platzierungen identifiziert werden. Abschließend werden die Daten zudem auf der Ebene der (Bundes-)Länder aggregiert, um auch diese hinsichtlich der in ihnen erbrachten betriebswirtschaftlichen Forschungsleistungen miteinander zu vergleichen.

Suggested Citation

  • Müller, Harry & Dilger, Alexander, 2011. "Ein Ranking von Hochschulen und (Bundes-)Ländern am Beispiel der Betriebswirtschaftslehre," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 8/2011, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:umiodp:82011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/50008/1/66760300X.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vincent Larivière & Éric Archambault & Yves Gingras & Étienne Vignola‐Gagné, 2006. "The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(8), pages 997-1004, June.
    2. Benjamin M. Althouse & Jevin D. West & Carl T. Bergstrom & Theodore Bergstrom, 2009. "Differences in impact factor across fields and over time," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(1), pages 27-34, January.
    3. Dilger, Alexander & Müller, Harry, 2011. "Ein Forschungsleistungsranking auf der Grundlage von Google Scholar," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 12/2011, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    4. Dilger, Alexander & Müller, Harry, 2010. "A citation based ranking of German-speaking researchers in business administration with data of Google Scholar," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 1/2010, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    5. Dilger, Alexander, 2009. "Rankings von Zeitschriften und Personen in der BWL," IÖB-Diskussionspapiere 5/09, University of Münster, Institute for Economic Education.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Müller, Harry, 2013. "Zur Ethik von Rankings im Hochschulwesen: Eine Betrachtung aus ökonomischer Perspektive," CIW Discussion Papers 1/2013, University of Münster, Center for Interdisciplinary Economics (CIW).
    2. Müller, Harry & Dilger, Alexander, 2013. "Der Einfluss des Forschungsschwerpunkts auf den Zitationserfolg: Eine empirische Untersuchung anhand der Gesamtpublikationen deutschsprachiger Hochschullehrer für BWL," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 1/2013, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    3. Müller, Harry, 2012. "Die Zitationshäufigkeit als Qualitätsindikator im Rahmen der Forschungsleistungsmessung," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 1/2012, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    4. Dilger, Alexander, 2013. "Soll man das Handelsblatt-Ranking BWL boykottieren?," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 3/2013, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    5. Dilger, Alexander & Müller, Harry, 2011. "Ein Forschungsleistungsranking auf der Grundlage von Google Scholar," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 12/2011, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    6. Marcel Clermont & Alexander Dirksen & Barbara Scheidt & Dirk Tunger, 2017. "Citation metrics as an additional indicator for evaluating research performance? An analysis of their correlations and validity," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 10(2), pages 249-279, October.
    7. Aslıhan Sezgin & Keziban Orbay & Metin Orbay, 2022. "Educational Research Review From Diverse Perspectives: A Bibliometric Analysis of Web of Science (2011–2020)," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    8. Pajić, Dejan, 2015. "On the stability of citation-based journal rankings," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 990-1006.
    9. Lorenzo Ductor & Sanjeev Goyal & Anja Prummer, 2018. "Gender & Collaboration," Working Papers 856, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    10. Matteo Migheli & Giovanni Battista Ramello, 2018. "The market of academic attention," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(1), pages 113-133, January.
    11. Keith Head & Yao Amber Li & Asier Minondo, 2019. "Geography, Ties, and Knowledge Flows: Evidence from Citations in Mathematics," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 101(4), pages 713-727, October.
    12. Dunaiski, Marcel & Geldenhuys, Jaco & Visser, Willem, 2019. "On the interplay between normalisation, bias, and performance of paper impact metrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 270-290.
    13. Sándor Soós & Zsófia Vida & András Schubert, 2018. "Long-term trends in the multidisciplinarity of some typical natural and social sciences, and its implications on the SSH versus STM distinction," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 795-822, March.
    14. Adèle Paul-Hus & Rébecca L. Bouvier & Chaoqun Ni & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Vladimir Pislyakov & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "Forty years of gender disparities in Russian science: a historical bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1541-1553, February.
    15. Battiston, Pietro & Sacco, Pier Luigi & Stanca, Luca, 2022. "Cover effects on citations uncovered: Evidence from Nature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    16. Shahd Al-Janabi & Lee Wei Lim & Luca Aquili, 2021. "Development of a tool to accurately predict UK REF funding allocation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 8049-8062, September.
    17. Jerome K. Vanclay, 2012. "Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 211-238, August.
    18. Jing Li & Qiushuang Long & Xiaoli Lu & Dengsheng Wu, 2023. "Citation beneficiaries of discipline-specific mega-journals: who and how much," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    19. Dorta-González, P. & Dorta-González, M.I., 2013. "Impact maturity times and citation time windows: The 2-year maximum journal impact factor," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 593-602.
    20. Huang, Mu-Hsuan & Huang, Wei-Tzu & Chen, Dar-Zen, 2014. "Technological impact factor: An indicator to measure the impact of academic publications on practical innovation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 241-251.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions
    • I20 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - General
    • A11 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Role of Economics; Role of Economists

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:umiodp:82011. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ilmuede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.