The Impact Of Weighting Preferences On University Rankings: The Example Of Bulgaria
On the basis of data from the official Bulgarian University Ranking System (BURS launched in 2011 and updated in 2012), the selection of weights for different indicators in a university ranking system is discussed. Weights represent the importance assigned to the different dimensions of performance measured through ranking, and can therefore be regarded as quantified value statements. Weight preferences differ across groups of stakeholders or even from one agent to another. In this paper a number of stochastic simulations using 4 initial sets of weights are made. The actual weights applied to BURS —simple uniform weights— are derived from a survey encompassing 15,000 university students as well as weights determined by university rectors. The results show that rankings, whose value is relatively neutral —with a set of weights closer to uniformity— are more vulnerable to small random fluctuations. Value laden rankings with asymmetric weights as in the case of BURS are more resilient to slight disturbance(s) however are very unstable in the case of the rearrangement of priorities. A consistent ranking system demands asymmetric weighting, which means strong value statements and prioritisation. The problem however with such a ranking system is that if heavily weighted preferences do not capture important elements of performance, the whole system can become not just marginally imprecise but also very erroneous.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 12 (2012)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.usc.es/economet/eaa.htm|
|Order Information:|| Web: http://www.usc.es/economet/info.htm Email: |
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Bernardino, Pedro & Marques, Rui, 2009. "Academic rankings: an approach to a Portuguese ranking," MPRA Paper 17297, University Library of Munich, Germany.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eaa:eerese:v:12:y2012:i:3_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (M. Carmen Guisan)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.