IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v27y2018i4p388-403..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Defining typologies of universities through a DEA-MDS analysis: An institutional characterization for formative evaluation purposes

Author

Listed:
  • Eva M de la Torre
  • Fernando Casani
  • Marti Sagarra

Abstract

Universities are organizational structures with individual activity mixes or strategies that lead to different performance levels by mission. Evaluation techniques based on performance indicators or rankings risk rewarding just a specific type of university and undermining university diversification: they usually introduce homogenizing pressures and risk displacing university objectives—neglecting their socio-economic contribution and focusing on succeeding on the evaluation system. In this study, we propose an alternative evaluation method that overcomes these limitations. We produce a multidimensional descriptive classification of universities into typologies, while analysing the relation between their institutional factors (characteristics) and their (technical) efficiency performance from a descriptive perspective. To do so we apply bootstrap data envelopment analysis (DEA) and multidimensional scaling analysis (MDS), performing a so-called DEA-MDS analysis on data on the Spanish university system, and unlike previous studies, we include data on an important dimension of the third mission of universities (specifically knowledge transfer, KT) in their characterization. We identify six types of (homogeneous) universities. Results indicate that to be fairly efficient, universities may focus on teaching, KT, or overall efficiency but always have to fairly perform in research. Additionally, results confirm the relevance of the third mission as a source of institutional diversity in higher education. This approach could be used to address an alternative evaluation methodology for higher education institutions with formative purposes, evaluating universities according to their unique characteristics for the improvement of HE systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Eva M de la Torre & Fernando Casani & Marti Sagarra, 2018. "Defining typologies of universities through a DEA-MDS analysis: An institutional characterization for formative evaluation purposes," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(4), pages 388-403.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:27:y:2018:i:4:p:388-403.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvy024
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jonathan C. Ho & Demei Lee, 2021. "Research commercialisation performance in different types of universities: case from Taiwan," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8617-8634, October.
    2. Wuzhao Xue & Hua Li & Rizwan Ali & Ramiz ur Rehman & Gonzalo Fernández-Sánchez, 2021. "Assessing the Static and Dynamic Efficiency of Scientific Research of HEIs China: Three Stage DEA–Malmquist Index Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-21, July.
    3. Renato Bruni & Giuseppe Catalano & Cinzia Daraio & Martina Gregori & Henk F. Moed, 2019. "Studying the Heterogeneity of European Higher Education Institutions," DIAG Technical Reports 2019-12, Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Universita' degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza".
    4. Renato Bruni & Giuseppe Catalano & Cinzia Daraio & Martina Gregori & Henk F. Moed, 2020. "Studying the heterogeneity of European higher education institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1117-1144, November.
    5. Róbert Štefko & Jarmila Horváthová & Martina Mokrišová, 2021. "The Application of Graphic Methods and the DEA in Predicting the Risk of Bankruptcy," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-19, May.

    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:oup:rseval:v:27:y:2018:i:4:p:388-403.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    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.