Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? An NCDM view
This paper proposes a critical analysis of the “Academic Ranking of World Universities”, published every year by the Institute of Higher Education of the Jiao Tong University in Shanghai and more commonly known as the Shanghai ranking. After having recalled how the ranking is built, we ﬁrst discuss the relevance of the criteria and then analyze the proposed aggregation method. Our analysis uses tools and concepts from Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM). Our main conclusions are that the criteria that are used are not relevant, that the aggrega- tion methodology is plagued by a number of major problems and that the whole exercise suﬀers from an insuﬃcient attention paid to fundamental structuring is- sues. Hence, our view is that the Shanghai ranking, in spite of the media coverage it receives, does not qualify as a useful and pertinent tool to discuss the “quality” of academic institutions, let alone to guide the choice of students and family or to promote reforms of higher education systems. We outline the type of work that should be undertaken to oﬀer sound alternatives to the Shanghai ranking.
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
|Date of creation:||2010|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||Published in Scientometrics, 2010, Vol. 84, no. 1. pp. 237-263.Length: 26 pages|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.dauphine.fr/en/welcome.html|
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Laurens Cherchye & Wim Moesen & Nicky Rogge & Tom Van Puyenbroeck & Michaela Saisana & A. Saltelli & R. Liska & S. Tarantola, 2006. "Creating Composite Indicators with DEA and Robustness Analysis: the case of the Technology Achievement Index," Public Economics Working Paper Series ces0613, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën, Working Group Public Economics.
- Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Ensslin, Leonardo & Correa, Emerson C. & Vansnick, Jean-Claude, 1999. "Decision Support Systems in action: Integrated application in a multicriteria decision aid process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 315-335, March.
- Jill Johnes, 2006. "Measuring Efficiency: A Comparison of Multilevel Modelling and Data Envelopment Analysis in the Context of Higher Education," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 75-104, 04.
- Hutchel, Armand & Molet, Hughues, 1986. "Rational modelling in understanding and aiding human decision-making: About two case studies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 178-186, January.
- Eden, Colin, 1988. "Cognitive mapping," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 1-13, July.
- Sen, Amartya, 1993. "Internal Consistency of Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(3), pages 495-521, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dau:papers:123456789/2947. 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: (Alexandre Faure)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.