IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-00877050.html

Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? An MCDM view

Author

Listed:
  • Jean-Charles Billaut

    (LIFAT - Laboratoire d'Informatique Fondamentale et Appliquée de Tours - UT - Université de Tours - INSA CVL - Institut National des Sciences Appliquées - Centre Val de Loire - INSA - Institut National des Sciences Appliquées)

  • Denis Bouyssou

    (LAMSADE - Laboratoire d'analyse et modélisation de systèmes pour l'aide à la décision - Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Philippe Vincke

    (CODE - CODE - ULB - Université libre de Bruxelles = Free University of Brussels)

Abstract

This paper proposes a critical analysis of the "Academic Ranking ofWorld 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 aggregation methodology is plagued by a number of major problems and that the whole exercise suffers from an insufficient attention paid to fundamental structuring issues. 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean-Charles Billaut & Denis Bouyssou & Philippe Vincke, 2009. "Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? An MCDM view," Working Papers hal-00877050, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-00877050
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-00877050v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-00877050v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eden, Colin, 1988. "Cognitive mapping," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 1-13, July.
    2. 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.
    3. 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, April.
    4. Denis Bouyssou, 1990. "Building Criteria: A Prerequisite for MCDA," Post-Print hal-02920174, HAL.
    5. Denis Bouyssou, 1989. "Modelling Inaccurate Determination, Uncertainty, Imprecision Using Multiple Criteria," Post-Print hal-02920179, HAL.
    6. L Cherchye & W Moesen & N Rogge & T Van Puyenbroeck & M Saisana & A Saltelli & R Liska & S Tarantola, 2008. "Creating composite indicators with DEA and robustness analysis: the case of the Technology Achievement Index," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(2), pages 239-251, February.
    7. Marie-Laure Bougnol & José Dulá, 2006. "Validating DEA as a ranking tool: An application of DEA to assess performance in higher education," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 339-365, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Thed N. Van Leeuwen & Henk F. Moed & Robert J. W. Tijssen & Martijn S. Visser & Anthony F. J. Van Raan, 2001. "Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequencesfor international comparisons of national research performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(1), pages 335-346, April.
    10. Nian Cai Liu & Ying Cheng & Li Liu, 2005. "Academic ranking of world universities using scientometrics - A comment to the “Fatal Attraction”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 64(1), pages 101-109, July.
    11. Răzvan V. Florian, 2007. "Irreproducibility of the results of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(1), pages 25-32, July.
    12. David Adam, 2002. "The counting house," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6873), pages 726-729, February.
    13. Sen, Amartya, 1993. "Internal Consistency of Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(3), pages 495-521, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Domingo Docampo, 2013. "Reproducibility of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities results," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 567-587, February.
    2. Jean-Charles Billaut & Denis Bouyssou & Philippe Vincke, 2010. "Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 237-263, July.
    3. Gasser, Patrick, 2020. "A review on energy security indices to compare country performances," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    4. Julia Melkers & Agrita Kiopa, 2010. "The Social Capital of Global Ties in Science: The Added Value of International Collaboration," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 27(4), pages 389-414, July.
    5. Csató, László & Tóth, Csaba, 2020. "University rankings from the revealed preferences of the applicants," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(1), pages 309-320.
    6. Fernando García & Francisco Guijarro & Javier Oliver, 2021. "A Multicriteria Goal Programming Model for Ranking Universities," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-17, February.
    7. Saisana, Michaela & d'Hombres, Béatrice & Saltelli, Andrea, 2011. "Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 165-177, February.
    8. Kuang-hua Chen & Pei-yu Liao, 2012. "A comparative study on world university rankings: a bibliometric survey," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(1), pages 89-103, July.
    9. J�rôme Kasparian & Antoine Rolland, 2012. "OECD's ‘Better Life Index’: can any country be well ranked?," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(10), pages 2223-2230, June.
    10. Shiyu Hedy Wu & Ganghua Chen & Zhenting Li & Jigang Bao, 2026. "Reassessing Global Rankings: a critical review of ShanghaiRanking’s GRAS in Tourism and Hospitality," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 131(2), pages 1285-1320, February.

    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. Jean-Charles Billaut & Denis Bouyssou & Philippe Vincke, 2010. "Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 237-263, July.
    2. Billaut, Jean-Charles & Bouyssou, Denis & Vincke, Philippe, 2010. "Faut-il croire le classement de Shangaï ?," Revue de la Régulation - Capitalisme, institutions, pouvoirs, Association Recherche et Régulation, vol. 8.
    3. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    4. Tsoukias, Alexis, 2008. "From decision theory to decision aiding methodology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(1), pages 138-161, May.
    5. Ludo Waltman & Clara Calero-Medina & Joost Kosten & Ed C.M. Noyons & Robert J.W. Tijssen & Nees Jan Eck & Thed N. Leeuwen & Anthony F.J. Raan & Martijn S. Visser & Paul Wouters, 2012. "The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(12), pages 2419-2432, December.
    6. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2019. "Highly cited researchers: a moving target," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1011-1025, March.
    7. José María Gómez-Sancho & María Jesús Mancebón-Torrubia, 2009. "The evaluation of scientific production: Towards a neutral impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 435-458, November.
    8. Veljko Jeremic & Milica Bulajic & Milan Martic & Zoran Radojicic, 2011. "A fresh approach to evaluating the academic ranking of world universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 587-596, June.
    9. Kristof De Witte & Laura López-Torres, 2017. "Efficiency in education: a review of literature and a way forward," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 68(4), pages 339-363, April.
    10. Domingo Docampo, 2013. "Reproducibility of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities results," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 567-587, February.
    11. Tzeremes, Nickolaos & Halkos, George, 2010. "A DEA approach for measuring university departments’ efficiency," MPRA Paper 24029, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Alan Peter Matthews, 2012. "South African universities in world rankings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(3), pages 675-695, September.
    13. Joseph R. Kakeneno & Cathal MacSwiney Brugha, 2017. "Usability of Nomology-based methodologies in supporting problem structuring across cultures: the case of participatory decision-making in Tanzania rural communities," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 25(2), pages 393-415, June.
    14. Leo Freyer, 2014. "Robust rankings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(2), pages 391-406, August.
    15. Vicente Safón, 2013. "What do global university rankings really measure? The search for the X factor and the X entity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 223-244, November.
    16. Alexis Tsoukiàs, 2007. "On the concept of decision aiding process: an operational perspective," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 3-27, October.
    17. Daraio, Cinzia & Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Simar, Léopold, 2015. "Rankings and university performance: A conditional multidimensional approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(3), pages 918-930.
    18. Angel García Correas & Manuel Larran Jorge, 2010. "Análisis de diferentes medidas de la eficiencia investigadora y factores explicativos en las universidades públicas españolas," Investigaciones de Economía de la Educación volume 5, in: María Jesús Mancebón-Torrubia & Domingo P. Ximénez-de-Embún & José María Gómez-Sancho & Gregorio Gim (ed.), Investigaciones de Economía de la Educación 5, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 36, pages 703-732, Asociación de Economía de la Educación.
    19. George E. Halkos & Nickolaos G. Tzeremes & Stavros A. Kourtzidis, 2012. "Measuring Public Owned University Departments' Efficiency: A Bootstrapped DEA Approach," Journal of Economics and Econometrics, Economics and Econometrics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 1-24.
    20. M. L. Bougnol & J. H. Dulá, 2013. "A mathematical model to optimize decisions to impact multi-attribute rankings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 785-796, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:hal:wpaper:hal-00877050. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.