www.che.de what can national rankings learn from the u-multirank-project ? gero federkeil, che,...
TRANSCRIPT
www.che.de
What Can National Rankings Learn from the U-Multirank-Project ?
Gero Federkeil, CHE, Germany
IREG-Forum: National University Rankings on the RiseBratislava, 10-11 Oct. 2011
2
Part 1
- U-Multirank basics
IREG Forum | Gero Federkeil | Bratislava 2011-10-10
IREG Forum | Gero Federkeil | Bratislava 2011-10-10 3
The project
• Commissioned by the European Commission• 2-year project, 2009 – June 2011• Report now available:
http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc/multirank_en.pdf
• Ján Figel, the former European Commissioner for Education, Training, Culture and Youth:
“- to allow stakeholders to make informed choices; - to help institutions to position themselves and improve their performance”
• Two phases:o Design of new instrumento Testing the feasibility of new instrument
IREG Forum | Gero Federkeil | Bratislava 2011-10-10 4
Specification of U-Multirank
• Five dimensions:o Teaching & learningo Researcho Knowledge transfero International orientationo Regional engagement
• Long list of indicators to be tested in pilot project
• development of data collection tools and processes (question-naires, definitions, FAQs, communication + feedback processes)
• methods for building ranking groups instead of league tables
IREG Forum | Gero Federkeil | Bratislava 2011-10-10 5
Testing U-Multirank
• Two levels:• Institution (FIR)• Fields (FBR)
• Global sample of higher education and research institutions: • 159 (target: 150), 2/3 Europe, • 109 completed institutional questionnaires
• Two fields: • Business studies• Engineering (electrical and mechanical)
Bais logic: Mapping Diversity
IREG Forum | Gero Federkeil | Bratislava 2011-10-10 6
Diversity of higher education institutions in Europe & the world
Identifying comparable institutions that can be
compared in one ranking
CLASSIFICATION
Description of horizontal diversity
Types/profiles
RANKINGS
Assessment of vertical diversity
Performance
Complementary instruments of transparency
+
Mapping and Ranking
IREG Forum | Gero Federkeil | Bratislava 2011-10-10 7
Mapping: Selection of a comparable set of universities based on institutional profiles
Teaching and learning
Research involvement
Knowledge exchange
Regional engagement
International orientation
Student profile
Example:
• Comprehensive, teaching oriented institution• Mainly undergraduate education• Low research orientation• Low international orientation• Regionalyl embedded (e.g. recruiting)
Subset of comparable institutions to be compared in a ranking
Mapping and Ranking
IREG Forum | Gero Federkeil | Bratislava 2011-10-10 8
Ranking: Multi-dimensional ranking for subset of institutions
No composite
indicator!
No number 1 !
9
Part 2
(What) can national rankings learn from U-Multirank?
IREG Forum | Gero Federkeil | Bratislava 2011-10-10
Mapping and Ranking
IREG Forum | Gero Federkeil | Bratislava 2011-10-10 10
Most national HE systems are diversified HE systems: Different types/profiles of institutions exist
Need to identify comparable institutions for ranking
Mapping systems can increase the comparabiliy and improve the quality of rankings
U-Map defines indicators for mapping & is setting a standard for Europe
Multi-dimensional Approach
IREG Forum | Gero Federkeil | Bratislava 2011-10-10 11
• Multi-Multirank identified a set of indicators for 5 dimensions
• U-Multirank introduced 2 „new“ dimensions:
• knowledge transfer• regional engagement
• Indicators have been discussed intensively with stakholders
Innovative indicators
IREG Forum | Gero Federkeil | Bratislava 2011-10-10 12
Teaching and learning:
For rankings which want to inform (prospective) students indicators based on students‘ assessment of their teaching and learning experience are highly useful and are feasible (in most settings)
Knowledge transfer:
• Joint publications with industry• Research funds from industry
• But problems with regard to data (e.g. on spin offs/licenes)
Innovative indicators
IREG Forum | Gero Federkeil | Bratislava 2011-10-10 13
International Orientation
Rating indicator on international orientation of programmes is more meaningful than linear ranking of number of int. students
Regional Engagement:
• Important for many HEIs yet most problematic dimension in U-Multirank
• Bibliometric indicator: Regional co-publications• Further development is necessary
User-driven Approach
IREG Forum | Gero Federkeil | Bratislava 2011-10-10 14
• Intensive stakeholder consultation helped to increase acceptance
• Multi-dimensional, personalised rankings allow• individual users to produce ranking based on their own
preferences and • networks and aossciations of universities to start
benchmarking / create their own ranking
Data collection
IREG Forum | Gero Federkeil | Bratislava 2011-10-10 15
• International rankings have to rely on self-reported data due to lack of international data bases (except bibliometric, patent data)
• Feedback loop with universities concerning self-reported data on institution, faculties & programmes helped to increase consistency & quality of data
• Parallel / conflicting national data collections (e.g. student surveys)
raises issue of coordination national – international rankings in general
16
Outlook
IREG Forum | Gero Federkeil | Bratislava 2011-10-10
Outlook: National rankings and U-Multirank
IREG Forum | Gero Federkeil | Bratislava 2011-10-10 17
• There will be a continuing demand for national rankings !
• Definition of a core set of indicators for national rankings and U-Multirank?
• Network of national rankings, e.g. Germany – Austria – Switzerland - Netherlands – Spain …. that share data which can be used for U-Multirank
18
Thank you very much!
More information:
www.che-ranking.de
www.u-multirank.eu
www.che.de
What Can National Rankings Learn from the U-Multirank-Project ?
Gero Federkeil, CHE, Germany
IREG-Forum: National University Rankings on the RiseBratislava, 10-11 Oct. 2011