1. Research Performance Ranking of Universities in Taiwan Prof. Ru-Jer Wang Department of Education, Graduate Institute of Educational Policy & Administration, National Taiwan Normal University Dean of Office of Research Development, Higher Education Evaluation & Accreditation Council of Taiwan

2. I. Introduction There are two common methods to promote university transparency around the globe. One is horizontal classification, another is vertical classification. Despite criticism by college communities against current university rankings, more ranking systems have been proposed. This study discusses the research performance measurement and the ranking procedures for colleges and universities in Taiwan.

3. Due to escalating competiveness among higher educational institutions, the question of “institutional diversity” draws public attention. Likewise, due to the universalization of higher education, curriculum and institutional heterogeneity gradually emerge as issues. II. Research background & purposes(1/2) As a result, transparency of higher educational institutions is essential for understanding of institutional diversity and heterogeneity. In order to increase institutional transparency, two common methods have been widely adopted for classifications. Although college communities have criticized these methods of ranking, more ranking systems have been proposed.

4. 1.to understand the measurement of university research performance ; 2.to analyze the ranking of research performance designed for universities; 3.to propose suggestions for improving the research performance of universities in Taiwan. II. Research background & purposes(2/2) This study focuses on the research performance ranking of universities in Taiwan. The research purposes are:

5. III. Literature Review Measurement discussions often rely on the following information: 7)Information obtained from peer review 1)Bibliometric data 2)The number of awards received by an individual faculty member 3)Information of graduate students 4)Information of faculty members 5)Research funding obtained from external sources 6)Research income information

6. IV. Research Method  the number of research projects approved by NSC  the number of NSC Outstanding Research Awards earned  the number of Research Achievement Awards  the number of National Professionalships received from the MOE This study conducted secondary data analysis to rank universities in Taiwan based on their research performance. The following measurement items are indicators of research performance:

7. V. Results & Discussions(1/8) The results of statistical analysis on the number of research projects approved by NSC, the number of NSC Outstanding Research Awards, the number of Research Achievement Awards, and National Professionalships received from the Ministry of Education, include overall academic productivity and academic productivity per faculty member.

8. V. Results & Discussions(2/8) 2003-2007 overall academic productivity of the top 30 universities2003-2007 overall academic productivity of the top 30 universities 2003-2007 academic productivity per faculty members of the top 30 universities2003-2007 academic productivity per faculty members of the top 30 universities

9. V. Results & Discussions(3/8) Resource: http://www.arwu.org/index.jsphttp://www.arwu.org/index.jsp http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=438

10. V. Results & Discussions(4/8)  In the case of the number of NSC Outstanding Research Awards, the number of Research Achievement Awards and National Professionalships received from the Ministry of Education, rankings of the top 10 universities vary.  Overall, four measurement items of academic productivity are positively correlated with one another.

11. V. Results & Discussions(5/8) Pearson product-moment － Overall academic productivity

12. V. Results & Discussions(6/8) Pearson product-moment － Average academic productivity per faculty member

13. V. Results & Discussions(7/8) Spearman correlation coefficient—Ranking of overall academic productivity

14. V. Results & Discussions(8/8) Spearman correlation coefficient—Ranking of average academic productivity per faculty member

15. VI. Suggestions 1.When the government provides funding to universities, it should take school scale into consideration. 2.When universities pursue research performance, they should adopt diverse development strategies based on their size and average performance; by contrast, in terms of ranking, for schools where overall academic productivity is higher than the average academic productivity per faculty member, steps must be taken to reward outstanding members in order to improve average research performance.

16. Thanks for Listening Please email to edurjw14@ntnu.edu.tw Rujer Wang National Taiwan Normal University