1. 1 AC 21 International Forum Competition and Cooperation among Universities in the age of Internationalization An Analysis of Positions Mobility of Global Rankings: The Effective Use of Global Rankings in Making Institutional Strategic Plans and Positioning for Building World Class Universities Dr. Angela Yung-chi Hou Dean of Office of Research & Development, Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan Director of Faculty Development & Instructional Resources Center, Fu Jen Catholic University 18-21 OCT, 2010 Shanghai

2. 2 Introduction Globalization in the 21st century presents universities and states with a number of challenges and opportunities. No matter whether countries are developed or developing ones, they are immensely eager to build at least one world class university, but they don’t know exactly what they look like.

3. 3 What does a world class university look like ? In terminology – world class universities are top universities striving for “Excellence”, in other words, it means “its quality must surpass the expectation of their various stakeholders ” Philip Altbach –excellence in research, top professors, academic freedom and an atmosphere of intellectual excitement, governance, adequate facilities and funding. Jamil Salmi (World Bank) based on two rankings (Shanghai and QS) – a high concentration of talent (faculty and students) –abundant resources to offer a rich learning environment and conduct advanced research –favorable governance (features that encourage strategic vision, innovation and flexibility, and enable institutions to make decisions and manage resources without being encumbered by bureaucracy)

4. 4 Relevance between global rankings and World Class University the characteristics of world class universities are inevitably deemed to be strongly correlated to most indicators used by global rankings. Many nations tend to use global rankings as a basis of building world class universities despite their well documented methodological flaws. Many top administrators at leading universities are learning to use global rankings wisely in order to achieve the institutional short term and long term strategic plans, not just to boycott them. –Minnesota’s initiative to become one of the top three research institutions in the world –Taiwan National University announced the initiative of “Moving into the top 100” at its 80th anniversary –Baylor University put the vision on making the institution one of the U.S. News Top 50 by 2012.

5. 5 Characteristics of 4 Major Global rankings and their methodological limitations ARWU QS (THE)* WebmetricsHEEACT Established year20032004 2007 InstitutionAcademic institution Mass media/Private Education consulting firm Governmental research unit QA Agency GoalAcademic competition Profit makingAcademic sharingBenchmarking Number of indicators 6648 Indicator category Research output/ learning input Research output / reputation/ learning input Web size/ research output/ reputation Research output Data sourcesDatabaseSurvey/ database/ institution databaseDatabase Outcomes Presentation Only Top 100 of 500 institutions are shown in numerical orders Top 400 are shown in numerical orders Top 1000 in numerical order Top 500 in numerical order Transparency Highly mediumMediumHighly medium

6. 6 Methodological limitations of global rankings Reductionism / Simplicity Research focus Unfair for humanities, arts and social science fields English domination Arbitrary selection of indicators and weightings

7. 7 Popular use of global rankings by stakeholders Students are using ranking tables in their decision-making about where to study. Governments are taking advantage of rankings to know where to invest Scientists use them to know where to work Institutions use rankings to know where they stand and whom they can partner with. –OECD survey in 2007 showed: over 50 % of respondents regarded rankings as a positive impact on the institution’s reputation and helping its development, such as student recruitment, academic partnerships and collaborations and staff morale. Majority of the institutions were found to incorporate the outcomes of rankings into their strategic planning processes at all levels of the organization and to take policy actions based on them. 70 % wanted to be in the top 25 internationally

8. 8 Research design and method The main purpose is to explore the leading factors in 4 major global rankings which will most affect the rank mobility of an institution in terms of standard deviation and K mean of cluster analysis. a sophisticated model of strategic institutional framework for becoming a world class university is proposed

9. 9 Major Findings Statistical analysis on the major indicators in 4 global rankings by correlation coefficients Rank differences and moving up in 4 global rankings

10. 10 Statistical analysis on the major indicators in 4 global rankings by correlation coefficients

11. 11 Correlation coefficients among indicators by cluster in ARWU ranking Rank Score on Alumni Score on Award Score on HiCi Score on N&S Score on PUB Score on PCP 1~30 0.812**0.875**0.860**0.900**0.3190.728** 0.000 0.0860.000 31~70 -0.1510.2500.440**0.741**0.1290.010 0.3510.1200.0040.0000.4260.952 71~10 0 0.1710.0640.0610.1000.426*0.235 0.3660.7380.7470.5990.0190.211 90~11 0 -0.0750.1700.0410.1840.110-0.090 0.7390.4490.8560.4130.6270.692 1~1000.761**0.838**0.871**0.930**0.636**0.783** 0.000

12. 12 Correlation coefficients among indicators by cluster in QS ranking Rank Academic Peer Review Employer Review Faculty Student Citations per Faculty International Faculty International Student s 1~30 0.452*0.2010.629**0.627**0.0590.278 0.0120.2860.000 0.7580.137 31~70 0.318*0.486**0.2240.135-0.0060.210 0.0430.0010.1590.4010.9690.187 71~100 0.214-0.047-0.1580.2210.0510.031 0.2660.8100.4130.2490.7920.874 90~110 -0.1230.2810.206-0.024-0.0020.144 0.5840.2050.3570.9150.9950.522 1~100 0.700**0.523**0.565**0.363**0.1400.341** 0.000 0.1650.001

13. 13 Correlation coefficients among indicators by cluster in HEEACT ranking Ranks Number of articles in the last 11 years Number Of articles in the Current years Number of citations in the last 11 years Number of citations in the last 2 years Number Of citations in the last 11 years H-index Number of Highly Cited papers articles in High \impact journals in the current year 1~30 0.825**0.881**0.987**0.991**0.482**0.903**0.974**0.989** 0.000 0.0070.000 31~70 0.414**0.422**0.679**0.694**0.0310.525**0.662**0.495** 0.0080.0070.000 0.8470.000 0.001 71~100 -0.0170.0910.3490.577**0.2380.405*0.1770.312 0.9290.6320.0590.0010.2050.0260.3500.094 90~110 0.2310.0410.3630.2860.1410.0220.3380.108 0.3140.8590.1060.2090.5410.9260.1340.642 1~100 0.854**0.834**0.984**0.988**0.439**0.920**0.971**0.977** 0.000

14. 14 Correlation coefficients among indicators by cluster in Webmetrics ranking RankSIZEVISIBILITYRICHSCHOLAR 1~30 0.807**0.946**0.606**0.756** 0.000 31~70 0.449**0.797**0.595**0.531** 0.0040.000 71~100 0.473*0.3310.1700.361 0.0110.0850.3880.059 90~110 -0.3300.578**-0.285-0.004 0.1430.0060.2100.987 1~100 0.845**0.949**0.835**0.822** 0.000

15. 15 Rank differences and moving up in 4 global rankings

16. 16 ARWU-Numbers of positions moving up by clusters Clusters Numbers of Positions moving up No of institutions % Average Positions improved (mean) SD (No.) Cluster one1-1715671.6%6.514.65 Cluster two18-505525.2%29.3310.88 Cluster three0ver 5073.2%74.7115.76 total218100.0% Highest moving up positions 94

17. 17 ARWU-Numbers of positions moving up and down by indicators

18. 18 QS RANKINGS Numbers of positions moving up by clusters Clusters Numbers of ranks moving up No of institutions % Average Ranks improved (mean) Standard deviation Cluster one1-3014484.7%13.1510.11 Cluster twoover 302615.3%62.8419.69 total number of moving ups170100.0% Highest moving up positions 125

19. 19 WEBOMETRICS: Numbers of positions moving up by clusters Clusters Numbers of positions moving up No of institutions % Average positions improved (mean) SD (No) Cluster one1-3915664.5%16.2110.90 Cluster two 40-997631.4%61.4516.49 Cluster three Over 100104.1%137.4034.03 total number of moving ups242 100.0 % Highest moving up positions 212

20. 20 HEEACT Numbers of positions moving up by clusters Clusters Numbers of Positions moving up No of institutions % Average positions increased (mean) SD (No. ) Cluster one1-1915366.2%8.245.34 Cluster two20-456126.4%30.237.11 Cluster threeOver 46177.4%60.1810.49 total number of moving ups231100.0% Highest moving up positions82

21. 21 Comparison among 4 global rankings by positions rising ARWU QSWebmetricsHEEACT Cluster one1-17 1-30 1-391-19 Cluster two20-45 Over 30 40-9920-45 Cluster threeOver 46 X Over 100Over 46 total number of positions moving ups 218(500) 170 (400) 242 (500)231(500) Highest ranks moving up94 12521282

22. 22 Major factors for positions mobility Staying on the top 30: –Award of “Nobel Prize” is the most influential indicators to be on top 30 in ARWU –“Academic peer review” in QS rankings, –‘Internet visibility’ in Webometrics, – “Citations in the last 2 years” in HEEACT ranking. Moving into top 100: – HiCi, N& S and PUB are the most influential indicators in ARWU, – “Academic peer review” in QS rankings, –‘Size’ in Webometrics, –“Citations in the last 2 years and papers” and “H-Index” in HEEACT ranking. Moving up positions: –PCP, N& S and PUB are the key factors in ARWU – “Academic peer review” in QS rankings –“Visibility’ in Webometrics – H-index in HEEACT rankings

23. 23 Flow Chart of Implication of 4 Global Ranking on Making Institutional Strategic Plans Webometrics RankingQS RankingsARWU/Shanghai Ranking HEEACT Ranking: Used to inspect the quality and quantity of FACUTLY publications annually Short term(3-5 years) Mid-term 5-15 years Long-term(15~30years) Technology/Internet International Reputation Academic Excellence

24. 24 Summary The proposal of the strategic planning model above is completely based on the 4 global rankings, so leading factors in the 3 categories are definitely relevant to the research outputs of an institution. Some of these indicators will take longer time to improve, such as Nobel Laureates and Academic peer review. If all institutions follow the model, it’s highly likely that not all of them will actually move into the ranking in the spots they expect to be. it is necessary to note that these are only guidelines and not meant to be used as a rigid cause and effects. Academics should not to rely on a single model only to implement in terms of educational policy.

25. 25 Conclusion To achieve a good rankings is becoming more and more important Global rankings are increasingly being used as a tool for building world class universities

26. 26 Final question raised by the paper To what extent can a world class university be replicated by using the factors highlighted in a ranking model and how can it be done? The answer is both yes it can be replicated and no it can’t be.

27. 27 Yes and No Answers The model, based on statistical analysis, can only provide very rough guidance and clues to institutions on which road to take to achieve academic excellence. a clear vision, institutional features, favourable governance, and sufficient resources which were not taken into consideration in the above model (or in the 4 global rankings themselves) are all very crucial if a university is to rise and stay top in the rankings.

28. 28 “THERE IS NO SINGLE ROAD TO EXCELLENCE” by Jamil Salmi (2010)

29. 29 Thank you for your attention Question and Comments Fu Jen Catholic University Higher Education Evaluation & Accreditation Council of Taiwan