CAPÍTULO III: DISEÑO DEL DISPOSITIVO DE MONITOREO
3.5 Diseño de programación
The Reitor methodology, as described on the Methodology
section of the website (see Reitor, Methodology), shows that the Reitor ranking compilers planned to use a number of indicators that many of the most popular global rankings do not usually use, for example:
• number of study programmes by level (bachelor, specialist) • number of student winners of international student
academic competitions
• number of staff publications other than articles in scientific journals, namely monographs, textbooks, manuals and others
• number of certificates on discoveries and patents for inventions obtained by the university and its research officers and scholars
• total value of the training and laboratory facilities of the universities in US dollars
• proportion of teaching staff having doctoral degrees • number of staff who have been awarded honorary doctorates
from foreign universities
• number of professors who are members of the international and national Academies of Sciences as of the last academic year
• characteristics of ‘socially significant’ activities of the graduates, e.g. being prominent in culture, business, politics, being government officials or executives of international organisations
• number of various kinds of publications by the faculty (articles, textbooks and manuals, monographs, etc.) • more indicators on the internationalisation of universities
in addition to the foreign student and staff proportions. In particular, indicators of short-term mobility of staff and students, measuring incoming and outgoing streams of both (Reitor 2008a).
In addition to quantitative indicators, using the results of a reputation survey was also foreseen. The survey was part of the overall survey form sent to the universities participating in the ranking. The universities participating in the ranking were thus also asked for their opinion on which 10 foreign universities are “leading by education and executive training quality” (Reitor, 2008b). The indicators and survey methodology is also described in an article by the leading Reitor Ranking compilers (Kruzhalinin & Artjushina, 2008), which states that several experts at the same university can vote for the 10 best foreign universities, but that their opinions must be consolidated into a single view expressed by the university. It is underlined that having to vote for foreign universities only “enables to exclude the «patriotic» component of the evaluation as well as it is possible to enlarge the university geography” (sic) (Reitor 2008a; Kruzhalinin & Artjushina, 2008).
What methodology has actually been used? Vladimir Moskovkin (2009) draws attention to the sharp discrepancies between the sections ‘Methodology’ and ‘About the ranking’ as well as to the fact that some important information on the indicators is not presented in the ‘Methodology’ pages, but rather described in the ‘About the ranking’ page. A more in-depth analysis of the description of the methodology led to a suprising finding: a major part of the indicators listed in the ‘Methodology’ section on the Reitor website as well as the planned expert survey have not actually been used. Bibliometric indicators have been used instead. Nevertheless, the ‘Methodology’ page of the Reitor website remains unchanged. A possible reason for this change of approach could be that, although a wide range of universities had been invited to participate and complete the ranking questionnaire, only 63 universities, including just nine universities from outside the CIS, actually responded. It can be confirmed that ranking compilers sent their thanks for completing the questionnaire to a mere 63 universities (Reitor, 2009b). However, a large part of the originally chosen indicators require data input from all universities, not just from a limited number. This might explain why the ranking providers suddenly switched to different indicators based on internationally available data. While digging further into the Reitor website, two interesting sources were found, which clarified the methodology actually used: the following description of the methodology is based on Reitor’s ‘About the ranking’ page (Reitor, 2009a) and Reitor’s presentation of the ranking results at the Lomonosov Moscow State University (Reitor, 2009c), which are also
31 The Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities by the Taiwan Higher Education Accreditation and Evaluation Council is
36
quoted by Vladimir Moskovkin (e.g. Moskovkin, 2009). It should first be noted that some important decisions on the calculation of the ranking results were left to the discretion of the Reitor expert pool.
According to Reitor, the expert pool sets the: • “Rating scales for every performance indicator • Weight of every indicator in a block [of indicators] and • Weight of the score of each block [in the total score]”
(Reitor, 2008a).
While the weights of each block of indicators in the total score can be found on the ‘About the ranking’ page, the weights of the individual indicators within the block cannot be obtained via publicly available sources. Hence it is not possible to follow the calculation of the aggregated scores.
The methodology actually used. Table 6 (from Reitor 2009c) is a summary of the methodology actually used. It differs substantially from the indicator list set out on the Reitor website in the section entitled ‘Methodology’, as described above.
Further details about the indicators:
The Educational activity of a university is characterised by four straightforward indicators:
• Number of programmes that the university offers in all three cycles, which count for three indicators
• Student/staff (FTE) ratio.
Research performance is measured by:
• Number of patents and registered discoveries since 2001, using data from Scopus
• Performance of the computer centre of the university as an indicator to show the university’s research capacity. Data is taken from the Top 500 of supercomputers33
• H-index for all authors of a university, calculated from Scopus data.
Staff professional competence is judged by:
• Number of Nobel Prizes, Fields medals and others, such as the Descartes prize34, Abel prize35, the Lomonosov medal of
the Russian Academy of Sciences, and the Russian «Global Energy» award since 2001
32 ‘Specialist programmes’ in the Russian Federation and some other CIS countries are an equivalent of the pre-Bologna 5-6 year ‘Diploma’
programmes in continental Europe
33 http://www.top500.or/
34 The Descartes Prize is an annual award in science given by the European Union since 2000, named in honour of the French mathematician
and philosopher, René Descartes. The research prize is awarded to teams of researchers who have “achieved outstanding scientific or technological results through collaborative research in any field of science, including the economic, social science and humanities.”
35 The Abel Prize, which was awarded for the first time in 2003, amounts to NOK 6 million (approximately EUR 750,000 or USD 1 million).
It is an international prize for outstanding scientific work in the field of mathematics, including mathematical aspects of computer science, mathematical physics, probability, numerical analysis and scientific computing, statistics.
Blocks of
indicators Weight Indicators I. Educational
activity 20% 1. Number of educational bachelor, specialist
32, master and doctoral programmes
2. Student/staff ratio
II. Research
activity 20% 3. Number of certificates on discoveries and patents since 20014. Performance of the computer centre of the university 5. H-index of the university
III. Financial
maintenance 15% 6. Total budget of the university per full-time student IV. Professional
competence of the faculty
20% 7. Number of staff winning world-level awards (Nobel Prizes, Fields medals and others such as Descartes prize; Abel prize, the Lomonosov medal, the Russian «Global Energy» award
8. Number of staff publications
9. Citations and references to staff publications
V. International
activity 10% 10. International academic communities in which the university was involved in the last academic year 11. Proportion of foreign students in the previous year
VI. Internet
audience 15% 12. Volume of web-products13. Request popularity of the university
14. Page Rank of the main page of the university’s site
Table 6. Weighting of broad indicator categories and list of indicators that have actually been used
37
• Number of staff publications in referenced journals since 2001
• Citations and references to staff publications since 2001.
Financial maintenance, understood as financial capacity, has a weight of 15%. The indicator value is actually the total budget of the university in the preceding year per full-time student. The International activity of a university has a weight of 10% and is evaluated using two indicators that are explained as follows:
• “Universities’ activity in the international academic communities. Due to the [high] number of such communities of the world evaluation is carried out as expert appraisal of this activity” (Reitor, About the ranking)
• Total number of foreign students divided by the total number of students in the university.
Internet audience. Three indicators are used:
• The volume of web-products is included because “it characterises the development of Internet technologies in the universities in preparation and advancement of scientific and methodical publications” (Reitor, About the ranking36)
• The ‘request popularity’ of the university is measured as the number of queries received by the university website in 2008
• Google Page Rank of the main homepage of the respective university’s website, for autumn of 2008 was used.
data sources
(according to Reitor 2008b)
Given that few universities – around 10% of those to whom the questionnaire was distributed – returned a completed survey, it is likely that the rest of the data have been taken from university websites or offices gathering statistical data on education. Searches on university websites is also mentioned as an additional data source by the ranking compilers themselves (Reitor, 2009a):
“The compilers of the rating have carried out the scaled work on search and editing of public data, using following informational sources:
• Official sites of universities • Annual reports of universities
• National agencies specializing in gathering and processing educational statistics
• Various ratings which may also include estimated universities (for example, Top-500 rating of the world supercomputers) • Records of the scientometric data base Scopus
• Google search system data”.
calculating indicator values and transforming them into
scores
The description on the Reitor ‘Methodology’ page says that each expert evaluates each indicator for all universities. The total score for each particular indicator is calculated as the average of all expert evaluations. Should there be a spread of more than 15% across the expert evaluations, then an expert discussion takes place to determine the final value based on consensus (Reitor, ‘Methodology’). It is difficult to judge whether this procedure has been followed or not.
changes in the methodology over time
The ranking was first published in 2009 and there is no follow-up as yet. It is important to remember, however, that the methodology descriptions on the Reitor website are contradictory. Three different versions exist – a first given in the ‘Methodology’ section, a second contained in the ‘About the ranking’ page and a third provided in the presentation given at Lomonosov Moscow State University.
presentation of the ranking and additional analysis
produced
Besides the main league table, there is one ranking that includes countries by number of universities in the Top 500, and one showing the Russian Federation and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) universities.
38