A Review on the Major Global University Ranking Systems and the Turkish Universities' Overall Position in Rankings
Yükseköğrenim alanında giderek artan rekabetçi ortam etkisiyle son yıllarda üniversite sıralama sistemleri üzerine olan araştırmalar oldukça önem kazandı. Bu makale, özellikle Türkiye'deki akademisyenlerin ve bu konuda söz sahibi yöneticilerin, uluslararası üniversite sıralama sistemleri üzerine dikkatlerini çekmeyi ve Türk üniversitelerinin bu sıralamalardaki konumunu ortaya koymayı amaçlanmıştır. Bu bağlamda, dünyadaki en önemli sıralama sistemleri kendi internet sitelerinden özellikle ölçütleri açısından incelenmiştir. Bu inceleme sonucunda, 2011'den başlayarak 2016 yılına kadar 6 yıllık bir dönemde üniversitelerimizin bu sıralamalarda ilk 500'deki yeri, her sıralama sisteminin orijinal web sitesinden ve URAP raporlarından elde edilen veriler derlenerek tablolar halinde sunulmuştur. Bu çalışma sonucunda özellikle iki bulgu dikkate değer bulunmuştur. Birincisi, incelenen altı sıralama sisteminde de araştırma performansının ne denli önemli bir ölçüt olduğu; ikincisi ise üniversitelerimizin bu sıralamalarda çok da iyi bir pozisyonda olmadığıdır. Bu araştırma, akademiyle ilgilenen tüm paydaşlara üniversite sıralama sistemlerinin amaçlarını, önemini, ölçütlerini göstermeyi ve üniversitelerimizin uluslararası sıralamalardaki konumunu anlamaları hususunda onlara yardımcı olmayı hedeflemiştir. Böylelikle, çalışmanın, üniversitelerimizin konumunun iyileştirilmesinin gerekliliği hususunda bir farkındalık oluşturması beklenmektedir. Bir sonraki araştırmamızda, birçok sıralama sisteminde en önemli kıstas olarak gözlemlenen araştırma performansı konusu irdelenecek ve böylece konuyla ilgili daha geniş ve bütüncül bir bakış açısı oluşturulmaya çalışılacaktır
Üniversite Sıralama Sistemleri ve Bu Sıralamalarda Türk Üniversiteleri'nin Konumu Üzerine Bir İnceleme
Amidst the increasingly competitive environment in the field of higher education, world ranking systems have gained more research attention in recent years. In this article, the main objectives are to attract attention of especially Turkish academics and policy makers to university ranking systems in the world and to show the overall position of Turkish universities in these ranking systems. With this aim, the major rankings were specially examined in terms of their measurements from the original websites of them. As a result of this review, the position of Turkish universities among the top 500 universities in these rankings over a six-year period are determined from 2011 to 2016; then, obtained data through the original websites of these ranking systems and the reports of the URAP are compiled and presented in tables. Two issues can be observed from the study: research performance is one of the major indicators used in all world ranking systems, and the overall position of Turkish universities in such rankings is not very good. This article can help all staff in academia provide the better understand the goals, importance and measurements of ranking systems and Turkish Universities' position in these rankings. Thus, the study tries to create awareness about the need of improving their position. After this paper, the further research is likely to examine the concept of research performance as an important criterion of determining the universities' position in the major world rankings to obtain a broad and comprehensive perspective
___
Aguillo, I. F., Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Ortega, J. L. (2010). Comparing university rankings. Scientometrics, 85(1), 243-256.Alaşehir, O., Çakır, M. P., Acartürk, C., Baykal, N., & Akbulut, U. (2014). URAP-TR: a national ranking for Turkish universities based on academic performance. Scientometrics, 101(1), 159-178. ARWU. (2015). Retrieved from
http://www.shanghairanking.com/ ARWU2015.html
ARWU. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU- Methodology-2015.html
Bastedo, M. N., & Bowman, N. A. (2011). College rankings as an interorganizational dependency: Establishing the foundation for strategic and institutional accounts. Research in higher education, 52(1), 3-23.
Bazeley, P. (2010). Conceptualizing research performance. Studies in Higher Education, 35(8), 889-903.
Bowman, N. A., & Bastedo, M. N. (2011). Anchoring effects in world university rankings: exploring biases in reputation scores. Higher Education, 61(4), 431-444.
Burke, K., Fender, B., & Taylor, S. (2007). Walking the tightrope: the impact of teaching and service on scholarly productivity for accountants. Academic Business World International Conference, Nashville, Tennessee, USA, May 28-30, pp. 1-13.
Cheng, Y., Wang, Q., & Liu, N. C. (2014). How world-class universities affect global higher education. In How world-class universities affect global higher education (pp. 1-10). Sense Publishers.
CWTS Leiden Ranking. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.leidenranking.com/ methodology CWTS Leiden Ranking. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.leidenranking.com/ranking/2016/list
Çakır, M. P., Acartürk, C., Alaşehir, O., & Çilingir, C. (2015). A comparative analysis of global and national university ranking systems. Scientometrics, 103(3), 813-848.
Çetinsaya, G. (2014). Büyüme, kalite, uluslararasılaşma: Türkiye yükseköğretimi için bir yol haritası [Growth, quality, internationalization: A roadmap for higher education in Turkey]. Eskişehir, Turkey: Yükseköğretim Kurulu.
Dichev, I. D. (1999). How Good Are Business School Rankings?. The Journal of Business, 72(2), 201-213.
Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49(4), 495-533.
Gormley, W.T. Jr., & Weimer, D.L. (1999). Organizational report cards. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University.
Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2012). Do better schools lead to more growth? Cognitive skills, economic outcomes, and causation. Journal of Economic Growth, 17(4), 267-321.
Hazelkorn, E. (2008). Learning to live with league tables and ranking: The experience of institutional leaders. Higher Education Policy, 21(2), 193-215.
Hossler, D. (2000). The problem with college rankings. About Campus, 5(1), 20- 24.
Hunter, B. (1995). College guidebooks: Background and development. New Directions for İnstitutional Research, 1995(88), 5-12.
Jesensek, M. (2006). Why the rankings are important. Katedra (Maribor), 1(4), 6-7.
Li, M., Shankar, S., & Tang, K. K. (2011). Why does the USA dominate university league tables? Studies in Higher Education, 36(8), 923-937.
Lukman, R., Krajnc, D., & Glavi?, P. (2010). University ranking using research, educational and environmental indicators.Journal of Cleaner Production,18(7), 619-628.
Machung, A. (1998). Playing the ranking game. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 30(4), 12-16.
Mahoney, K. T., Buboltz Jr, W. C., Calvert, B., & Hoffmann, R. (2010). Research productivity in select psychology journals, 1986-2008. The Journal of Psychology, 144(4), 361-411.
Marconi, G. (2013). Rankings, accreditations, and international exchange students. IZA Journal of European Labor Studies, 2(1), 1.
Marconi, G., & Ritzen, J. (2015). Determinants of international university rankings scores. Applied Economics, 47(57), 6211-6227.
Monks, J., & Ehrenberg, R. G. (1999). US News & World Report's college rankings: Why they do matter. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 31(6), 42-51.
NTU Ranking. (2015). Retrieved from http://nturanking.lis.ntu.edu.tw/ BackgroundMethodology
NTU Ranking. (2015). Retrieved from http://nturanking.lis.ntu.edu.tw
QS TOPUNIVERSITIES. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.topuniversities. com/qs-world-university-rankings/methodology/
QS TOPUNIVERSITIES. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.topuniversities. com/qs-world-university-rankings
Salmi, J., & Saroyan, A. (2007). League tables as policy instruments: Uses and misuses. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19, 1-39.
Sauder, M., & Lancaster, R. (2006). Do rankings matter? The effects of US News & World Report rankings on the admissions process of law schools. Law & Society Review, 40(1), 105-134.
Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. W. (2005). The worldwide expansion of higher education in the twentieth century. American Sociological Review, 70, 898- 920.
Sponsler, B. (2009). The role and relevance of rankings in higher education policymaking. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.
Stuart, D. L. (1995). Reputational rankings: Background and development. New Directions for İnstitutional Research, 1995(88), 13-20.
URAP. (2016). Retrieved from http://tr.urapcenter.org/2016/ URAP. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.urapcenter.org/ /methodology.php?q=2
Usher, A., & Savino, M. (2007). A global survey of university league tables. Higher Education in Europe, 32(1), 5-15.
YÖK. (2016). Higher education statistics. Retrieved from https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/
YÖK. (2016). Universities. Retrieved from http://www.yok.gov.tr/web/ universitelerimiz
- ISSN: 1300-4832
- Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
- Başlangıç: 1995
- Yayıncı: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık Eğitim Danışmanlık Hizmetleri Tic. Ltd. Şti.
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler
Okul Yöneticilerinin Girişimcilik, Öz-Yeterlik ve Örgütsel Bağlılık Algılarının Analizi
FATMA KÖYBAŞI ŞEMİN, Burhanettin DÖNMEZ
Eğitim Yönetiminde Epistemik Bunalımın Arkeolojisi
MUNİSE SEÇKİN KAPUCU, Çiğdem APAYDIN
Atasözleri Bağlamında Türk Toplumunun Yöneticisinde Görmek İstediği Yeterlikler