Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

University Rankings, the Triple Helix Model and Webometrics: Opening Pandora’s Box

964 views

Published on

University Rankings, the Triple Helix Model and Webometrics: Opening Pandora’s Box

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Hey guys! Who wants to chat with me? More photos with me here 👉 http://www.bit.ly/katekoxx
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

University Rankings, the Triple Helix Model and Webometrics: Opening Pandora’s Box

  1. 1. University Rankings, the Triple Helix Model and Webometrics: Opening Pandora’s Box Prof. Han Woo Park Dept of Media & Communication, Yeungnam Univ Pieter Stek Doctoral Student, Delft University of Technology
  2. 2. Disclaimer The views expressed in this presentation reflect personal opinions which may or may not coincide with the views of the organization with which the authors are affiliated.
  3. 3. https://www.triplehelixassociation.org/webinar-series/university-rankings
  4. 4. Aims • Understanding the methodologies and impact of existing university rankings • Discussing how advances in Webometrics may lead to new university rankings • Opening Pandora’s box: towards a Triple Helix Ranking of Universities
  5. 5. Agenda • Introducing university rankings • Webometrics of academia • A Triple Helix Ranking concept – Debating the pros and cons
  6. 6. University rankings
  7. 7. Which is your favorite?
  8. 8. Rankings compared Criterion QS THE Shanghai Leiden Academic publications, Nobel, Fields 20% 36% 90% 100% Reputation survey 50% 33% Faculty/student ratio 20% 4.5% International 10% 7.5% Other 8.25% (doctor-bachelor ratio) 2.5% (industry income) 8.25% (income) 10% (per capita performan ce)
  9. 9. Some national rankings • Joongang Ilbo (Korea) Faculty research (33%), education and financial (30%), reputation and alumni (20%), internationalization (17%) • U.S. News and World Report (USA) Reputation (22.5%), selectivity (12.5%), faculty resources (20%), graduation/retention rates (30%), financial (15%) • Zeit CHE Ranking (Germany) At course level, course features + student and faculty opinion survey • Research Assessment Framework (UK) At department level, focusing on ‘originality, significance and rigor’, thus including research impact • Etc.
  10. 10. Alternative: Trojan Condom Ranking
  11. 11. PartySchoolRanking
  12. 12. Rankings summary & claims • Matter to students, parents, employers and governments • So they matter to universities • Propositions: – Rankings are changing universities – Rankings are a policy tool – Rankings reflect consumer power
  13. 13. Webometrics of academia
  14. 14. Internet presence • Essential questions: – Who is mentioned? (content analysis) – By whom? (citation network analysis) on the internet – What does this say about the underlying academic system? • We present some findings published in Scientometrics: – Barnett et al. (2013) – [B] – Lee & Park (2012) – [L] – Chung & Park (2012) – [C]
  15. 15. Universities • [B] Universities network centrality on the academic internet (e.g. harvard.edu, tudelft.nl, yu.ac.kr) has a statistically significant correlation with: – University size – Number of Nobel Prizes – Rankings (U.S. News) – Doctoral degrees yes/no – English-speaking yes/no – Bandwidth capacity – Physical distance is irrelevant • And at the national level: – Citations, co-authorship, student exchange, total number of weblinks
  16. 16. Webometrics rankings? • They exist: webometrics.info, which is based on an inbound link measure • [B] Academic web network centrality is predictive of rankings (U.S. News) • [L] Web visibility is also highly predictive of rankings (Shanghai) • There is an ‘English speaking’ bias/benefit
  17. 17. Scholars • [C] Online visibility of scholars also correlates to their SSCI output • There is again an ‘English speaking’ bias/benefit
  18. 18. Webometrics summary & claims • Web indicators (content and network) correlate to other academic performance measures • Webometrics are regarded as ‘reliable’, but not all links and content are valid • Propositions: – Who links to you is what you are – Web presence matters for universities and individual scholars – Web presence should be part of university’s institutional strategy
  19. 19. A Triple Helix Ranking concept
  20. 20. Triple Helix interaction matters for… • Students & parents: get a job – For some: become entrepreneurs • Academics: more money for research • Companies: better innovation • Government: happy people and companies – and innovation eventually grows the tax base
  21. 21. Some indicators • Co-authorship across TH sectors • Citations of scientific documents in patents • Mentions of university in industry/government media/websites (and vice-versa?) • Production of patents by/with universities • Number of start-ups from/near the university • Industry R&D funding • Employability • Mobility of researchers across TH sectors
  22. 22. Likely pitfalls • Taking into account local context – Matters little to students and parents – Matters to government, local people • Unintended side-effects of ranking strategies – Is the Triple Helix a means or an end? • Too similar to current rankings: nothing new • Differences between fields – e.g. theatre vs. electrical engineering – one size does not fit all
  23. 23. The Triple Helix: back to basics • Three sectors (strands) – industry, university and government… – or more? – international, user/consumer • Co-evolution – through communication between members of different sectors • Balance – no single actor is dominant, they lead together • Benefits – for all actors involved, and the innovation ecosystem • Multiscalar – acts on different scales
  24. 24. The Customized Helix-Beyond UIG • What are the main Helix ‘strands’ in different sectors? • Some suggestions: Theatre Nursing Engineering (“traditional” TH) Actors and writers Audience Producers Government (censorship, subsidy) Hospitals & doctors Patients Nursing School Regulator Companies Consumers/Users Universities Government
  25. 25. The Customized Helix • Even differentiation within fields: Accounting Marketing Human Resources Accounting board Investors Tax agency Business school Firms Advertising agencies Consumers Business school Labour unions Firm management Labour regulation Business school
  26. 26. The role of webometrics • Provide large-scale quantitative evidence to understand/confirm cross-sector interactions taking place • Versatility in data sources, i.e. goes beyond patents and academic articles • Considers both network and content
  27. 27. Propositions 1. The strength of the Triple Helix lies in it being a conceptual model – What the sectors are, is of secondary importance 2. A Triple Helix ranking can be a hybrid tool for policy makers, academics and students alike 3. Webometrics is less biased than other indicators of university quality
  28. 28. Time’s up! • Thank you for participating. Should you wish to get in touch with us: • Prof. Han Woo Park – hanpark@ynu.ac.kr, www.hanpark.net • Pieter Stek – p.e.stek@tudelft.nl

×