DOCSLIB.ORG

Informational Analysis of International University Rankings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

INFORMATIONAL ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY RANKINGS Master thesis by Marc Gallofré Ocaña Directed and supervised by Prof. Joan Antoni Pastor Collado A thesis submitted for the degree of Master in Innovation and Research in Informatics FACULTAT D’INFORMÀTICA DE BARCELONA TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF CATALONIA Barcelona, Spain 2017 Defended October 27th, 2017 © 2017 Marc Gallofré Ocaña ORCID: 0000-0001-7637-3303 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. "The one exclusive sign of thorough knowledge is the power of teaching." – Aristotle ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Professor Joan Antoni Pastor Collado for his expert advice in super- vising my final master thesis. I would like to thank my family, especially to my parents, for all the advises and sweet support that they give to me. v ABSTRACT This work on the informational analysis of international rankings is motivated by the fact that international university rankings are increasing their impact and importance. Given their diversity of origins, purposes and procedures, it makes sense to try to in- crease their knowledge and understanding by clearly defining and comparing them from an informational stance. This research-orientated master thesis (master final project or TFM) addresses this pur- pose, by aiming at a clear and comparative definition of both the information managed by those rankings, as well as their respective processes for capturing, processing and publishing their results. These comparative definitions are carried using the Method for informational analysis of university rankings derived and designed from the experience of pursing the analysis work within this master thesis. At the same time, this method al- lows to assess transparency on rankings and helps to clarify the focus of the information used for rank universities. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements . v Abstract . vii List of Illustrations . xi List of Tables . xiii Nomenclature . xv Chapter I: Introduction . 1 Chapter II: Research Methodology . 3 2.1 Research Approach and Methodologies . 3 2.2 Research Plan . 3 2.3 Planning . 4 2.4 Research Plan Changes . 5 Chapter III: State of the Art . 7 3.1 University Rankings . 7 3.2 University Ranking Classification . 11 3.3 University Ranking Observatories . 12 3.4 IREG Observatory . 12 3.5 UNESCO Report . 13 3.6 EUA Reports . 14 3.7 Social Aspects in University Rankings . 14 Chapter IV: Method for Informational Analysis of University Rankings . 15 4.1 Ranking Process . 15 4.2 Ranking Conceptual Model . 16 4.3 Ranking Calculus Method . 16 4.4 Ranking Evaluation . 16 Chapter V: U-Multirank . 19 5.1 Ranking Process . 19 5.2 Ranking Conceptual Model . 24 5.3 Ranking Calculus Method . 30 5.4 Ranking Evaluation . 30 Chapter VI: QS Ranking . 37 6.1 Ranking Process . 37 6.2 Ranking Conceptual Model . 42 6.3 Ranking Calculus Method . 43 6.4 Ranking Evaluation . 44 Chapter VII: Times Higher Education . 49 7.1 Ranking Process . 49 7.2 Ranking Conceptual Model . 52 7.3 Ranking Calculus Method . 53 7.4 Ranking Evaluation . 54 Chapter VIII: Best Global Universities Ranking . 59 8.1 Ranking Process . 59 8.2 Ranking Conceptual Model . 61 8.3 Ranking Calculus Method . 62 8.4 Ranking Evaluation . 62 Chapter IX: Academic Ranking of World Universities . 67 9.1 Ranking Process . 67 9.2 Ranking Conceptual Model . 69 9.3 Ranking Calculus Method . 70 9.4 Ranking Evaluation . 71 Chapter X: National Taiwan University Ranking . 75 10.1 Ranking Process . 75 ix TABLE OF CONTENTS 10.2 Ranking Conceptual Model . 78 10.3 Ranking Calculus Method . 78 10.4 Ranking Evaluation . 79 Chapter XI: CWTS Leiden Ranking . 83 11.1 Ranking Process . 83 11.2 Ranking Conceptual Model . 86 11.3 Ranking Calculus Method . 86 11.4 Ranking Evaluation . 87 Chapter XII: Informational Global View . 91 12.1 Ranking Common Concepts . 91 12.2 Ranking Sources . 92 12.3 Ranking Process . 93 12.4 Ranking Conceptual Model . 97 Chapter XIII: Conclusions . 105 13.1 University Rankings Transparency . 105 13.2 University Rankings Profiling . 106 13.3 Considerations . 107 Chapter XIV: Improvements Proposal . 109 Chapter XV: Open Questions . 111 15.1 Tentative Presentation for an Eventual Tool to Analyse MBA Rankings . 111 15.2 Usage of Ranking Information to Define University Positioning Strategies . 112 15.3 Usage of University Ranking Indicators to Improve and Design Academic Curricula . 112 15.4 Usage of University Ranking Profiling to Improve Institutional and Inter- national Relationships . 112 15.5 Tentative Presentation for a Business Intelligence System for HEIs . 113 15.6 Tentative Presentation for a Service System or Portal to Provide HEI’s In- formation for Rankings . 113 15.7 Tentative Presentation for an Open Data Service for HEIs . 114 Appendix A: U-Multirank: Rank Groups Calculation . 115 Appendix B: U-Multirank: Rating Criteria & Rank Group Thresholds . 119 Appendix C: U-Multirank: The Construction of Rank Groups . 121 Appendix D: QS: Faculty Area Normalization . 125 Appendix E: Sustainability Report . 129 Bibliography . 133 x LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Number Page 2.1 Final research process followed . 5 3.1 ARWU Logo . 7 3.2 THE Logo . 8 3.3 QS Logo . 8 3.4 U-Multirank Logo . 9 3.5 Best Global Universities logo . 9 3.6 I-UGR Logo . 10 3.7 U-Ranking Logo . 10 3.8 IREG Approved certificate . ..
Recommended publications
  • IREG Inventory of International University Rankings

    IREG Inventory of International University Rankings

    IREG Inventory of International University Rankings 2021 The purpose of IREG Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence is to strengthen public awareness and understanding of university rankings and their role in reflecting quality of higher education and academic excellence. from the IREG Observatory Statute IREG Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence (IREG stands for International Ranking Expert Group) www.ireg-observatory.org IREG Inventory of International University Rankings 2021 Brussels-Warsaw 2021 www.ireg-observatory.org/en/inventory-international-rankings The „IREG Inventory of International University Rankings” was prepared by the Perspektywy Education Foundation at the request of the IREG Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence whose aim is the improvement of the quality of academic rankings and quality of higher education. IREG Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence rue Washington 40 1050 Brussels, Belgium www.ireg-observatory.org PERSPEKTYWY Education Foundation 31 Nowogrodzka Str., 00-511 Warsaw, Poland www.perspektywy.org © IREG Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence This publication is based on information made available by ranking organizations. The publisher has made every effort to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information contained in this publication, however, it takes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. The information listed is subject to change. Edited by Waldemar Siwinski, Richard Holmes, Justyna Kopanska DTP: Artur Zebrowski, Karolina Sitnicka This publication is available at www.ireg-observatory.org/en/inventory-international-rankings Warsaw 2021 ISBN: 978-83-61239-61-1 3 Executive summary IREG Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence initiated a project called “IREG Inventory of International University Rankings (Global and Regional)” as a part of its statutory mission.
  • Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities

    Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities

    Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities Sito: http://nturanking.lis.ntu.edu.tw/ Nazione: Taiwan Il ranking viene pubblicato dalla National Taiwan University Ranking dal 2007. La classifica è basata su una serie di indicatori bibliometrici (8 raggruppati in 3 aree) ricavabili dalla banca dati Clarivate Analitics. Le aree riguardano Produttività, Impatto ed Eccellenza della ricerca scientifica, con peso rispettivamente 25%, 35%, 40%. 7 indicatori su 8 dipendono dalla dimensione degli atenei, pertanto questo ranking è molto influenzato dal fattore dimensionale. Numero Posizione Numero Posizione di Atenei di Bari di Atenei di Bari italiani tra gli in nel in Atenei Primo ateneo in Ranking Anno classifica Mondo classifica italiani Italia Performance Ranking of 2020 500 360 26 15 Padova Scientific Papers for World Universities 2019 500 374 28 15 Padova 2018 500 372 28 14 Padova CWTS Leiden Ranking Sito: https://www.leidenranking.com/ Nazione: Paesi Bassi La classifica della CWTS Leiden è un ranking internazionale basato su dati e analisi bibliometrici e curato dal Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) della Leiden University dal 2007. Il Direzione Generale – Staff Sviluppo Organizzativo, Programmazione, Controllo e Valutazione – U.O. Statistiche di Ateneo Palazzo Ateneo P.zza Umberto I, 70121 Bari (Italia) – tel. 080-5714001 - [email protected] - www.uniba.it 1 database usato per ricavare i dati bibliometrici è quello di Clarivate Analytics (Web of Science). Al contrario di altri ranking della ricerca, ad esempio Taiwan ranking e URAP, gli indicatori prodotti da Leiden ranking non vengono aggregati per ottenere un unico valore di sintesi; per ciascuno viene presentato un ranking che considera o meno il grado di proprietà (fraction counting vs full counting).
  • Analyzing the Activities of Visitors of the Leiden Ranking Website

    Analyzing the Activities of Visitors of the Leiden Ranking Website

    STI 2018 Conference Proceedings Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators All papers published in this conference proceedings have been peer reviewed through a peer review process administered by the proceedings Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a conference proceedings. Chair of the Conference Paul Wouters Scientific Editors Rodrigo Costas Thomas Franssen Alfredo Yegros-Yegros Layout Andrea Reyes Elizondo Suze van der Luijt-Jansen The articles of this collection can be accessed at https://hdl.handle.net/1887/64521 ISBN: 978-90-9031204-0 © of the text: the authors © 2018 Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, The Netherlands This ARTICLE is licensed under a Creative Commons Atribution-NonCommercial-NonDetivates 4.0 International Licensed Analyzing the activities of visitors of the Leiden Ranking website Nees Jan van Eck and Ludo Waltman [email protected]; [email protected] Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, PO box 905, 2300 AX Leiden (The Netherlands) Introduction In the scientometric literature, university rankings are discussed primarily from a methodological point of view (e.g., Waltman et al., 2012). In this paper, we take a different perspective. In our view, constructing a high-quality university ranking requires not only an advanced understanding of methodological issues but also a sufficient level of knowledge of the way in which university rankings are used. The use of university rankings has been studied using questionnaires and interviews (e.g., Hazelkorn, 2015). We take an alternative approach by analyzing the activities of visitors of a university ranking website.
  • University Quality Indicators: a Critical Assessment

    University Quality Indicators: a Critical Assessment

    DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES CULTURE AND EDUCATION UNIVERSITY QUALITY INDICATORS: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT STUDY This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education AUTHORS Bernd Wächter (ACA) Maria Kelo (ENQA) Queenie K.H. Lam (ACA) Philipp Effertz (DAAD) Christoph Jost (DAAD) Stefanie Kottowski (DAAD) RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Mr Miklós Györffi Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] EDITORIAL ASSISTANCE Lyna Pärt LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: [email protected] Manuscript completed in April 2015. © European Parliament, 2015. Print ISBN 978-92-823-7864-9 doi: 10.2861/660770 QA-02-15-583-EN-C PDF ISBN 978-92-823-7865-6 doi: 10.2861/426164 QA-02-15-583-EN-N This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES CULTURE AND EDUCATION UNIVERSITY QUALITY INDICATORS: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT STUDY Abstract The ‘Europe 2020 Strategy’ and other EU initiatives call for more excellence in Europe’s higher education institutions in order to improve their performance, international attractiveness and competitiveness.
  • On the Necessity of Multiple University Rankings

    On the Necessity of Multiple University Rankings

    COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management ISSN : 0973 – 7766 (Print) 2168 – 930X (Online) DOI : 10.1080/09737766.2018.1550043 On the necessity of multiple university rankings Lefteris Angelis Nick Bassiliades Yannis Manolopoulos Nowadays university rankings are ubiquitous commodities; a plethora of them is published every year by private enterprises, state authorities and universities. University rankings are very popular to governments, journalists, university administrations and families as well. At the same time, they are heavily criticized as being very subjective and contradic- tory to each other. University rankings have been studied with respect to political, educational and data management aspects. In this paper, we Lefteris Angelis* focus on a specific research question regarding the alignment of some School of Informatics well-known such rankings, ultimately targeting to investigate the use- Aristotle University of fulness of the variety of all these rankings. First, we describe in detail Thessaloniki the methodology to collect and homogenize the data and, second, we Thessaloniki 54124 statistically analyze these data to examine the correlation among the dif- Greece ferent rankings. The results show that despite their statistically signifi- [email protected] cant correlation, there are many cases of high divergence and instability, which can be reduced by ordered categorization. Our conclusion is that Nick Bassiliades if, in principle, someone accepts the reliability of university rankings, School of Informatics the necessity and the usefulness, of all of them is questionable since Aristotle University of only few of them could be sufficient representatives of the whole set. Thessaloniki The overabundance of university rankings is especially conspicuous for Thessaloniki 54124 the top universities.
  • Strategically Engaging with International Rankings – Experiences from Three Universities

    Strategically Engaging with International Rankings – Experiences from Three Universities

    STRATEGICALLY ENGAGING WITH INTERNATIONAL RANKINGS – EXPERIENCES FROM THREE UNIVERSITIES The Illuminate Consulting Group 22 January 2019 ICG © 2019 AIEA Conference International Rankings – 22 February 2019 1 DISCLAIMER • This presentation was delivered by ICG, Auburn University, Case Western Reserve University, and the University of Rochester on 22 February 2019 at the AIEA Conference in San Francisco. • The presentation shall be considered incomplete without oral clarification. • The opinions expressed in this presentation are those of the authors alone. • ICG makes no warranty regarding any claim or data presented in this presentation, and does not take any responsibility for any third party acting upon information contained in this presentation. • Copyright ICG, 2019. All rights reserved. ICG © 2019 AIEA Conference International Rankings – 22 February 2019 2 CONTENTS Introduction and Housekeeping Overview of International Rankings Auburn, CWRU, and Rochester in Key International Rankings Auburn’s Rankings Journey Rochester's Rankings Journey CWRU's Rankings Journey Panelist Discussion Audience Discussion ICG © 2019 AIEA Conference International Rankings – 22 February 2019 3 PRESENTERS AND CHAIR: BIOS Bios • David Fleshler serves as the Vice Provost for International Affairs at Case Western Reserve University. He has been involved in a number of leadership roles in international education, including service with the AIEA. David received his Bachelor's degree from the University of Michigan, and a JD from Boston College Law School. • Andy Gillespie serves as the Assistant Provost for International Programs at Auburn University. He has been involved in a number of leadership roles in international education, including service with the AIEA. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Natural Resource Management from the State University of New York, a Master’s degree in Forest Biology from the University of New Hampshire, and a Ph.D.
  • Assessing Europe's University-Based Research

    Assessing Europe's University-Based Research

    EUROPEAN European Science COMMISSION Research Area & society Assessing Europe’s University-Based Research Expert Group on Assessment of University-Based Research Research Policy EUR 24187 EN Interested in European research? Research*eu is our monthly magazine keeping you in touch with main developments (results, programmes, events, etc.). It is available in English, French, German and Spanish. A free sample copy or free subscription can be obtained from: European Commission Directorate-General for Research Communication Unit B-1049 Brussels Fax (32-2) 29-58220 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/research/research-eu EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Research Directorate C - European Research Area: Knowledge-Based Economy Unit C.4 - Universities and Researchers Contact: Adeline Kroll European Commission Office SDME 9/17 B-1049 Brussels Tel. (32-2) 29-85812 Fax (32-2) 29-64287 E-mail: [email protected] EUROPEAN COMMISSION Assessing Europe’s University-Based Research Expert Group on Assessment of University-Based Research RTD.C4 Directorate-General for Research 2010 Science in Society 2008 Capacities, 1.4.1 EUR 24187 EN EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed LEGAL NOTICE: Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information. The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.
  • Leiden Ranking 2017

    Leiden Ranking 2017

    Leiden Ranking 2017 Methodology Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University Data The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2017 is based exclusively on bibliographic data from the Web of Science database produced by Clarivate Analytics. Below we discuss the Web of Science data that is used in the Leiden Ranking. We also discuss the enrichments made to this data by CWTS. Web of Science The Web of Science database consists of a number of citation indices. The Leiden Ranking uses data from the Science Citation Index Expanded, the Social Sciences Citation Index, and the Arts & Humanities Citation Index. The Leiden Ranking is based on Web of Science data because Web of Science offers a good coverage of the international scientific literature and generally provides high quality data. The Leiden Ranking does not take into account conference proceedings publications and book publications. This is an important limitation in certain research fields, especially in computer science, engineering, and the social sciences and humanities. Enriched data CWTS enriches Web of Science data in a number of ways. First of all, CWTS performs its own citation matching (i.e., matching of cited references to the publications they refer to). Furthermore, in order to calculate the distance-based collaboration indicators included in the Leiden Ranking, CWTS performs geocoding of the addresses listed in publications in Web of Science. Most importantly, CWTS puts a lot of effort in assigning publications to universities in a consistent and accurate way. This is by no means a trivial issue. Universities may be referred to using many different name variants, and the definition and delimitation of universities is not obvious at all.
  • Final Report

    Final Report

    FINAL REPORT IREG Inventory on National Rankings 2010-14 Education Foundation IREG Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence (IREG stands for International Ranking Expert Group) www.ireg-observatory.org TABLE OF CONTENTS 5 Executive summary 7 Analysis on national rankings 14 FEATURED NATIONAL RANKINGS Albania: Ranking of Higher Education Institutions in Albania. 14 Brazil: Folha University Ranking (Brazil). 14 Bulgaria: Bulgarian University Ranking System. 15 Canada: Canada's Top 50 Research Universities . 15 Maclean's University Rankings . 16 Chile: Qué Pasa University Ranking . 16 Ranking of Chile Universities . 17 China: Netbig Chinese University Ranking . 17 Ranking of Top Universities in Greater China (RTUGC) . 18 Colombia: Ranking U-sapiens Colombia . 18 Czech Republic: Mission and Profile of Higher Education Institutions in the CR . 19 Denmark: CEPOS University List. 19 France: L'Etudiant University Ranking . 20 SMBG Ranking of Licenses, Bachelor and Grandes Ecoles . 20 Germany: CHE University Ranking . 21 Hungary: Felvi Ranking . 21 India: Careers360 University Rankings . 22 India's Best Colleges . 22 Ireland: Sunday Times (Ireland) League Table . 23 Italy: The Great University Guide Censis-la Republica . 23 Japan: Brand rankings of Japanese universities . 24 Truly Strong Universities . 24 Kazakhstan: Independent Ranking of Kazakhstan Universities. 25 National ranking of the best higher education institutions of Kazakhstan . 25 Latvia: Latvia University Ranking . 26 Lithuania: Veidas University Ranking (Lithuania) . 26 Macedonia: Macedonian HEIs Ranking 2013-2014 . 27 Malaysia: SETARA Rating System for Malaysian Higher Education Institutions . 27 Mexico: El Universal The Best Universities in Mexico . 28 Ranking of the Best Mexican Universities . 28 Reforma University Ranking . 29 University Guide . 29 Netherlands: Guide to Higher Education.
  • Aggregate Ranking of the World's Leading Universities

    Aggregate Ranking of the World's Leading Universities

    1 Webology, Volume 12, Number 1, June, 2015 Home Table of Contents Titles & Subject Index Authors Index Aggregate ranking of the world's leading universities Vladimir M. Moskovkin Belgorod State University, Pobeda St., 85, 308015, Belgorod, Russian Federation. E-mail: [email protected] Nikolay A. Golikov Independent Researcher, Kharkov, Ukraine. E-mail: [email protected] Andrey P. Peresypkin Belgorod State University, Pobeda St., 85, 308015, Belgorod, Russian Federation. E-mail: [email protected] Olesya V. Serkina Belgorod State University, Pobeda St., 85, 308015, Belgorod, Russian Federation. E-mail: [email protected] Received October 15, 2014; Accepted June 15, 2015 Abstract The paper presents a methodology for calculating the aggregate global university ranking (Aggregated Global University Ranking, or AGUR), which consists of an automated presentation of the comparable lists of names for different universities from particular global university rankings (using Machine Learning and Mining Data algorithms) and a simple procedure of aggregating particular global university rankings (summing up the university ranking positions from different particular rankings and their subsequent ranking). The second procedure makes it possible to bring lists of universities from particular rankings, which are nonidentical by length, to one size. The paper includes a sample AGUR for six particular global university rankings as of 2013, as well as cross- correlation matrices and intersection matrices for AGUR for 2011-2013, all created by means
  • Campus Internationalization Task Force

    Campus Internationalization Task Force

    Report of the Campus Internationalization Task Force Approved by the International Programs Coordination Committee March 20, 2009 Office of International Affairs James P. Cross Vice Provost for International Affairs Teresa E. Wise Executive Director for International Programs Task Force Committee Chairs Randy Collins Associate Dean College of Engineering and Science Study Abroad Committee Bruce Rafert Dean of the Graduate School Global Rankings Strategy Committee Clemens Schmitz-Justen Director of International Programs College of Business and Behavioral Science Marketing and Promotion Committee John Sweeney Former Associate Dean College of Agriculture, Forestry and Life Sciences Academic Committee Kathy Woodard Coordinator, Service Alliance-Public Service Activities Programming Committee Office of International Affairs Report of the Campus Internationalization Task Force Executive Summary March 2009 The Campus Internationalization Task Force submits the following report which examines the current status of internationalization at Clemson and provides recommendations for expansion, improvement, and implementation of internationalization across campus. The Task Force presents its findings and recommendations as crucial pillars in support of Clemson’s mission “to develop students' communication and critical-thinking skills, ethical judgment, global awareness, and scientific and technological knowledge” and to achieve top-20 public university ranking. Even as the university, and indeed the nation, faces difficult fiscal and administrative
  • Pdfy/IREG-Guidelines Spanish.Pdf

    Pdfy/IREG-Guidelines Spanish.Pdf

    Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad - CTS ISSN: 1668-0030 ISSN: 1850-0013 [email protected] Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas Argentina Albornoz, Mario; Osorio, Laura Rankings de universidades: calidad global y contextos locales * Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad - CTS, vol. 13, núm. 37, 2018, pp. 13-51 Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas Argentina Disponible en: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=92457720006 Cómo citar el artículo Número completo Sistema de Información Científica Redalyc Más información del artículo Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina y el Caribe, España y Portugal Página de la revista en redalyc.org Proyecto académico sin fines de lucro, desarrollado bajo la iniciativa de acceso abierto Rankings de universidades: calidad global y contextos locales * Rankings de universidades: qualidade global e contextos locais University Rankings: Global Quality and Local Contexts Mario Albornoz y Laura Osorio ** 13 Los rankings de universidades han adquirido gran visibilidad en el campo de las políticas de educación superior y en las estrategias de su desarrollo institucional. Su repercusión alcanza a los medios de comunicación en todo el mundo. La cantidad y la variedad de rankings globales, nacionales y especializados en Estados Unidos, Europa y Asia han aumentado en los últimos años, generando un gradiente de calidad que se convierte en una suerte de modelo normativo a tener en cuenta por las políticas y las instituciones de educación superior en América Latina. Este trabajo lleva a cabo un abordaje conceptual a los rankings de mayor difusión, examinando críticamente el modelo de calidad implícito y los criterios teóricos y metodológicos que estructuran los rankings globales.