1. www.che.de Gero Federkeil Expert Seminar „Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Lifelong Learning“, Berlin, 24-25 February 2011 Rankings and Quality Assurance - The Case of Higher Education

2. The CHE – A Short Introduction Rankings and Assessment in HE Überschrift Nummer 3 Approaches to Ranking Presentation Conclusion: Rankings and QA 2Rankings and QA | Gero Federkeil | 24/02/2011

3. Private, not-profit organisation Founded in 1994 by Bertelsmann Foundation and German Rectors Conference Private, not-profit organisation Founded in 1994 by Bertelsmann Foundation and German Rectors Conference The CHE - Centre for Higher Education Goal: Initiate and promote of reforms in German higher education Goal: Initiate and promote of reforms in German higher education Activities: HE policy issues (e.g. Bologna, funding, …) Consulting Communication & training Ranking Activities: HE policy issues (e.g. Bologna, funding, …) Consulting Communication & training Ranking 3Rankings and QA | Gero Federkeil | 24/02/2011

4. The CHE - Centre for Higher Education Ranking of German universities among founding tasks of CHE First ranking published in 1998 Ranking of German universities among founding tasks of CHE First ranking published in 1998 Extension in terms of fields and indicators Continuous further development of methodology Extension in terms of fields and indicators Continuous further development of methodology Internationalisation Extension of CHE Ranking: Austria, Switzerland, Netherlands U-Multirank project to “develop the concept and test the feasibility of a global multi-dimensional university ranking” Founding member of IREG –Observatory on Academic Rankings and Excellence (“Berlin Principles”) Internationalisation Extension of CHE Ranking: Austria, Switzerland, Netherlands U-Multirank project to “develop the concept and test the feasibility of a global multi-dimensional university ranking” Founding member of IREG –Observatory on Academic Rankings and Excellence (“Berlin Principles”) 4Rankings and QA | Gero Federkeil | 24/02/2011

5. The CHE – A Short Introduction Rankings and Assessment in HE Überschrift Nummer 3 Approaches to Ranking Presentation Conclusion: Rankings and QA 5Rankings and QA | Gero Federkeil | 24/02/2011

6. 6 Rankings and Quality Assessment External/ System Internal/ Institution Enhancement Accountability Ranking.. Peer Review Accreditation Benchmarking Comparative Peer Review TQM

7. Rankings: Role & Function Rankings and QA | Gero Federkeil | 24/02/20117 Rankings are the most external instrument with a systems perspective and a focus on transparency/accountability The term “ranking” refers to a method: Comparison of institutions by numeric indicators in terms of better/worse. They do not offer an analysis of processes The term “ranking” refers to a method: Comparison of institutions by numeric indicators in terms of better/worse. They do not offer an analysis of processes “Ranking” is independent of aims, purposes, target groups and the dimensions measured Unlike evaluation: Rankings may ignore the causes of low performance

8. Rankings and QA | Gero Federkeil | 24/02/20118 … be one of a number of diverse approaches to the assessment of higher education inputs, processes, and outputs. Rankings can provide comparative information and improved understanding of higher education, but should not be the main method for assessing what higher education is and does. Rankings provide a market-based perspective that can complement the work of government, accrediting authorities, and independent review agencies. … be one of a number of diverse approaches to the assessment of higher education inputs, processes, and outputs. Rankings can provide comparative information and improved understanding of higher education, but should not be the main method for assessing what higher education is and does. Rankings provide a market-based perspective that can complement the work of government, accrediting authorities, and independent review agencies. According to the Berlin Principles on Rankings of Higher Education Institutions, rankings should

9. Rankings and QA | Gero Federkeil | 24/02/20119 Rankings are not a genuine instrument of institutional quality assurance! Can rankings support institutional QA? Their role for QA in a systems perspective is only indirect Yes, but this depends on their methodology! … and there are examples of dysfunctional effects

10. The CHE – A Short Introduction Rankings and Assessment in HE Überschrift Nummer 3 Approaches to Ranking Presentation Conclusion: Rankings and QA 10Rankings and QA | Gero Federkeil | 24/02/2011

11. Rankings differ in… Rankings and QA | Gero Federkeil | 24/02/201111  Newspapers/commercial org. (US News, THE, QS)  Academic institutions (Shanghai Jiaotong University)  Independant organisations (CHE, Perspektywy)  Newspapers/commercial org. (US News, THE, QS)  Academic institutions (Shanghai Jiaotong University)  Independant organisations (CHE, Perspektywy) Who is doing rankings?  Which kinds of institutions? (E.g. „World class univ.“)  Whole institutions or fields / departments  Which kinds of institutions? (E.g. „World class univ.“)  Whole institutions or fields / departments Who is ranked?  Teaching & learning  Research  „Best party schools“ …  Teaching & learning  Research  „Best party schools“ … What is ranked?  (Prospective) students  Academics /researchers  HE managers, policy makers, …  (Prospective) students  Academics /researchers  HE managers, policy makers, … Whom is is for?

12. Rankings and QA | Gero Federkeil | 24/02/201112 The ranking orthodoxy Ranking of whole institutions Composite overall indictor League table approach Composite indicators blur profiles and strengths & weaknesses  There are neither theoretical nor empirical arguments for specific weights for single indicators Composite indicators blur profiles and strengths & weaknesses  There are neither theoretical nor empirical arguments for specific weights for single indicators Small differences in the scores of indicator lead to big differences in league table  Give false impression of exactness (“Number 5 is better than number 8”) Small differences in the scores of indicator lead to big differences in league table  Give false impression of exactness (“Number 5 is better than number 8”)  Most users are interested in information about “their” field”  Institutional rankings give misleading averages across fields/units  Most users are interested in information about “their” field”  Institutional rankings give misleading averages across fields/units

13. Rankings and QA | Gero Federkeil | 24/02/201113 An alternative approach Field based ranking Field based ranking Multi-dimensional ranking Rank group approach Show profiles, allow for an anylsis of strengths & weaknesses  Refer to a user-focused concept of good performance /quality Show profiles, allow for an anylsis of strengths & weaknesses  Refer to a user-focused concept of good performance /quality Avoid false impressions of exactness Take serious limitations in data (quality) Avoid false impressions of exactness Take serious limitations in data (quality)  Give more meaningful information to users  Reflect internal heterogeneity of universities  Give more meaningful information to users  Reflect internal heterogeneity of universities + + + + + +

14. The CHE ranking Rankings and QA | Gero Federkeil | 24/02/201114 Field-based User-driven

15. The CHE ranking Rankings and QA | Gero Federkeil | 24/02/201115 Revealing different profiles An interactive, personalised ranking

16. The CHE – A Short Introduction Rankings and Assessment in HE Überschrift Nummer 3 Approaches to Ranking Presentation Conclusion: Rankings and QA 16Rankings and QA | Gero Federkeil | 24/02/2011

17. Conclusions: Rankings and QA Rankings and QA | Gero Federkeil | 24/02/201117 Rankings are an external, market-driven instrument of transparency about a system They provide comparative performance indicators of institutions, which in principle can be used as an input to QA But: rankings in general cannot offer causal analysis/ explanations. They can only help to ask the right questions on performance which can be helpful to QA.

18. Conclusions: Rankings and QA Rankings and QA | Gero Federkeil | 24/02/201118 User driven, multi-dimensional, field-based rankings can offer benchmarking information to universities which can be used as input to internal QA and support strategic management User driven, multi-dimensional, field-based rankings can offer benchmarking information to universities which can be used as input to internal QA and support strategic management The orthodox ranking approach fails to fulfill this role  Aggregated averages for whole institutions blur profiles  Composite indicators define quality externally The orthodox ranking approach fails to fulfill this role  Aggregated averages for whole institutions blur profiles  Composite indicators define quality externally

19. But there might be limits to rankings nevertheless... „You‘re kidding! You count publications?“ Rankings and QA | Gero Federkeil | 24/02/2011

20. 20 More information: www.che-ranking.de www.u-multirank.eu www.ireg-observatory.org