Abstract
Abstract
Global university rankings influence students’ choices and higher education policies throughout the world. When rankers not only evaluate universities but also provide them with consulting, analytics, or advertising services, rankers are vulnerable to conflicts of interest that may potentially distort their rankings. The paper assesses the impact of contracting with rankers on university ranking outcomes using a difference-in-difference research design. The study matches data on the positions of 28 Russian universities in QS World University Rankings between 2016 and 2021 with information on contracts these universities had for services from QS—the company that produces these rankings. The study compares the fluctuations in QS rankings with data obtained from the Times Higher Education rankings and data recorded by national statistics. The results suggest that the universities with frequent QS-related contracts had an increase of 0.75 standard deviations (~ 140 positions) in QS World University Rankings and an increase of 0.9 standard deviations in reported QS faculty-student ratio scores over 5 years, regardless of changes in the institutional characteristics. The observed distortions could be explained by university rankers’ self-serving bias that benefits both rankers and prestige-seeking universities and reinforces the persistence of rankings in higher education.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference44 articles.
1. About QS. (2021). Top universities. https://www.topuniversities.com/about-qs
2. Agasisti, T., Shibanova, E., Platonova, D., & Lisyutkin, M. (2020). The Russian Excellence Initiative for higher education: A nonparametric evaluation of short-term results. International Transactions in Operational Research, 27(4), 1911–1929. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12742
3. Altbach, P. G. (2012). The globalization of college and university rankings. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(1), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2012.636001
4. Bailey, T. (2015). University rankings: The institutions that are paying to be good. The New Economy. https://www.theneweconomy.com/business/university-rankings-the-institutions-that-are-paying-to-be-good
5. Bazerman, M., Loewenstein, G., & Moore, D. A. (2002). Why good accountants do bad audits. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2002/11/why-good-accountants-do-bad-audits
Cited by
19 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献