ARTICLE

HEC RANKING CRITERIA IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF GLOBAL UNIVERSITY RANKING SYSTEMS

  1. HOME
  2. ARTICLE

06 Pages : 43-50

http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2019(IV-II).06      10.31703/gssr.2019(IV-II).06      Published : Jun 2019

HEC Ranking Criteria in the Perspective of Global University Ranking Systems

Abstract

    Globalization and market-based orientation of higher education institutions has increased interest of students, parents, employers, universities, funding agencies, governments, and relevant stakeholders in knowing the rank of their concerned universities at national/global level. This has led to the emergence of several global university ranking systems. Aligned with international trends of ranking, Higher Education of Pakistan [HEC] also initiated ranking of universities at the national level in Pakistan. Subsequently, HEC designed comprehensive ranking criteria for ranking of universities and has implemented it since 2010. This study analyzes the nature of HEC ranking criteria and its constituent indicators from the perspective of global university ranking systems. Using content and thematic analysis, this study found that global university ranking systems mainly focus quality of research and teaching, while HEC additionally focuses effective and efficient use of resources, provision of facilities, social integration, and impact on community development.

    (1) Fazeelat Noreen
    PhD Scholar, Department of Education,Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Punjab, Pakistan.
    (2) Bashir Hussain
    Assistant ProfessorDepartment of Education,Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Punjab, Pakistan.
Fulltext PDF

References

  • Altbach, P. G. (2012). The globalization of college and university rankings. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(1), 26-31.
  • Bischoff, F., Gassmann, F., & Emrich, E. (2017). Demand for and Satisfaction with Places at University--An Empirical Comparative Study. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(2), 59-74.
  • Bowden, R. (2000). Fantasy higher education: University and college league tables. Quality in higher education, 6(1), 41-60.
  • Clarke, M. (2002). Some guidelines for academic quality rankings. Higher Education in Europe, 27(4), 443-459.
  • Frenken, K., Heimeriks, G. J., & Hoekman, J. (2017). What drives university research performance? An analysis using the CWTS Leiden Ranking data. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 859-872.
  • Grewal, R., Dearden, J. A., & Llilien, G. L. (2008). The university rankings game: Modeling the competition among universities for ranking. The American Statistician, 62(3), 232-237.
  • Harvey, L. (2008). Rankings of higher education institutions: A critical review: Routledge.
  • Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Globalization and the reputation race in rankings and the reshaping of Higher Education: the battle for world wild excellence: Palgrave: Mac Millan.
  • Hou, A. Y. C., Morse, R., & Chiang, C. (2012). An analysis of mobility in global rankings: making institutional strategic plans and positioning for building world-class universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(6), 841-857.
  • Huang, M.-H. (2011). A comparison of three major academic rankings for world universities: From a research evaluation perspective. Journal of Library and Information Studies, 9(1), 1-25.
  • Rauhvargers, A. (2013). Global university rankings and their impact: Report II: European University Association Brussels.
  • Sheil, T. (2010). Moving beyond university rankings: developing a world class university system in Australia. Australian Universities' Review, The, 52(1), 69.
  • Shin, J. C., Toutkoushian, R. K., & Teichler, U. (2011). University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education (Vol. 3): Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Soo, K. T. (2013). Does anyone use information from university rankings? Education Economics, 21(2), 176-190.
  • Taylor, P., & Braddock, R. (2007). International university ranking systems and the idea of university excellence. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(3), 245-260.
  • Van Raan, A. F. (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133-143.
  • Vernon, M. M., Balas, E. A., & Momani, S. (2018). Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review. PloS one, 13(3), e0193762.
  • Williams, R., & Van Dyke, N. (2008). Reputation and reality: ranking major disciplines in Australian universities. Higher Education, 56(1), 1-28.

Cite this article

APA

CHICAGO

    CHICAGO : Noreen, Fazeelat, and Bashir Hussain. 2019. "HEC Ranking Criteria in the Perspective of Global University Ranking Systems." Global Social Sciences Review, IV (II): 43-50 doi: 10.31703/gssr.2019(IV-II).06

HARVARD

    HARVARD : NOREEN, F. & HUSSAIN, B. 2019. HEC Ranking Criteria in the Perspective of Global University Ranking Systems. Global Social Sciences Review, IV, 43-50.

MHRA

    MHRA : Noreen, Fazeelat, and Bashir Hussain. 2019. "HEC Ranking Criteria in the Perspective of Global University Ranking Systems." Global Social Sciences Review, IV: 43-50

MLA

    MLA : Noreen, Fazeelat, and Bashir Hussain. "HEC Ranking Criteria in the Perspective of Global University Ranking Systems." Global Social Sciences Review, IV.II (2019): 43-50 Print.

OXFORD

    OXFORD : Noreen, Fazeelat and Hussain, Bashir (2019), "HEC Ranking Criteria in the Perspective of Global University Ranking Systems", Global Social Sciences Review, IV (II), 43-50

TURABIAN

    TURABIAN : Noreen, Fazeelat, and Bashir Hussain. "HEC Ranking Criteria in the Perspective of Global University Ranking Systems." Global Social Sciences Review IV, no. II (2019): 43-50. https://doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2019(IV-II).06