首页> 外文期刊>Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education >World-Class or World-Ranked Universities? Performativity and Nobel Laureates in Peace and Literature
【24h】

World-Class or World-Ranked Universities? Performativity and Nobel Laureates in Peace and Literature

机译:世界一流大学还是世界一流大学?表演与诺贝尔和平与文学奖得主

获取原文
           

摘要

It is erroneous to draw too many conclusions about global university rankings. Making a university’s reputation rest on the subjective judgement of senior academics and over-reliance on interpreting and utilising secondary data from bibliometrics and peer assessments have created an enmeshed culture of performativity and over-emphasis on productivity. This trend has exacerbated unhealthy competition and mistrust within the academic community and also discord outside its walls. Surely if universities are to provide service and thrive with the advancement of knowledge as a primary objective, it is important to address the methods, concepts, and representation necessary to move from an emphasis on quality assurance to an emphasis on quality enhancement.This overview offers an analysis of the practice of international ranking. US News and World Report Best Global Universities Rankings, the Times Supplement World University Rankings, and the Shanghai Jiao Tong University Academic Ranking of World Universities are analysed. While the presence of Nobel laureates in the hard sciences has been seized upon for a number of years as quantifiable evidence of producing world-class university education, Nobel laureates in peace and literature have been absent from such rankings. Moreover, rankings have been based on employment rather than university affiliation. Previously unused secondary data from institutions where Nobel peace and literature laureates completed their terminal degrees are presented. The purpose has been to determine whether including peace and literature laureates might modify rankings. A caveat: since the presence of awarded Nobel laureates affiliated at various institutions results in the institutions receiving additional ranking credit in the hard sciences of physics, chemistry, medicine, and economic sciences, this additional credit is not recognised in the approach used in this study. Among other things, this study suggests that if educational history were used in assembling the rankings as opposed to one’s university affiliation, conclusions might be very different.
机译:对全球大学排名得出太多结论是错误的。大学的声誉取决于高级学者的主观判断,而过分依赖于解释和利用文献计量学和同行评估的二次数据,则形成了一种积淀了绩效和过分重视生产力的文化。这种趋势加剧了学术界内部的不健康竞争和不信任,也加剧了学术界内部的不和谐。当然,如果大学要以知识的发展为服务和发展的首要目标,那么解决从强调质量保证到强调质量提升的方法,概念和表示形式就很重要。国际排名惯例的分析。分析了《美国新闻与世界报道》全球最佳大学排名,《泰晤士报》世界大学排名以及上海交通大学世界大学学术排名。尽管多年来一直抓住诺贝尔奖获得者在硬科学中的存在作为产生世界一流大学教育的可量化证据,但在此类排名中却缺少诺贝尔和平与文学奖得主。而且,排名是基于就业而不是大学的隶属关系。显示了诺贝尔和平奖和文学奖得主完成其学位的机构以前未使用的辅助数据。目的是确定包括和平与文学奖获得者是否可能改变排名。一个警告:由于各机构附属的诺贝尔奖获得者的存在导致这些机构在物理学,化学,医学和经济科学等硬科学领域获得额外的排名学分,因此在本研究中使用的方法未承认这种额外学分。除其他外,这项研究表明,如果使用教育历史来排名而不是大学隶属关系,那么结论可能会大不相同。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号