Moscow International University Rankingcritical review and geopolitical effects

  1. Enrique Orduña-Malea 1
  2. Carmen Perez-Esparrells 2
  1. 1 Universidad Politécnica de Valencia
    info

    Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

    Valencia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01460j859

  2. 2 Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01cby8j38

Revista:
El profesional de la información

ISSN: 1386-6710,  1699-2407

Año de publicación: 2021

Título del ejemplar: Imágenes y verdad/ Images and truth

Volumen: 30

Número: 2

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.3145/EPI.2021.MAR.09 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: El profesional de la información

Resumen

The Moscow International University Ranking (MosIUR) is a global university ranking launched in 2017 with the intention of evaluating universities by considering three essential dimensions (education, research, and knowledge transfer). This ranking was designed and developed by the Russian Union of Rectors following a direct request from President Vladimir Putin. The objective of this work is to perform a threefold analysis of this ranking. First, a methodological analysis is carried out, focused on describing the nature of the indicators and sources employed. Second, a geopolitical analysis aims to determine how countries are represented in this new global ranking. Third, a webometric analysis is done, focused on the online visibility of the ranking. The results reveal MosIUR to be a ranking with an outstanding number of webometric indicators and clearly oriented towards transference to society. However, some methodological concerns arise regarding a few metrics. The geopolitical position of developed countries is similar to that in other global rankings, but slight differences emerge, such as the stronger presence of Russian universities. The cybermetric analysis confirms that, despite being international, this ranking is strongly limited to Russia. It can be concluded that, except for the palpable predominance of the USA, each ranking tends to place universities from their own country in a better position. The creation of MosIUR by the Russian government can thus be perceived as a political strategy to improve the reputation of Russian universities, increase funding, and accelerate their transformation into world-class universities.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Altbach, Philip G.; Hazelkorn, Ellen (2017). “Pursuing rankings in the age of massification: for most - forget about it”. International higher education, n. 89, pp. 8-10. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2017.89.9834
  • ARM (2017). Moscow International University Ranking “The Three University Missions” (MosIUR): Pilot edition. Analytical materials. Association of Rating, Ranking, and Other Performance Evaluations Makers. https://mosiur.org/files/analytics/RU-Pilot_Ranking-2017-Analytics-General.pdf
  • ARM (2018a). Mosiur criteria features: outcome study. Criterion: “university’s impact on society”. Association of Rating, Ranking, and Other Performance Evaluations Makers. https://mosiur.org/files/analytics/EN-Wikipedia_Alumni_Analytics.pdf
  • ARM (2018b). Moscow International University Ranking “The Three University Missions”. The report on the study of the criterion “The number of online courses of the university, published on the largest online platforms”. Association of Rating, Ranking, and Other Performance Evaluations Makers. https://mosiur.org/files/analytics/EN-MosIUR_MOOC_Analytics.pdf
  • ARM (2018c). Moscow International University Ranking “The Three University Missions”. Association of Rating, Ranking, and Other Performance Evaluations Makers. https://mosiur.org/files/analytics/BUL_Analitika_Tri_missii_Eng.pdf
  • ARM (2019a). International study contests. A study based on materials of The Three University Missions Moscow International University Ranking 2018. Association of Rating, Ranking, and Other Performance Evaluations Makers. https://mosiur.org/files/analytics/EN_MosIUR_Contests_Study_-_2019.pdf
  • ARM (2019b). Moscow International University Ranking. The Three University Missions. Association of Rating, Ranking, and Other Performance Evaluations Makers. https://mosiur.org/files/analytics/EN_MosIUR_2019_Analytical_Commentary.pdf
  • ARM (2020). Moscow International University Ranking. The Three University Missions. Association of Rating, Ranking, and Other Performance Evaluations Makers. https://mosiur.org/files/analytics/EN_MosIUR_2020_Analytical_Commentary.pdf
  • Docampo, Domingo (2008). “Rankings internacionales y calidad de los sistemas universitarios”. Revista de educación, v. 1, pp. 149-176. http://www.educacionyfp.gob.es/revista-de-educacion/numeros-revista-educacion/numeros-anteriores/2008/re2008/re2008-07.html
  • Hazelkorn, Ellen (2015). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence. Hampshire (UK): Palgrave McMillan. ISBN: 978 1 137 44666 4
  • Jöns, Heike; Hoyler, Michael (2013). “Global geographies of higher education: The perspective of world university rankings”. Geoforum, v. 46, pp. 45-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.12.014
  • Landinez, Lina; Kliewe, Thorsten; Diriba, Habtamu (2019). “Entrepreneurial university indicators in global university rankings”. In: Kliewe, Thorsten; Kesting, Tobias; Plewa, Carolin; Baaken, Thomas. Developing engaged and entrepreneurial universities. Singapore: Springer, pp. 57-85. ISBN: 978 981 13 8129 4 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8130-0
  • Lee, Jeongwoo (2013). “Creating world-class universities: implications for developing countries”. Prospects, v. 43, n. 2, pp. 233-249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-013-9266-x
  • Marginson, Simon (2017). “Do rankings drive better performance?”. International higher education, n. 89, pp. 6-8. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2017.89.9833
  • Meho, Lokman I. (2020). “Highly prestigious international academic awards and their impact on university rankings”. Quantitative science studies, v. 1, n. 2, pp. 824-848. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00045
  • Moed, Henk F. (2017). “A critical comparative analysis of five world university rankings”. Scientometrics, v. 110. n. 2, pp. 967-990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2212-y
  • Montesinos, Patricio; Carot, José-Miguel; Martínez, Juan-Miguel; Mora, Francisco (2008). “Third mission ranking for world class universities: Beyond teaching and research”. Higher education in Europe, v. 33, n. 2-3, pp. 259-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/03797720802254072
  • Pérez-Esparrells, Carmen (2020). “Una ensoñación al hilo del ranking de Shanghai”. Universidad: blog de Studia XXI. https://www.universidadsi.es/una-ensonacion-al-hilo-del-ranking-de-shanghai
  • Pérez-Esparrells, Carmen; Orduña-Malea, Enrique (2018). “Do the technical universities exhibit distinct behaviour in global university rankings? A Times Higher Education (THE) case study”. Journal of engineering and technology management, v. 48, pp. 97-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2018.04.007
  • Safón, Vicente (2013). “What do global university rankings really measure? The search for the X factor and the X entity”. Scientometrics, v. 97, n. 2, pp. 223-244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0986-8
  • Safón, Vicente (2019). “Inter-ranking reputational effects: an analysis of the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE) reputational relationship”. Scientometrics, v. 121, n. 2, pp. 897-915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03214-9
  • Safón, Vicente; Docampo, Domingo (2020). “Analyzing the impact of reputational bias on global university rankings based on objective research performance data: the case of the Shanghai Ranking (ARWU)”. Scientometrics, v. 125, pp. 2129-2227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03722-z
  • Saisana, Michaela; D’Hombres, Béatrice; Saltelli, Andrea (2011). “Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings and policy implications”. Research policy, v. 40, n. 1, pp. 165-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.003
  • Sidorenko, Tatiana; Gorbatova, Tatiana (2015). “Efficiency of Russian education through the scale of world university rankings”. Procedia - Social and behavioral sciences, v. 166, pp. 464-467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.555
  • Siwinski, Waldemar (2016). “What direction next for university rankings?”. University world news, November 18. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20161114224439415
  • Trigwell, Keith (2011). “Measuring teaching performance”. In: Shin Jung C.; Toutkoushian Robert K.; Teichler, Ulrich. University rankings. The changing academy - The changing academic profession in international comparative perspective. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 165-181. ISBN: 978 94 007 1115 0 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1116-7_9
  • Van-Raan, Anthony F. J. (2005). “Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods”. Scientometrics, v. 62, n. 1, pp. 133-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0008-6
  • Yudkevich, Maria; Altbach, Philip G.; Rumbley, Laura E. (2015). “Global university rankings: The ‘Olympic Games’ of higher education?”. Prospects, v. 45, n. 4, pp. 411-419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-015-9365-y
  • Zadorozhnyuk, Ivan E.; Kalashnik, Viacheslav M.; Kireev, Sergey V. (2018). Moscow International University Ranking “The Three University Missions” in the Global Educational Space. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher education in Russia, v. 27, n. 6, pp. 31-41.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet