Research Performance Ranking of Universities in Taiwan

Prof. Ru-Jer Wang

Department of Education, Graduate Institute of Educational Policy & Administration, National Taiwan Normal University

Dean of Office of Research Development, Higher Education Evaluation & Accreditation Council of Taiwan

I. Introduction

There are two common methods to promote university transparency around the globe. One is horizontal classification, another is vertical classification. Despite criticism by college communities against current university rankings, more ranking systems have been proposed.

This study discusses the research performance measurement and the ranking procedures for colleges and universities in Taiwan.

Due to escalating competiveness among higher educational institutions, the question of “institutional diversity” draws public attention. Likewise, due to the universalization of higher education, curriculum and institutional heterogeneity gradually emerge as issues.

II. Research background & purposes(1/2)

As a result, transparency of higher educational institutions is essential for understanding of institutional diversity and heterogeneity. In order to increase institutional transparency, two common methods have been widely adopted for classifications.Although college communities have criticized these methods of ranking, more ranking systems have been proposed.

1. to understand the measurement of university research performance;

2. to analyze the ranking of research performance designed for universities;

3. to propose suggestions for improving the research performance of universities in Taiwan.

II. Research background & purposes(2/2)

This study focuses on the research performance ranking of universities in Taiwan. The research purposes are:

III. Literature ReviewMeasurement discussions often rely on the following information:

7)Information obtained from peer review

1)Bibliometric data

2)The number of awards received by an individual faculty member

3)Information of graduate students

4)Information of faculty members

5)Research funding obtained from external sources

6)Research income information

IV. Research Method

the number of research projects approved by NSCthe number of NSC Outstanding Research Awards earned the number of Research Achievement Awards the number of National Professionalships received from the MOE

This study conducted secondary data analysis to rank universities in Taiwan based on their research performance. The following measurement items are indicators of research performance:

V. Results & Discussions(1/8) The results of statistical analysis on the number of research projects approved by NSC, the number of NSC Outstanding Research Awards, the number of Research Achievement Awards, and National Professionalships received from the Ministry of Education, include overall academic productivity and academic productivity per faculty member.

V. Results & Discussions(2/8)

• 2003-2007 overall academic productivity of the top 30 universities

• 2003-2007 academic productivity per faculty members of the top 30 universities

V. Results & Discussions(3/8)School

Overall academic

productivity of the top 30

universities

Academic productivity

per faulty members of the

top 30 universities

Shanghai Jiao Tong University,

China--ARWU 2009 World Rank

Times Higher Education--World

University Rankings 2009

National Taiwan University 國立台灣大學

1 2 110-151 95

National Tsing Hua University 國立清華大學

2 1 201-302 －

National Cheng Gung University 國立成功大學

3 3 201-302 －

National Chiao Tung University 國立交通大學

3 5 303-401 －

National Central University

國立中央大學

5 3 402-501 －

National Yang Ming University 國立陽明大學

9 9 402-501 －

Chang Gung University

長庚大學 17 16 402-501 －

Resource: http://www.arwu.org/index.jsphttp://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=438

V. Results & Discussions(4/8)In the case of the number of NSC Outstanding Research Awards, the number of Research Achievement Awards and National Professionalships received from the Ministry of Education, rankings of the top 10 universities vary.

Overall, four measurement items of academic productivity are positively correlated with one another.

V. Results & Discussions(5/8)Pearson product-moment － Overall academic productivity

NSC Outstanding

Awards

Research

Achievement

Awards

National

Professionalships

NSC 1 .935(**) .862(**) .828(**)

Outstanding Awards .935(**) 1 .939(**) .917(**)

Research

Achievement Awards .862(**) .939(**) 1 .968(**)

National

Professionalships .828(**) .917(**) .968(**) 1

** p<.01

V. Results & Discussions(6/8)Pearson product-moment － Average academic productivity per faculty member

NSC Outstanding

Awards

Research

Achievement

Awards

National

Professionalships

NSC 1 .790(**) .641(**) .752(**)

Outstanding Awards .790(**) 1 .817(**) .959(**)

Research

Achievement Awards

.641(**)

.817(**)

1

.879(**)

National

Professionalships .752(**) .959(**) .879(**) 1

** p<.01

V. Results & Discussions(7/8)Spearman correlation coefficient—Ranking of overall academic productivity

** p<.01

Ranking of

NSC

Ranking of Outstanding Research Awards

Ranking of Research Achievement awards

Ranking of National Professionalships

Overall ranking

Ranking of NSC 1.000 .587(**) .463(**) .389(**) .999(**) Ranking of Outstanding

Research Awards .587(**) 1.000 .579(**) .437(**) .587(**)

Ranking of Research

Achievement Awards

.463(**) .579(**) 1.000 .686(**) .476(**)

Ranking of National

Professionalships .389(**) .437(**) .686(**) 1.000 .413(**)

Overall ranking .999(**) .587(**) .476(**) .413(**) 1.000

V. Results & Discussions(8/8)Spearman correlation coefficient—Ranking of average academic productivity per faculty member

Ranking of NSC

Ranking of Outstanding

Research Awards

Ranking of Research

Achievement Awards

Ranking of National

Professionalships

Overall ranking

Ranking of NSC 1.000 .612(**) .453(**) .500(**) 1.000(**

) Ranking of Outstanding

Research Awards .612(**) 1.000 .596(**) .806(**)

.614(**)

Ranking of Research

Achievement Awards

.453(**) .596(**) 1.000 .756(**)

.458(**)

Ranking of National

Professionalships .500(**) .806(**) .756(**) 1.000

.500(**)

Overall ranking 1.000(**) .614(**) .458(**) .500(**) 1.000

** p<.01

VI. Suggestions1. When the government provides funding to universities,

it should take school scale into consideration.

2. When universities pursue research performance, they should adopt diverse development strategies based on their size and average performance; by contrast, in terms of ranking, for schools where overall academic productivity is higher than the average academic productivity per faculty member, steps must be taken to reward outstanding members in order to improve average research performance.

Thanks for Listening

Please email to

edurjw14@ntnu.edu.twRujer Wang

National Taiwan Normal University