From accreditation to ranking (functioning vs development)

V. Lugovyi, O. Slyusarenko, Zh. Talanova
{"title":"From accreditation to ranking (functioning vs development)","authors":"V. Lugovyi, O. Slyusarenko, Zh. Talanova","doi":"10.31874/2520-6702-2018-6-2-3-20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The essence, strengths and weaknesses of the accreditation and ranking mechanisms for assessing the institutional capacity and performance of higher education institutions are analyzed and systematically compared in the article. Significant advantages of the ranking over accreditation are proved, as well as the subordination of the second one to the first one, given the leading role of higher education in ensuring and accelerating human progress that has a research-innovative and competitive character. The necessity of urgent introduction, as well as the main stages of practical implementation of the national general and sectoral ranking based on the methodology of the Shanghai ranking (ARWU), are substantiated. It is proposed to use a national ranking for modernization of the national network of higher education institutions. \nIt is argued that accreditation and ranking are fundamentally different mechanisms for assessing education quality with significantly greater possibilities for ranking. Accreditation focuses on the thresholds (minimum) standards and requirements (conditions) and is not suitable for an objective comparative assessment of institutions (educational programmes), taking into account their level of excellence. The rank implies the ranking institutions in the order of their achievements, therefore, in terms of importance and significance, and can be used for relief modeling the landscape of the network of higher education institutions (not only in terms of their territorial or sectoral accumulation, but also in terms of competitiveness). Given this Ukraine with 289 successfully accredited institutions remains a white spot in Europe and the world according to interpretation of the Shanghai ranking of 2018. Unlike accreditation, which, due to limited capabilities, is unable to separate a mass low-order higher education from an innovative high-order higher education, the ranking mechanism reveals the first one as well as the second one. \nIt was clarified that in contrast to providing motivation of obligation (performance) for developing culture of the minimum sufficient quality by accreditation, the ranking forms motivation of encouragement (creativity) for developing culture of the maximum possible quality. The culture of the maximum possible quality under the current conditions of the research and innovation type of progress and competition is a priority because it enhancing competitiveness. In addition, ranking implies the existence of a developed autonomy, able to respond promptly and effectively to the results of the ranking assessment. Autonomy, basically, is non-critical for accreditation. The results of the ranking can be successfully used for accreditation under the conditions of real autonomy, but the conclusions of accreditation for the ranking of institutions – no. Accreditation is inherently affected by a subjective factor, at the same time, ranking (for example, ARWU) can be constructed with the exclusion of a subjective component, with transferring ranking functions to independent artificial intelligence in the future. \nIt has been shown that the research and innovation essence of higher education needs an appropriate valid mechanism of assessment of higher education institutions excellence, which is capable of permanently (for example, annually) to record level of institutions development in view of the ability to predict and project the future of society. Therefore, the trend of the rapid development and spread of international and national rankings is actual. \nIt is argued that the creation of the national ranking of higher education institutions is an urgent objective and should be carried out in several stages: its legislative regulation, the determination of the system of objective indicators agreed by the leading Ukrainian universities (it is advisable to unite them into the leading Association of Ukrainian Universities), organizational and legal, financial support for administration of the ranking (e.g. the National Higher Education Quality Assurance Agency), the annual ranking of institutions and according to its results elaboration and implementation of measures to improve the network of higher education institutions in Ukraine, primarily to consolidate and integrate them.","PeriodicalId":150572,"journal":{"name":"International Scientific Journal of Universities and Leadership","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Scientific Journal of Universities and Leadership","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31874/2520-6702-2018-6-2-3-20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The essence, strengths and weaknesses of the accreditation and ranking mechanisms for assessing the institutional capacity and performance of higher education institutions are analyzed and systematically compared in the article. Significant advantages of the ranking over accreditation are proved, as well as the subordination of the second one to the first one, given the leading role of higher education in ensuring and accelerating human progress that has a research-innovative and competitive character. The necessity of urgent introduction, as well as the main stages of practical implementation of the national general and sectoral ranking based on the methodology of the Shanghai ranking (ARWU), are substantiated. It is proposed to use a national ranking for modernization of the national network of higher education institutions. It is argued that accreditation and ranking are fundamentally different mechanisms for assessing education quality with significantly greater possibilities for ranking. Accreditation focuses on the thresholds (minimum) standards and requirements (conditions) and is not suitable for an objective comparative assessment of institutions (educational programmes), taking into account their level of excellence. The rank implies the ranking institutions in the order of their achievements, therefore, in terms of importance and significance, and can be used for relief modeling the landscape of the network of higher education institutions (not only in terms of their territorial or sectoral accumulation, but also in terms of competitiveness). Given this Ukraine with 289 successfully accredited institutions remains a white spot in Europe and the world according to interpretation of the Shanghai ranking of 2018. Unlike accreditation, which, due to limited capabilities, is unable to separate a mass low-order higher education from an innovative high-order higher education, the ranking mechanism reveals the first one as well as the second one. It was clarified that in contrast to providing motivation of obligation (performance) for developing culture of the minimum sufficient quality by accreditation, the ranking forms motivation of encouragement (creativity) for developing culture of the maximum possible quality. The culture of the maximum possible quality under the current conditions of the research and innovation type of progress and competition is a priority because it enhancing competitiveness. In addition, ranking implies the existence of a developed autonomy, able to respond promptly and effectively to the results of the ranking assessment. Autonomy, basically, is non-critical for accreditation. The results of the ranking can be successfully used for accreditation under the conditions of real autonomy, but the conclusions of accreditation for the ranking of institutions – no. Accreditation is inherently affected by a subjective factor, at the same time, ranking (for example, ARWU) can be constructed with the exclusion of a subjective component, with transferring ranking functions to independent artificial intelligence in the future. It has been shown that the research and innovation essence of higher education needs an appropriate valid mechanism of assessment of higher education institutions excellence, which is capable of permanently (for example, annually) to record level of institutions development in view of the ability to predict and project the future of society. Therefore, the trend of the rapid development and spread of international and national rankings is actual. It is argued that the creation of the national ranking of higher education institutions is an urgent objective and should be carried out in several stages: its legislative regulation, the determination of the system of objective indicators agreed by the leading Ukrainian universities (it is advisable to unite them into the leading Association of Ukrainian Universities), organizational and legal, financial support for administration of the ranking (e.g. the National Higher Education Quality Assurance Agency), the annual ranking of institutions and according to its results elaboration and implementation of measures to improve the network of higher education institutions in Ukraine, primarily to consolidate and integrate them.
从认证到排名(功能vs发展)
本文分析和系统比较了高等教育机构能力和绩效评估的认证和排名机制的本质、优缺点。鉴于高等教育在确保和加速具有研究创新和竞争特征的人类进步方面的主导作用,排名比认证有显著的优势,排名也从属于排名。论证了迫切引入基于上海排名(ARWU)方法的全国综合排名和行业排名的必要性以及实际实施的主要阶段。建议使用国家排名来实现国家高等教育机构网络的现代化。有人认为,认证和排名是评估教育质量的根本不同的机制,排名的可能性要大得多。认证侧重于门槛(最低)标准和要求(条件),不适合对机构(教育计划)进行客观的比较评估,考虑到它们的卓越水平。排名意味着各院校在其成就方面的排名,因此,在重要性和意义方面,可以用来对高等教育机构网络的景观进行浮雕建模(不仅根据其地域或部门积累,而且根据竞争力)。鉴于此,根据对2018年上海排名的解读,乌克兰有289所成功获得认证的大学,在欧洲和世界上仍然是一个白点。认证由于能力有限,无法将大众化的低阶高等教育与创新性的高阶高等教育区分开来,而排名机制则揭示了前者和后者。澄清的是,与通过认可为发展最低质量的文化提供义务动机(履行)相反,排名为发展尽可能高质量的文化提供鼓励动机(创造)。在目前的条件下,文化的最大可能质量的研究和创新类型的进步和竞争是一个优先事项,因为它提高竞争力。此外,排名意味着存在一种发达的自主性,能够迅速有效地对排名评估的结果作出反应。基本上,自主权对认证来说并不重要。排名的结果可以在真正自治的条件下成功地用于认证,但认证的结论对于机构的排名-没有。认证本身受到主观因素的影响,同时,排名(例如ARWU)可以在排除主观因素的情况下构建,未来将排名功能转移给独立的人工智能。研究表明,高等教育的研究和创新本质需要一个适当有效的高等教育机构卓越评估机制,该机制能够永久(例如,每年)记录机构的发展水平,以预测和预测社会的未来。因此,国际和国内排名快速发展和传播的趋势是现实的。有人认为,建立全国高等教育机构排名是一项紧迫的目标,应分几个阶段进行:它的立法规定,确定由乌克兰主要大学商定的客观指标体系(建议将它们联合到乌克兰大学协会),组织和法律,为排名管理提供财政支持(例如国家高等教育质量保障局),机构的年度排名,并根据其结果制定和实施改善乌克兰高等教育机构网络的措施,主要是巩固和整合它们。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信