Search

University rankings often include surveys that involve self-assessments, but little is known about the effects of these self-assessments on results. This paper tests for the existence of leniency effects and differential leniency effects, terms borrowed from the performance assessment literature, with a data set of ratings and rankings of Australian university disciplines by Australian academics. It finds support for the leniency effect - these academics rate and rank their own universities higher than others do. It finds less support, however, for the differential leniency effect - academics at the lower-rated universities do not seem to overrate their universities more than do academics from the higher-rated universities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rankings of universities that are based on aggregate measures ignore the discipline coverage within institutions. In this paper, for each of Australia's thirty-seven public universities, performance in research and teaching in broad discipline groups is evaluated and then aggregated up to obtain whole-of-institution rankings. Relative staff numbers are used as weights to aggregate research performance; student numbers are used to weight teaching performance. The performance attributes chosen are those that contribute to international academic standing. We find that the rankings of the Australian National University (ANU) and some technologically oriented universities are raised when scope is allowed for, but elsewhere the changes are minor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses one of the weaknesses of many rankings - the exclusion of the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences (HASS) from university and discipline cluster ranking systems and examines some ways in which this situation can be corrected. In particular, it traces the development of indicators such as 'target expanded' citation analysis and tiering or ranking of outlets, including books and conferences as well as journals. It draws on experience in Australia, especially with the attempt to construct consensually derived tiered outlets for numerous disciplines including those in HASS in the context of the introduction of a new Research Quality Framework along the lines of similar exercises in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Hong Kong. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]