Ranking Meets Distance Education: Defining Relevant Criteria and Indicators for Online Universities

University ranking systems are being implemented with the aim of assessing and comparing higher education institutions at a global level. Despite their being increasingly used, rankings are often strongly criticized for their social and economic implications, as well as for limitations in their technical implementation. One of these limitations is that they do not consider the specific characteristics of online education. This study used a participatory approach to define a set of criteria and indicators suitable to reflect the specific nature of distance education. This endeavour will help evaluate and rank online higher education institutions more appropriately than in current practice, where indicators are devised for traditional universities. To this end, several stakeholders and informants were involved in a Delphi study in an attempt to reach the broader higher education institutions (HEI) community. According to the study participants, apart from students’ achievements and general quantitative measures of HEI performance, which are quite common in traditional ranking systems, teaching and student learning experience turned out to be the most important criteria. Student support, teacher support, technological infrastructure, research and organization were deemed middle ground criteria, while sustainability and reputation were regarded as the least important criteria.

[1]  Fengliang Li.  The Expansion of Higher Education and the Returns of Distance Education in China , 2018, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning.

[2]  D. Hall,et al.  Recruiting and retaining participants in e-Delphi surveys for core outcome set development: Evaluating the COMiT'ID study , 2018, PloS one.

[3]  Gary R. S. Barron.  The Berlin Principles on Ranking Higher Education Institutions: limitations, legitimacy, and value conflict , 2017 .

[4]  Tindaro Cicero,et al.  Nondeterministic ranking of university departments , 2016, J. Informetrics.

[5]  C. Acartürk,et al.  A comparative analysis of global and national university ranking systems , 2015, Scientometrics.

[6]  Kathleen Lynch.  Control by numbers: new managerialism and ranking in higher education , 2015 .

[7]  Marie-Laure Bougnol,et al.  Technical pitfalls in university rankings , 2015 .

[8]  Cengiz Acartürk,et al.  A comparative analysis of global and national university ranking systems , 2015, Scientometrics.

[9]  Jamil Salmi,et al.  League Tables as Policy Instruments , 2015 .

[10]  P. Benneworth,et al.  In the Shadow of Celebrity? World-Class University Policies and Public Value in Higher Education , 2014 .

[11]  D. Turner.  World class universities and international rankings , 2014 .

[12]  Michael J. Monahan,et al.  The State Of Higher Education In 2012 , 2012 .

[13]  Sarah S. Amsler,et al.  University ranking as social exclusion , 2012 .

[14]  B. King.  Distance education and dual-mode universities: an Australian perspective , 2012 .

[15]  Nicholas A. Bowman,et al.  Anchoring effects in world university rankings: exploring biases in reputation scores , 2011 .

[16]  Jean-Charles Billaut,et al.  Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? , 2010, Scientometrics.

[17]  Brian A. Sponsler,et al.  The Role and Relevance of Rankings in Higher Education Policymaking. Issue Brief. , 2009 .

[18]  Simon Marginson,et al.  The public/private divide in higher education: A global revision , 2007 .

[19]  J. Crisp,et al.  The Delphi method? , 1997, Nursing research.

[20]  N. Dalkey,et al.  An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts , 1963 .

[21]  Harry Woodburn Chase,et al.  The State in Higher Education , 1931 .

[22]  P. J. Wells,et al.  Quality Assurance and Accreditation: A Glossary of Basic Terms and Definitions , 2007 .

[23]  Alex Usher,et al.  A World of Difference: A Global Survey of University League Tables. Canadian Education Report Series. , 2006 .

[24]  Christina Goulding,et al.  A Critical Review of the Methodology , 2002 .

[25]  L. Thurstone.  A law of comparative judgment. , 1994 .