Higher Education

, Volume 53, Issue 6, pp 819–841 | Cite as

Measuring the international standing of universities with an application to Australian universities



Globalisation has meant an increased demand from students, employers, and academics for indicators of the international academic standing of universities. In this paper we examine the broad methodological issues involved in measuring international academic standing and apply our conclusions to data for 38 Australian universities.

Determinants of the international academic standing of universities are grouped into six broad categories: standing of academic staff, quality of undergraduate intake, quality of undergraduate programs, quality of graduate programs, resources, and peer opinion. The relative importance of each of these attributes is ascertained though a worldwide survey of university presidents, rectors and vice-chancellors plus Australian deans, thus reducing the need for subjective weighting by the researchers. The empirical findings are used to weight quantitative performance data for Australian universities and the results compared with two other recent worldwide rankings of universities.


international ranking quality measures research standing survey of academic leaders 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bowden, R. 2000‘Fantasy Higher Education: University and College League Tables’Quality in Higher Education64160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carrico, C.S., Hogan, S.M., Dyson, R.G., Athanassopoulos, A.D. 1997‘Data Envelopment Analysis and University Selection’The Journal of the Operational Research Society4811631177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke, M. 2002‘Some Guidelines for Academic Quality Rankings’Higher Education in EuropeXXVII443459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Federkeil, G. 2002‘Some Aspects of Ranking Methodology-The CHE-Ranking of German Universities’Higher Education in EuropeXXV1138997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Filinov, N.B., Ruchkina, S. 2002‘The Ranking of Higher Education Institutions in Russia: Some Methodological Problems’Higher Education in EuropeXXVII407421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gater, D.S. (2002). ‘A Review of Measures Used in US News & World Report’s “America’s Best Colleges”’, Occasional Paper, The Lombardi Program on Measuring University Performance, The Center, University of FloridaGoogle Scholar
  7. Gormley, W.T.,Jr., Weimer, D.L. 1999Organisational Report CardsHarvard University PressCambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  8. Katz, J.S. 2000Scale-independent indicators and research evaluationScience and Science Policy272336Google Scholar
  9. Siwinski, W. 2002Perspektywy-ten years of ranking’Higher Education in EuropeXXV11399406Google Scholar
  10. Raan, A.F.J. 2005‘Fatal attraction: conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods’Scientometrics62133143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Vaughin, J. 2002‘Accreditation, commercial rankings, and new approaches to assessing the quality of university research and education programmes in the United States’Higher Education in EuropeXXV1143341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Yonezawa, A., Nakatsui, I., Tetsuo, K. 2002‘University rankings in Japan’Higher Education in EuropeXXVII373382CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social ResearchUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne InstituteParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations