Skip to main content

Making Reports More Transparent

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Market for Learning
  • 305 Accesses

Abstract

The mechanisms used to report higher education play a very important role in how it is understood and developed. It is important to examine how transparency reports are packaged and delivered and, more specifically, how they are received and interpreted. Most prominent rankings have grown as static ordinal lists. This is partly understandable given technologies available over a decade ago when many rankings were designed. The medium- and even near-term future holds in store much more sophisticated mechanisms. Couched within the broader frame of transparency, in this chapter I probe emerging mechanisms for publicly reporting higher education activity and performance. I map out parameters underpinning more sophisticated forms of reporting, then with reference to case study initiatives articulate a dimensional structure that points towards areas for future development. In the final section I step back and explore options for aligning higher education reports with those for other sectors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The following text builds on: Coates, H. (2016). Performance measurements and alternatives to rankings. In E. Hazelkorn (Ed.), Global rankings and the geo-politics of higher education: Understanding the influence and impact of rankings on higher education, policy and society. London: Taylor and Francis.

  2. 2.

    The following text builds on: Bice and Coates (2016). University sustainability reporting: Taking stock of transparency. Tertiary Education and Management, 22(1), 1–18. (Taylor and Francis).

References

  • Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage (ADoEH). (2005). The state of sustainability reporting in Australia 2005. Canberra: ADoEH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, T., Dragojevic, D., Findley, P., & Hering, S. (2014). Transparency of European higher education through public quality assurance reports. Brussels: ENQA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bice, S., & Coates, H. (2016). University sustainability reporting: Taking stock of transparency. Tertiary Education and Management, 22(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coates, H. (2016). Performance measurements and alternatives to rankings. In E. Hazelkorn (Ed.), Global rankings and the geo-politics of higher education: Understanding the influence and impact of rankings on higher education, policy and society. London: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford: Capstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Universities Association (EUR). (2013). Global university rankings and their impact. Brussels: EUA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2006). Global reporting initiative G3 sustainability reporting guidelines. Amsterdam: GRI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative. (2010). Sustainability reporting guidelines and mining and metals sector supplement. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazelkorn, E. (2013). Are rankings a useful transparency instrument? Accessed 12 December 2014 from: www.ehea.info/Uploads/events/Are%20Rankings%20a%20Useful%20Transparency.pdf

  • Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP). (2014). Ranking systems clearinghouse. Accessed 1 July 2014 from: www.ihep.org/Research/rankingsystemsclearinghouse.cfm

  • International Ranking Expert Group (IREG). (2015). IREG observatory on academic ranking and excellence. Accessed 1 July 2015 from: www.ireg-observatory.org

  • LaTrobe University. (2012). Building futures: Sustainability report 2012. Bundoora, Australia: LaTrobe University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P. (2013). Ranking higher education institutions: A critical perspective. In P. T. M. Marope, P. J. Wells, & E. Hazelkorn (Eds.), Rankings and accountability in higher education: Uses and misuses. Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Usher, A., & Jarvey, P. (2010). Let the sun shine. In The use of university rankings in low- and middle-income countries. IREG 5 Conference, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Federkeil, G., Vught, F. A., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2012a). Classifications and rankings. In F. A. van Vught & F. Ziegele (Eds.), Multidimensional ranking: The design and development of U-Multirank. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Federkeil, G., Vught, F. A., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2012b). An evaluation and critique of current rankings. In F. A. van Vught & F. Ziegele (Eds.), Multidimensional ranking: The design and development of U-Multirank. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Vught, F. A., & Ziegele, F. (Eds.). (2012). Multidimensional ranking: The design and development of U-Multirank. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamish Coates .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Coates, H. (2017). Making Reports More Transparent. In: The Market for Learning. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2873-1_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2873-1_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-2871-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-2873-1

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics