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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 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.
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.
Bach, T., Dragojevic, D., Findley, P., & Hering, S. (2014). Transparency of European higher education through public quality assurance reports. Brussels: ENQA.
Bice, S., & Coates, H. (2016). University sustainability reporting: Taking stock of transparency. Tertiary Education and Management, 22(1), 1–18.
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.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford: Capstone.
European Universities Association (EUR). (2013). Global university rankings and their impact. Brussels: EUA.
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2006). Global reporting initiative G3 sustainability reporting guidelines. Amsterdam: GRI.
Global Reporting Initiative. (2010). Sustainability reporting guidelines and mining and metals sector supplement. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
van Vught, F. A., & Ziegele, F. (Eds.). (2012). Multidimensional ranking: The design and development of U-Multirank. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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)