Institutional Diversity and Higher Education Systems

• In Event: 46.017 - University Rankings and the Politics of Higher Education

Abstract

The contribution of rankings to the diversity of higher education institutions and systems is much debated, in part because of the lack of definitions of diversity that can be measured. This paper seeks to inform this debate by examining the extent of diversity between institutions and segments or sectors within selected countries indicated by a prominent international university rank. Previous work (Moodie, accepted) found that for the US, UK and Australia the extent of government involvement in higher education is not as important for institutional variety as the form that it takes.
Perspective or theoretical framework: The paper starts with Huisman’s (1995) definitions of “differentiation” and “diversity” derived from biology and more specifically from ecology. It considers the dynamic interaction of Clark’s (1983) “triangle of coordination” of state authority, the market and the academic oligarchy, and adopts Fairweather’s (2000: 97) view that “diversification (or lack of it) stems from a complex interaction of market forces and government interventions as ameliorated by the pursuit of prestige and status”.
The paper uses a simple measure of institutional diversity – the coefficient of variation – to examine the extent of diversity of higher education institutions shown in a number of countries by the most rigorous if narrow of the prominent international rankings, Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU). The paper ascribes a score to each institution from its rank among world universities. Institutions’ scores are used to calculate three variation coefficients for each country: for its institutions included in the rank, for its doctoral granting institutions, and for its baccalaureate granting institutions. These data are used to investigate two hypotheses. The first is that countries with a high aggregated ranking score per gross domestic product have a high variation coefficient, that is, are varied on this limited measure. The second, related hypothesis, reflects the aspiration of some countries to have an institution in the top 20 or 50 of the rank. It is that countries with institutions in the top 20 or 50 of the rank also have a substantial proportion of institutions in the middle ranks and a broad base of institutions at the bottom of the rank. The countries studied with a narrow base and thin mid-level of institutions do not support top ranked institutions.
The main source of data is Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s 2013 ARWU.

Background: Gavin Moodie is adjunct professor of RMIT University, Australia. He has published over 50 journal articles, chapters and encyclopaedia entries on tertiary education policy, particularly on the transfer of students between vocational and higher education, the subject of his book for Open University Press - From vocational to higher education: an international perspective.

Author

• Gavin Moodie, University of Toronto