28Jun 2017

PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS AS A RANKING TOOL - A CASE OF WORLD UNIVERSITIES.

  • Jiangsu University School of Finance and Economics No. 301 Xuefu Road, Zhenjiang 212013, P.R. China.
  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • Cite This Article as
  • Corresponding Author

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the application of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) as a ranking tool. Given the increasing international attention on education quality, ranking of universities has become an important indicator of institutional quality. Despite the increase in ranking methodologies over the years, concern still remains over the validity and reliability of the ranking tools and methodologies. The controversy surrounding methodologies and tools remains unresolved. To conduct this demonstration, first standardized QS variables were obtained. Second, PCA analysis was applied on the variables to obtain quality levels which then informed the ranks. We compare PCA ranks against QS ranks and the results reveal that different methodologies result in different ranks. Although based on same variables, but PCA attaches weights to variables not as pre-determined but as a result. By demonstrating application of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) as a ranking tool, this paper broadens the methodological scope as academics seek consensus on the best way to define and measure university quality, which translates to university ranks.


  1. ALMA, B., COŞKUN, E. & ?VENDIRELI, E. 2016. University Ranking Systems and Proposal of a Theoretical Framework for Ranking of Turkish Universities: A Case of Management Departments. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235, 128-138.
  2. ALTBACH, P. G. 2012. The Globalization of College and University Rankings. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44, 26-31.
  3. BERBEGAL-MIRABENT, J. & RIBEIRO-SORIANO, D. E. 2015. Behind league tables and ranking systems: A critical perspective of how university quality is measured. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 25, 242-266.
  4. BUELA-CASAL, G., GUTI?RREZ-MART?NEZ, O., BERM?DEZ-S?NCHEZ, M. P. & VADILLO-MU?OZ, O. 2007. Comparative study of international academic rankings of universities. Scientometrics, 71, 349-365.
  5. COATES, H. 2007. Universities on the Catwalk: Models for Performance Ranking in Australia. Higher Education Management and Policy,
  6. HOU, A. Y.-C., MORSE, R. & YUEH-JEN, E. S. 2012. Is there a gap between students? preference and university presidents? concern over college ranking indicators?: a case study of ?College Navigator in Taiwan?. Higher Education, 64, 767-787.
  7. HUANG, M.-H. 2011. A comparison of three major academic rankings for world universities: From a research evaluation perspective. Journal of Library and Information studies, 9, 1-25.
  8. LUKMAN, R., KRAJNC, D. & GLAVIČ, P. 2010. University ranking using research, educational and environmental indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 619-628.
  9. OLCAY, G. A. & BULU, M. 2016. Is measuring the knowledge creation of universities possible?: A review of university rankings. Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
  10. SAISANA, M., D?HOMBRES, B. & SALTELLI, A. 2011. Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings and policy implications. Research Policy, 40, 165-177.
  11. SHIN, J. C. 2011. Organizational effectiveness and university rankings. University Rankings.
  12. SHIN, J. C., TOUTKOUSHIAN, R. K. & TEICHLER, U. 2011. University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education, Springer Science & Business Media.

[Simbarashe Muzamhindo, Yusheng Kong and Takuriramunashe Famba. (2017); PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS AS A RANKING TOOL - A CASE OF WORLD UNIVERSITIES. Int. J. of Adv. Res. 5 (Jun). 2114-2135] (ISSN 2320-5407). www.journalijar.com


Simbarashe Muzamhindo
Jiangsu University School of Finance and Economics

DOI:


Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/4650      
DOI URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/4650