UNDERSTANDING UNIVERSITY PERSONNEL’S VIEWS AND SUPPORT TOWARD GLOBAL RANKINGS AND RATINGS SYSTEMS: RELEVANT IMPLICATIONS TO STRATEGIC ENGAGEMENT IN INSTITUTIONAL EXCELLENCE

Author: Bryan Dayuta

ABSTRACT

This study examines university personnel’s awareness, perceptions, and level of support toward global academic ranking and rating systems, and their implications for institutional strategic engagement. As higher education institutions increasingly engage with global benchmarking platforms such as QS, Times Higher Education (THE), and WURI, internal stakeholders play a critical role in shaping institutional outcomes. Using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, quantitative data were collected through surveys, followed by qualitative insights from focus group discussions involving faculty, administrative staff, and unit heads from selected public teacher education institutions. Results indicate a moderate level of awareness but generally strong support for ranking-related initiatives. Key influencing factors include institutional communication, workload, resource availability, and professional motivation. While respondents recognize the benefits of rankings in enhancing institutional reputation and global competitiveness, challenges such as limited training and coordination persist. The study underscores the need for strengthened capacity-building programs, improved communication strategies, and policy alignment to foster inclusive engagement. Findings provide actionable insights for higher education institutions seeking to balance global competitiveness with internal readiness and stakeholder participation.

Keywords: Global Rankings, Higher Education, Stakeholder Perception, Institutional Strategy, Mixed Methods

REFERENCES

  1. Altbach, P. G., & de Wit, H. (2020). The global impact of rankings and the changing role of higher education. International Higher Education, 100, 3–5. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2020.100.10933
  2. Hazelkorn, E. (2015). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence. Palgrave Macmillan.
  3. Marginson, S. (2018). Global rankings and the geopolitics of higher education: Understanding the influence and limitations of rankings. Routledge.
  4. QS Quacquarelli Symonds. (2024). QS World University Rankings Methodology. https://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings/methodology
  5. QS Stars. (2024). QS Stars Rating System. https://www.qs.com/qs-stars
  6. Salmi, J. (2020). The tertiary education imperative: Knowledge, skills, and values for development. Sense Publishers.
  7. Shin, J. C. (2011). Organizational effectiveness and university rankings. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(6), 701–728. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2011.11777227
  8. Times Higher Education. (2024). World University Rankings 2024: Methodology. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/methodology
  9. Times Higher Education. (2024). Impact Rankings: SDG Methodology and Indicators. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/impactrankings
  10. (2024). World University Rankings for Innovation: Methodology. https://www.wuri.world