Університети і лідерство (Dec 2020)
Ranking distribution and formula funding of Ukrainian Universities: the problem of subjectivism and mistrust
Abstract
Domestic practice of University ranking in 2006-2020 and formula funding of higher education institutions in 2019-2020 was analysed in the article taking into account the objectivity, validity, reliability, accuracy, precision, transparency and clarity of the applied mechanisms. It was considered rankings: Compass , National system of ranking assessment of higher education institutions, Top-200 Ukraine, Scopus, External Evaluation Score for contract learning, External Evaluation Score for budget funding of learning, Consolidated ranking, and Ranking of national higher education institutions according to the Government’ criteria, as well as the formula mechanism for public funds distribution between institutions. Taking into account the world ranking experience and using a large array of factual data, it is proved that all past and current Ukrainian rankings, as well as the current funding formula, are affected by the excessive subjectivity, high discrimination of institutions and are not credible. Therefore, these mechanisms disorient stakeholders, citizens, employers, society as a whole regarding the actual state of higher education. The origins of the lack of objectivity, validity, reliability, transparency, clarity and other important characteristics of ranking and formula mechanisms have been identified. The main reason is the dominance of double subjectivism – the subjective selection of subjective criteria and indicators, which leads to manipulative results, inadequate perception and ultimately to distrust. Conceptual principles of overcoming the current crisis situation are proposed. It is argued that ranking and formula criteria and indicators according to their list and weight should primarily meet the best world practice / methodology of objective ranking and the key components of the three-part University mission – 1) education, 2) research, 3) innovation / creativity or service. At the same time, research serves to education modernizing, and innovation / creativity or service – according to its focus on ensuring long-term development or the current complicated functioning. In addition, ranking and formula developments should be tested by experimental exploitation, verified by testing on benchmarks of excellence, and appropriately adjusted to ensure an objective, valid, and reliable diagnosis of the essential characteristics of higher education, its institutions, and its network in Ukraine before their large-scale application. The article calls for attention and caution with the proposed rankings, in particular Ukrainian ones, and at the same time calls for the creation of an adequate national ranking of higher education institutions, which is important for the formation of an effective strategy for higher education development.
Keywords
