Improving University Quality through Reflecting Third Mission Activities in Ranking Methodology: A Case Study from Pakistan

Author(s)

Sehrish Ilyas , Dr. Wasif Ali Waseer , Fouzia Ashfaq ,

Download Full PDF Pages: 55-60 | Views: 1424 | Downloads: 380 | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3474573

Volume 7 - January 2018 (01)

Abstract

Purpose - Higher Education Institutions have been facing the challenge of broadening their mission spectrum to incorporate the social and civic engagement in the contemporary era. The purpose of this study is to address the importance and reflection of multifarious third mission activities in ranking methodology at the national level.
Methodology- For the purpose of this study, content analysis is performed on the national ranking methodology of Pakistan to analyze the current ranking methodology for the manifestation of enterprising, innovative and social third mission activities.
Findings - The findings revealed that weighted percentage of enterprise third mission in the ranking methodology of HEC is 1.16%, of the innovative third mission there is no explicit criterion present in ranking methodology and of social and civic engagement the weighted percentage is found to be 0.23%.
Practical Implication - The current study has implication for policymakers in order to broaden the scope of HEIs’ performance indicators by incorporating the traditional commercial activities, innovation strengthening and social engagement of higher educational institutions at both local and global perspective.

Keywords

Third Mission Activities; Social and Civic Engagement; National Ranking Methodology

References

                       i.            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(3), 242-266.

      ii.            Cheong Cheng, Y., & Ming Tam, W. (1997). Multi-models of quality in education. Quality assurance in Education, 5(1), 22-31.

    iii.            Ferrer-Balas, D., Lozano, R., Huisingh, D., Buckland, H., Ysern, P., & Zilahy, G. (2010). Going beyond the rhetoric: system-wide changes in universities for sustainable societies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(7), 607-610.

    iv.            Fitzgerald, H. E., Bruns, K., Sonka, S. T., Furco, A., & Swanson, L. (2016). The centrality of engagement in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 20(1), 223-244.

      v.            Green, W., Hammer, S., & Star, C. (2009). Facing up to the challenge: why is it so hard to develop graduate attributes?. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(1), 17-29.

    vi.            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(6), 767-787.

  vii.            Jacob, M., & Hellström, T. (2000). The future of knowledge production in the academy. Open University Press.

viii.            Krčmářová, J. (2011). The third mission of higher education institutions: conceptual framework and application in the Czech Republic. European Journal of Higher Education, 1(4), 315-331.

    ix.            Laredo, P. (2007). Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorization of university activities?. Higher education policy, 20(4), 441-456.

      x.            Laredo, P. (2007, March). Toward a third mission for universities. Main transformations, challenges and emerging patterns in higher education systems. UNESCO research seminar for the Regional Scientific Committee for Europe and North America. Paris.

    xi.            Lau, W. (2015). Means to an End: A Comparative Review of Finland and Singapore’s Basic Education Systems.

  xii.            Lo, W. Y. W. (2014). Dimension 1: Influences of University Rankings: Changes in Policy, University Governance and Individual Behaviours. In University Rankings (pp. 81-101). Springer Singapore.

xiii.            Moges, B. P. (2015). The Status of Quality and Relevance of Ethiopian Private Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs): Dynamic Conception and Challenges in Teaching-Learning Practices.

xiv.            Molas-Gallart, J., Salter, A., Patel, P., Scott, A., & Duran, X. (2002). Measuring third stream activities. Final report to the Russell Group of Universities. Brighton: SPRU, University of Sussex.

  xv.            Montesinos, P., Carot, J. M., Martinez, J. M., & Mora, F. (2008). Third mission ranking for world class universities: Beyond teaching and research. Higher education in Europe, 33(2-3), 259-271.

xvi.            OECD. (2007) Higher education and regions: Globally competitive, locally engaged. Paris: OECD Publications

xvii.            Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2015). Ranking games. Evaluation Review, 39(1), 102-129.

xviii.            Saisana, M., d’Hombres, B., & Saltelli, A. (2011). Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings and policy implications. Research policy, 40(1), 165-177.

xix.            Shin, J. C., Toutkoushian, R. K., & Teichler, U. (Eds.). (2011). University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education (Vol. 3). Springer Science & Business Media.

  xx.            Šolc, M., Markulik, Š., & Sütőová, A. (2014). Quality In Contemporary University Environment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143, 703-707.

xxi.            Taylor, P., & Braddock, R. (2007). International university ranking systems and the idea of university excellence. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(3), 245-260.

              xxii.            Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (No. 49). Sage.

Cite this Article: