Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring the Research Performance of Postsecondary Institutions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
University Rankings

Abstract

Now more than ever, interest in measuring the research performance of colleges and universities is at an all-time high across the globe. There are several factors that have precipitated this growth of interest in assessing research productivity, particularly in the United States. First, colleges and universities are increasingly competing with each other for reputation and prestige, and enhancing research productivity is often viewed as a means to accomplish this goal. Based on expenditures for academic research, scientific production grew exponentially over the twentieth century (Geiger 2004) and current levels of research funding indicate the trend continues in the new century. As a result, the system of higher education in the United States has experienced considerable “mission drift” in recent years, as institutions that previously may have focused more on the teaching dimension of their mission have ratchetted up their research production and expectations of faculty. Some scholars including Geiger (2004) and Slaughter and Rhoades (2004) purport that universities today are highly reliant on federal and industry funding for research and development (R&D) funding, leading to “academic capitalism” and the possibility of research for financial gain more than for authentic discovery of knowledge. The benefits of funding and visibility that come from academic research are sought by many and factor into institution rankings as well. China’s “2020 Plan,” Korea’s plan to create more world-class universities (Shin 2009), and the zealous grab for higher institutional rankings continues with annual releases of publications from such groups as US News & World Report, The Academic Ranking of World Universities (from Shanghi Jiao Tong University), and Thomson Reuters.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Al, U., Sahiner, M., & Tonta, Y. (2006). Arts and humanities literature: Bibliometric characteristics of contributions by Turkish authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1011–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Astin, A. (1970). Methodology of research on college impact (I). Sociology of Education, 43(3), 223–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for excellence. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, L. L. (1986). What characterizes a productive research department? Research in Higher Education, 25(3), 211–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K. Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries. Retrieved January 27, 2010 at, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1533854/pdf/1742-5581-3-7.pdf

  • Bauer, K., & Bakkalbasi, N. (2005). An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine. Retrieved January 27, 2010 at http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html

  • Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, W. (1975). The university professor as a utility maximizer and producer of learning, research, and income. The Journal of Human Resources, 14(1), 109–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, W. (1979). Professorial behavior given a stochastic reward structure. The American Economic Review, 69(5), 1010–1017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, W. (1982). Behavior and productivity implications of institutional and project funding of research: Comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63(3), 595–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 204–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capaldi, E., Lombardi, J., Abbey, C., & Craig, D. (2008). The top American research universities: 2008 annual report. Tempe, AZ: The Center for Measuring University Performance. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://mup.asu.edu/research2008.pdf

  • Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (1971). New students and new places. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (2009). Carnegie classifications FAQs. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/about/sub.asp?key=18&subkey=405#1.0.1

  • Cole, S. (1979). Age and scientific performance. The American Journal of Sociology, 84(4), 958–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B. (1984). The citation process: The role and significance of citations in scientific communication. London: Taylor Graham.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: From the science citation index to cybermetrics. Lanham: Scarecrow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, A. (1984). An economic model of the life-cycle research productivity of scientists. Scientometrics, 6(3), 189–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, A. (1986). What is a citation worth? The Journal of Human Resources, 21(2), 200–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, N., & Graham, H. (2000). How should we rate research universities? Change, 32(4), 21–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, R., & Schmidt, R. (1994). Modeling institutional production of higher education. Economics of Education Review, 13(3), 197–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dundar, H., & Lewis, D. (1995). Departmental productivity in American universities: Economies of scale and scope. Economics of Education Review, 14(2), 119–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: University-industry-government innovation in action. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Dzisah, J. (2008). Rethinking development: Circulation in the triple helix. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(6), 653–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and applications in science, technology, and humanities. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, R. L. (2004). Research & relevant knowledge: American universities since WWII. New Brunswick: Transaction Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, R., & Sa, C. (2008). Tapping the riches of science: Universities and the promise of economic growth. Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerrity, D., & McKenzie, R. (1978). The ranking of southern economics departments: New criterion and further evidence. Southern Economic Journal, 45(2), 608–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, M., & Chang, Y. (2008). Characteristics of research output in social sciences and humanities: From a research evaluation perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1819–1828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, A. D. (2009). Reevaluating the role of defense and security R&D in the innovative system: Reform of the UK government defence research establishments. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(5), 505–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnes, J., Taylor, J., & Francis, B. (1993). The research performance of UK universities: A statistical analysis of the results of the 1989 research selectivity exercise. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, 156(2), 271–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krampen, G., Becker, R., Wahner, U., & Montada, L. (2007). On the validity of citation counting in science evaluation: Content analyses of references and citations in psychological publications. Scientometrics, 71(2), 191–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laband, D. (1985). An evaluation of 50 ‘ranked’ economics departments by quantity and quality of faculty publications and graduate student placement and research success. Southern Economic Journal, 52, 216–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libaers, D. (2009). Reevaluating the role of defense and security R&D in the innovation system: industry relationships of DoD-funded academics and institutional changes in US university systems. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(5), 474–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey, D. (1989). Using citation counts as a measure of quality in science. Scientometrics, 15(3–4), 189–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, J., & McGinnis, R. (1982). On adjusting productivity measures for multiple authorship. Scientometrics, 4(5), 379–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maher, B. (1996). The NRC’s report on research-doctorate programs: It’s uses and misuses. Change, 28(6), 54–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relation between research productivity and teaching effectiveness. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(5), 603–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, A., & Zhao, C. (2005). Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie classification. Change, 37(5), 51–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. (2006). Bibliometric rankings of world universities (CWTS Report 2006-01). Leiden: Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H., Burger, W., Frankfort, J., & Van Raan, A. (1985). The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance. Research Policy, 14(3), 131–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Digest of education statistics 2008. Washington DC: Institute of Education Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nederhof, A. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porta, M., Fernandez, E., & Puigdomenech, E. (2006). Book citations: Influence of epidemiologic thought in the academic community. Revista de Saúde Pública, 40, 50–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, S., & Toutkoushian, R. (2006). Institutional research productivity and the connection to average student quality and overall reputation. Economics of Education Review, 25(6), 605–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, R., Roy, N., & Johnson, G. (1983). Approximating total citation counts from first author counts and from total papers. Scientometrics, 5(2), 117–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seol, S., & Park, J. (2008). Knowledge sources of innovation studies in Korea: A citation analysis. Scientometrics, 75(1), 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, J. (2009). Building world-class research university: The Brain Korea 21 project. Higher Education, 58(5), 669–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, K., & Putnam, R. (1982). Age and academic – professional honors. Journal of Gerontology, 37(2), 220–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, M. (1983). Characteristics of the literature and intellectual acceptance of scholarly monographs. College & Research Libraries, 44(4), 199–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, D. (1986). The assessment of quality in higher education: A critical review of the literature and research. Research in Higher Education, 24(3), 223–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, R. (2008). Citation characteristics and intellectual acceptance of scholarly monographs. College & Research Libraries, 69(4), 356–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toutkoushian, R. (1994). Using citations to measure sex discrimination in faculty salaries. The Review of Higher Education, 18(1), 61–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toutkoushian, R., Porter, S., Danielson, C., & Hollis, P. (2003). Using publication counts to measure an institution’s research productivity. Research in Higher Education, 44(2), 121–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • University System of Georgia Annual Financial Report FY 2007. Retrieved on October 18, 2009, from http://www.usg.edu/fiscal_affairs/reporting/annual_fin_rep/2007/afr2007_cons_pdf.pdf

  • Wardle, D. (1995). Journal citation impact factors and parochial citation practices. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 76, 102–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, D., & Skinner, T. (1996). Rating PhD programs: What the NRC report says… and doesn’t say. Change, 28(3), 22–32, 34–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates, S., & Chapman, K. (2005). An examination of the use of monographs in the communication journal literature. Behavioral and Social Sciences Librarian, 26(11), 39–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zainab, A., & Goi, S. (1997). Characteristics of citations used by humanities researchers. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 2(2), 19–36.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Higher Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

    Robert K. Toutkoushian & Karen Webber

Authors
  1. Robert K. Toutkoushian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karen Webber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert K. Toutkoushian .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Education, Seoul National University, Gwanak-ro 599, Seoul, Gwanak-gu, 151-742, Korea, Republic of (South Korea)

    Jung Cheol Shin

  2. Inst. Higher Education, University of Georgia, Meigs Hall, Athens, 30602, Georgia, USA

    Robert K. Toutkoushian

  3. Internationales Zentrum für, Hochschulforschung Kassel, Universität Kassel, Mönchebergstr. 17, Kassel, 34109, Germany

    Ulrich Teichler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Toutkoushian, R.K., Webber, K. (2011). Measuring the Research Performance of Postsecondary Institutions. In: Shin, J., Toutkoushian, R., Teichler, U. (eds) University Rankings. The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1116-7_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation