Research Performance Ranking of Universities in Taiwan
Ru-Jer Wang
Professor, Department of Education, Graduate Institute of Educational Policy
and Administration, National Taiwan Normal University
Dean of Office of Research Development, Higher Education Evaluation &
Accreditation Council of Taiwan
Abstract
There are two common methods to promote university transparency around the
globe. One is horizontal classification, which categorizes higher educational
institutions according to their functions, missions, and features. The purpose of this
classification is to foster understanding of differential qualities among these
institutions. Another is vertical classification, which ranks connatural institutions or
similar disciplines based on prestige and performance. This classification presents a
ranking of schools with diverse reputation. Despite criticism by college communities
against current university rankings, more ranking systems have been proposed.
This study discusses the research performance measurement and the ranking
procedures for colleges and universities in Taiwan. The purposes are:
(1) understanding the measurement of university research performance; (2)
analyzing the ranking of research performance. Using secondary data analysis, this
study analyzed the number of research projects approved by the National Science
Council (NSC), the number of NSC Outstanding Research Awards, the number of
Research Achievement Awards, and the number of National Professionalships
received from the Ministry of Education. Research results include overall research
performance and average research performance per faculty member. Lastly,
conclusions and suggestions are proposed for improving the research performance of
universities in Taiwan.
1. Research background and purposes
Due to escalating competiveness among higher educational institutions, the
question of “institutional diversity” draws public attention. Likewise, due to the
universalization of higher education, curriculum and institutional heterogeneity
gradually emerge as issues. As a result, transparency of higher educational institutions
is essential for understanding of institutional diversity and heterogeneity.
1
In order to increase institutional transparency, two common methods have been
widely adopted for classifications (Wang, 2008). One is horizontal classification,
which classifies higher educational institutions based on their functions, missions and
features. This form of classification aims to increase our understanding of institutional
heterogeneity. Another is vertical classification, which ranks connatural institutions or
similar disciplines based on their prestige and performance. This classification
presents a ranking of schools with diverse reputation. Although college communities
have criticized these methods of ranking, more ranking systems have been proposed.
As indicated above, it is clear that university ranking has become an important
research topic. Therefore, this study focuses on the research performance ranking of
universities in Taiwan. The research purposes are: (1) to understand the measurement
of university research performance; (2) to analyze the ranking of research
performance designed for universities; (3) to propose suggestions for improving the
research performance of universities in Taiwan.
2. Literature Review
This section includes both the measurement of research performance in
universities and previous studies. First, measurement discussions often rely on the
following information (Wang, 2008):
1) Bibliometric data: users can obtain the number of journal articles published by
a specific researcher, department, institution or country as well as citation trends and
patterns of these articles. Thomson-ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) provides
this information through three citation indices: the Science Citation Index Expanded,
the Social Science Citation Index, and the Arts and Humanities Citation Index. The
indices listed allow users to examine at least 70000 types of articles cited in a journal
article and the number of times an article has been cited.
According to citation analysis, Thomson-ISI lists highly cited researchers in 21
research fields. Highly cited researchers are those whose articles are ranked in the top
250 at any a given time. Moreover, Thomson-ISI also provides original quantitative
data about publications by researchers, institutions and countries.
2) The number of awards received by an individual faculty member: results of
prestigious academic awards are open to the public. Award winners’ affiliated
institutions are also made public. In addition to academic awards, other famous
scholarships and fellowships such as Fulbright scholarships, and societies, such as
Royal Society and Academy of Arts and Sciences are also important indicators.
3) Information of graduate students: In Australia, New Zealand, and England,
government sectors and appropriation units regularly release and publish statistical
2
figures of students in higher educational institutions. These data include:
- total graduate enrollment by institution and disciplines
- graduation status by institution and disciplines
4) Information of faculty members: classified by institution and disciplines,
information of full-time faculty members is analyzed in previous studies. Besides
general information, the ratio of faculty members with Ph.D. degrees to those without
Ph.D. degrees is also analyzed.
5) Research funding obtained from external sources: except for general
information, previous studies include information of institutions that gained
competitive research grants in their analysis. In some cases, studies also present
information about departments that obtained such funding.
6) Research income information: In Australia, Canada, and the U.S., universities
are regularly surveyed about their research income, such as: technology certificates,
income generated by certificates, patents owned, and net profits of subsidiaries. This
information is usually categorized by institutions and not by departments.
7) Information obtained from peer review: This type of information includes
Research Assessment Exercise, performance-based research fund (PBRF), and
Research Council of Norway.
With respect to empirical studies, Australia Department of Education, Training
and Youth Affairs (1998) conducted cluster analysis on teaching and research features
between 1996 and 1997 to classify Australian universities, and used more than twenty
indicators to carry out six measurements, including overseas orientation, diversity,
internal/full-time orientation, financial research orientation and research personnel
orientation. According to these six indicators, universities are clustered into four to
seven groups, and are ranked within each clustered group.
Furthermore, Abbott and Doucouliagos (2003) conducted data envelopment
analysis on the efficiency of Australian universities, and employed non-parametric
techniques to estimate technical and size efficiency. Output measurement includes
teaching and research; items of teaching output include the number of equivalent
full-time students, enrollment numbers of graduates and undergraduates, and graduate
degrees and college degrees granted; items of research output include research awards,
and research expenditure. Findings indicated that output-input mix has no influence
on statistical results, suggesting that Australian universities have high efficiency.
Assessment of university research performance is undoubtedly a controversial
issue, which not only requires the control of research quantity but also quality. De
Groot et al. (1991) used measurement of bibliometric data and quality (peer review) to
evaluate American universities. Athanassopoulos and Shale (1997) and Johnes and
3
Johnes (1993) applied weighted index of research publication to evaluate the quantity
and quality of research. Johnes and Taylor (1991) utilized traditional measurement of
publication, citation analysis and research income to assess university research
performance. Some North American studies use Social Science Citation Index (SSCI)
as an indicator to evaluate research quality. However, if scholars of a national
university do not submit their articles to SSCI journals, using SSCI as an indicator
might cause biased interpretation of their research quantity and quality. Harris’s
argument (1998) also supports this view.
Another way to measure research performance is to take into account research
income obtained from external sources. Cave, Hanney & Kogan, and Tomkins &
Green suggested that research awards reflect the market value of research, and
considered it a useful indicator of research performance (Valadkhani & Worthington,
2005). By contrast, Johnes and Johnes (1993) argued that research awards should be
viewed as expenditure, rather than output.
The above review reveals controversies and discussions about the assessment of
university research performance. Table 1 presents the topics of theses and
dissertations written by Taiwanese graduates.
Table 1 Topics of theses and dissertations written by Taiwanese graduates
Year Topic
Author
1999 A comparative study on the
Li-Yun Chang
management performance of public and
private universities in Taiwan
School and Department
National Chung Cheng
University/Department of
Accounting
2000 The effect of the MOE’s funding
Ying-Ying Chen Providence University/
program on the academic performance
Department of Business
of universities and colleges in Taiwan
Administration
2002 A case study on the national university Jui-Hua Hu
performance management system: an
application of balanced scorecard
National Sun Yat-sen
University/Department of
Business Administration
2002 The application of data envelopment
Chung Hua
Jan-Chu Chang
analysis on the evaluation of university
research performance
2002 A study on the use of data envelopment Ya-Hui Lin
analysis in evaluating the research
performance of universities and
colleges in Taiwan
4
University/Graduate School
of Technology & Innovation
Management
Chung Hua
University/Graduate School
of Technology & Innovation
Management
2005 A study on the use of data envelopment Shih-Wei Ma
analysis in evaluating the research
performance of national universities
National Kaohsiung
University of Applied
Sciences/ Department of
Industrial Engineering and
Management
2005 A study on the development of the
performance indicator for institute of
technology
Yao-Fang Mei
National Taiwan Normal
University/ Department of
Industrial Education
2005 Research on university performance
measurement: applying balanced
scorecard on a private university
Shou-Pi Sun
Kainan University/
Department of Public Affairs
and Management
2006 A Study of the Performance Evaluation Sheng-Wei Lin
Dynamic Model on the Public
University-A Constructing of Dynamic
Tamkang
University/Department of
Accounting
Balanced Scorecard
2006 The application of Delphi method and Chi-Ying Chang
analytic hierarchy process to the
construction Indices for university
faculty’s research performance
National Taipei University of
Technology/Department of
Industrial Engineering and
Management
Source: collected from the Electronic Theses and Dissertations System and
compiled by the author
Based on the above information, there are pertinent studies on quantitative
ranking. At present, other countries have conducted studies directed at the ranking of
university research performance, whereas there is scant research about this topic in
Taiwan.
3. Research Method
This study conducted secondary data analysis to rank universities in Taiwan based
on their research performance. The following measurement items are indicators of
research performance: the number of research projects approved by National Science
Council, the number of NCS Outstanding Research Awards earned, the number of
Research Achievement Awards, and number of National Professionalships received
from the Ministry of Education.
5
4. Results and Discussions
The results of statistical analysis on the number of research projects approved by
National Science Council, the number of NSC Outstanding Research Awards, the
number of Research Achievement Awards, and National Professionalships received
from the Ministry of Education, include overall academic productivity and academic
productivity per faculty member.
Table 2 presents the overall academic productivity of the top 30 universities; Table
3 presents the academic productivity per faculty member of the top 30 universities.
Regarding academic productivity per faculty member, the top 10 universities are:
National Taiwan University, National Tsing Hua University, National Cheng Gung
University, National Chiao Tung University, National Central University, National
Chung Hsing University, National Sun Yat-sen University, National Taiwan Normal
University, National Yang Ming University, and National Chung Cheng University.
In the case of the number of NSC Outstanding Research Awards, the number of
Research Achievement Awards and National Professionalships received from the
Ministry of Education, rankings of the top 10 universities vary. Overall, four
measurement items of academic productivity are positively correlated with one
another. The statistical results are presented in Table 4 Pearson product-moment
correlation (overall academic productivity, the average academic productivity per
faculty member) and Table 5 Spearman correlation coefficient (ranking of overall
academic productivity, ranking of average academic productivity per faculty
member).
However, regarding average academic productivity per faculty member, the top 10
universities are: National Tsing Hua University, National Taiwan University, National
Cheng Gung University, National Central University, National Chiao Tung University,
National Sun Yat-sen University, National Taiwan University of Science and
Technology, National Chung Hsing University, National Chung Cheng University,
and National Yang Ming University.
Table 2 2003-2007 overall academic productivity of the top 30 universities
Number of
Number of
Number of
NSC
Number of
projects
School
Research
Outstanding
National
approved by
Achievement
Research
Professionalships
NSC
Weighted
Overall
ranking
ranking
Awards
Awards
National Taiwan University
9025 (1)
71 (1)
6
14 (1)
13 (1)
4
1
National Tsing Hua
2
3135 (4)
27 (2)
9 (2)
9 (2)
10
5298 (2)
26 (3)
3 (4)
2 (6)
15
3222 (3)
21 (4)
3 (4)
3 (4)
15
2403 (5)
11 (5)
4 (3)
4 (3)
16
2186 (6)
11 (5)
2 (7)
1 (7)
25
1851 (7)
5 (8)
1 (8)
3 (4)
27
1770 (9)
5 (8)
1 (8)
0 (16)
41
1219 (13)
5 (8)
1 (8)
0 (16)
45
1833 (8)
7 (7)
0 (15)
0 (16)
46
1210 (14)
0 (17)
1 (8)
1 (7)
46
1034 (19)
1 (16)
3 (4)
1 (7)
46
1480 (10)
3 (13)
1 (8)
0 (16)
47
1366 (11)
4 (11)
0 (15)
0 (16)
53
Tamkang University
1165 (15)
0 (17)
0 (15)
1 (7)
54
15
Yuan Ze University
889 (21)
4 (11)
0 (15)
1 (7)
54
15
1306 (12)
3 (13)
0 (15)
0 (16)
56
17
1070 (18)
0 (17)
1 (8)
0 (16)
59
1090 (17)
2 (15)
0 (15)
0 (16)
63
1141 (16)
0 (17)
0 (15)
0 (16)
64
957 (20)
0 (17)
0 (15)
0 (16)
68
853 (22)
1 (16)
0 (15)
0 (16)
69
I-Shou University
850 (23)
1 (16)
0 (15)
0 (16)
70
23
Taipei Medical University
813 (24)
0 (17)
0 (15)
0 (16)
72
24
University
National Cheng Gung
3
University
National Chiao Tung
3
University
National Central University
National Chung Hsing
5
6
University
National Sun Yat-sen
7
University
National Taiwan Normal
8
University
National Yang Ming
9
University
National Chung Cheng
10
University
National Taipei University
10
of Technology
National Ocean University
National Taiwan University
10
13
of Science and Technology
National Chengchi
14
University
Chang Gung University
Christian Chung Yuan
18
University
Kaohsiung Medical
19
University
Feng Chia University
National Yunlin University
20
21
of Technology
National Dong Hwa
22
University
7
National Formosa
24
808 (25)
1 (16)
0 (15)
0 (16)
72
806 (26)
0 (17)
0 (15)
0 (16)
74
784 (27)
0 (17)
0 (15)
0 (16)
75
711 (28)
0 (17)
0 (15)
0 (16)
76
University
Tung-Hai University
26
Southern Taiwan University
27
of Technology
Catholic Fu Jen University
28
National Changhua
29
University University of
677 (29)
0 (17)
0 (15)
0 (16)
77
National Chaiyi University
630 (30)
1 (16)
0 (15)
0 (16)
77
29
Providence University
419 (45)
0 (17)
1 (8)
1 (7)
77
29
Education
Table 3 2003-2007 academic productivity per faculty members of the top 30
universities
Number of NSC
Number of projects
School
Number of Research
Number of National
Overall
Achievement Awards
Professionalships
ranking
Outstanding Research
approved by NSC
Awards
National Tsing Hua
1.1098
( 1
)
0.0097
( 1
)
0.0031
( 1
)
0.0032
( 1
)
1
0.9818
( 3
)
0.0078
( 2
)
0.0015
( 3
)
0.0023
( 2
)
2
0.9335
( 4
)
0.0043
( 5
)
0.0014
( 4
)
0.0014
( 3
)
3
0.8924
( 5
)
0.0072
( 3
)
0.0010
( 5
)
0.0014
( 3
)
3
1.0527
( 2
)
0.0046
( 4
)
0.0005
( 9
)
0.0014
( 3
)
5
0.8042
( 7
)
0.0033
( 6
)
0.0007
( 6
)
0.0010
( 7
)
6
0.8746
( 6
)
0.0022
( 9
)
0.0004
( 12
)
0.0013
( 6
)
7
0.6022
( 11
)
0.0031
( 8
)
0.0006
( 7
)
0.0007
( 8
)
7
0.8023
( 8
)
0.0018
( 10
)
0.0005
( 9
)
0.0006
( 10
)
8
0.7458
( 9
)
0.0032
( 7
)
0.0000
( 15
)
0.0007
( 8
)
9
University
National Taiwan
University
National Cheng Gung
University
National Central
University
National Chiao Tung
University
National Sun Yat-sen
University
National Taiwan
University of Science
and Technology
National Chung Hsing
University
National Chung Cheng
University
National Yang Ming
University
8
Yuan Ze University
0.6756
( 10
)
0.0031
( 8
)
0.0000
( 15
)
0.0005
( 11
)
10
National Yunlin
0.5942
( 13
)
0.0006
( 20
)
0.0017
( 2
)
0.0005
( 11
)
11
0.5795
( 14
)
0.0013
( 11
)
0.0003
( 14
)
0.0003
( 13
)
12
0.5786
( 15
)
0.0013
( 11
)
0.0000
( 15
)
0.0003
( 13
)
13
0.5957
( 12
)
0.0009
( 16
)
0.0000
( 15
)
0.0003
( 13
)
14
0.5453
( 17
)
0.0010
( 14
)
0.0000
( 15
)
0.0000
( 16
)
15
0.5071
( 18
)
0.0010
( 14
)
0.0000
( 15
)
0.0000
( 16
)
16
0.4690
( 21
)
0.0012
( 13
)
0.0000
( 15
)
0.0000
( 16
)
17
0.5004
( 19
)
0.0009
( 16
)
0.0000
( 15
)
0.0000
( 16
)
18
0.5556
( 16
)
0.0005
( 22
)
0.0000
( 15
)
0.0000
( 16
)
19
0.4848
( 20
)
0.0006
( 20
)
0.0000
( 15
)
0.0000
( 16
)
20
0.4688
( 22
)
0.0007
( 19
)
0.0000
( 15
)
0.0000
( 16
)
21
0.4678
( 23
)
0.0004
( 24
)
0.0005
( 9
)
0.0000
( 16
)
22
0.4214
( 25
)
0.0008
( 18
)
0.0000
( 15
)
0.0000
( 16
)
22
0.4384
( 24
)
0.0004
( 24
)
0.0000
( 15
)
0.0000
( 16
)
24
0.3734
( 27
)
0.0000
( 26
)
0.0004
( 12
)
0.0000
( 16
)
24
Huafan University
0.3725
( 28
)
0.0005
( 22
)
0.0000
( 15
)
0.0000
( 16
)
24
Tatung University
0.3751
( 26
)
0.0000
( 26
)
0.0000
( 15
)
0.0000
( 16
)
27
University of
Technology
National Ocean
University
National Taipei
University of
Technology
National Dong Hwa
University
National Chi Nan
University
Chang Gung
University
National Taiwan
Normal University
National Kaoshiung
First University of
Science and
Technology
National University of
Kaohsiung
National Formosa
University
Kaohsiung Medical
University
Christian Chung Yuan
University
National Chengchi
University
Taipei Medical
University
National Changhua
University of
Education
9
Feng Chia University
0.3680
( 29
)
0.0000
( 26
)
0.0000
( 15
)
0.0000
( 16
)
28
I-Shou University
0.3571
( 30
)
0.0000
( 26
)
0.0000
( 15
)
0.0000
( 16
)
29
Chung Hua University
0.3499
( 31
)
0.0000
( 26
)
0.0000
( 15
)
0.0000
( 16
)
30
Table 4 Pearson product-moment correlation—overall academic productivity, average
academic productivity per faculty member
Overall academic productivity
NSC
Outstand
ing
Awards
Research
Achieve
ment
Awards
National
Professionalships
NSC
1
.935(**)
.862(**)
.828(**)
Outstanding Awards
.935(**)
1
.939(**)
.917(**)
.862(**)
.939(**)
1
.968(**)
.828(**)
.917(**)
.968(**)
1
Research
Achievement Awards
National
Professionalships
** p<.01
Average academic productivity per faculty member
Research
NSC
NSC
Outstand
ing
Awards
Achieve
ment
Awards
National
Professionalships
1
.790(**)
.641(**)
.752(**)
.790(**)
1
.817(**)
.641(**)
.817(**)
1
.879(**)
.752(**)
.959(**)
.879(**)
1
Outstanding Awards
Research
Achievement Awards
National
Professionalships
.959(**)
** p<.01
Table 5 Spearman correlation coefficient—ranking of overall academic
productivity, ranking of average academic productivity per faculty member
10
Ranking of overall academic productivity
Ranking of
Ranking of Outstanding
NSC
Research
Awards
Ranking of
Research
Achievement
awards
Ranking of
National
Professionalships
Overall
ranking
Ranking of NSC
1.000
.587(**)
.463(**)
.389(**)
.999(**)
Ranking of
Outstanding
Research Awards
.587(**)
1.000
.579(**)
.437(**)
.587(**)
.463(**)
.579(**)
1.000
.686(**)
.476(**)
Ranking of
National
Professionalships
.389(**)
.437(**)
.686(**)
1.000
.413(**)
Overall ranking
.999(**)
.587(**)
.476(**)
.413(**)
1.000
Ranking of
Research
Achievement
Awards
** p<.01
Ranking of average academic productivity per faculty member
Ranking of
Ranking of Outstanding
NSC
Research
Awards
Ranking of NSC
Ranking of
Outstanding
Research Awards
Ranking of
Research
Achievement
Awards
1.000
.612(**)
Ranking of
Ranking of
Research
Achievement
Awards
National
Professionalships
.453(**)
.500(**)
Overall
ranking
1.000(**
)
.614(**)
.612(**)
1.000
.596(**)
.806(**)
.458(**)
.453(**)
.596(**)
1.000
.756(**)
Ranking of
National
Professionalships
.500(**)
.500(**)
.806(**)
.756(**)
1.000
Overall ranking
1.000(**)
.614(**)
.458(**)
.500(**)
** p<.01
11
1.000
5. Suggestions
Based on the findings, this study proposes two suggestions: First, when the
government provides funding to universities, it should take school scale into
consideration. This study finds that National Taiwan University ranks highest in
overall academic productivity, while National Tsing Hua University ranks second
highest. However, when measured by average academic productivity, National Tsing
Hua University surpasses National Taiwan University to become the highest ranking
university. As a result, the government should especially reward small universities
that perform well, based on the principles of fairness and justice.
Second, when universities pursue research performance, they should adopt
diverse development strategies based on their size and average performance. National
Tsing Hua University serves as an example: if it could expand its scale appropriately
and maintain its average research performance, it would be possible for National
Tsing Hua University to surpass National Taiwan University in overall academic
productivity. By contrast, in terms of ranking, for schools where overall academic
productivity is higher than the average academic productivity per faculty member,
steps must be taken to reward outstanding members in order to improve average
research performance.
References
Wang, R.J. (2008). Research Performance Assessment on International Universities.
Taipei: Higher Education.
Abbott, M. & Doucouliagos, C. (2003). The efficiency of Australian universities: A
data envelopment analysis, Economics of Education Review, 22: 89-97.
Athanassopoulos, A. & Shale, E. (1997). Assessing the comparative efficiency of
higher education institutions in the UK by means of envelopment analysis,
Education Economics, 5(2): 117-134.
De Groot, H., McMahon, W. & Volkwein, F. (1991). The cost structure of American
research universities, Review of Economics and Statistics, 73(3):424-431.
Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (1998). The characteristics and
performance of higher education institutions, Occasional Paper Series IA 98,
Common wealth of Australia, Canberra.
Harris, G. T. (1988). Research output in Australian university economics departments:
An update for 1984-88, Australian Economic Papers, 29:249-259.
Johnes, G. & Taylor, J. (1991). Performance indicators in higher education.
Buckingham: SRHE and Open University.
Johnes, J. & Johnes, G. (1993). Measuring the research performance of UK economics
departments: Application of data envelopment analysis, Oxford Economic
12
Papers, 5(2):332-348.
Valadkhani, A. & Worthington, A. (2005). Ranking and clustering Australian
university research performance, 1998-2002, Economics Working Paper Series,
University of Wollongong.
13