GOOGLE TRENDSLE ÜNİVERSİTE SIRALAMA SİSTEMLERİNİN POPÜLARİTESİNİ DEĞERLENDİRME

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 1, 11 - 27, 30.06.2023

Nazan Bakır , Gökhan Arastaman

Öz

Amaç: Bu araştırmada, dünya sıralamalarında; önemli olan kriterlerin ortaya konulması, aranma hacminin kıyaslanması ve sıralamaların popülerliğinin Google Trends verileri kullanılarak araştırılması amaçlanmıştır.
Yöntem: Çalışmada dünya sıralamalarının popülerliği ve bilinirliği için Google Trends verileri kullanılmıştır. Google Trends ten verileri elde edilirken "dünya genelinde", "son 12 ay", "tüm kategoriler" ve "google web arama" kategorileri seçilerek dünya sıralamalarının arama ilgisine bakılmıştır. Ayrıca bu kapsamda URAP, ARWU, CWUR, CWTS-Leiden, NTU, QS, RUR, US News, SCImago-SJR, THE ve Webometrics web sayfalarında yer alan 2022 yılında yayımladıkları sıralama ölçütleri incelenmiştir.
Bulgu: Bu araştırmada dünya sıralamalarının Google Trends üzerinde yapılan veri ve gösterge gibi ölçütler üzerine değerlendirme yapılmıştır. THE dünya genelinde 70 bölge üzerinde, QS 69 bölge ile popülerlikte ön sıralarda yer almaktadır. Bunu US News 31 bölge, Webometrics 15 bölge ve ARWU 12 bölgeyle takip ederek bilinirliğini gözler önüne sermektedir. URAP 11 bölge, SJR on bölge, CWUR sekiz bölge, Leiden Üniversitesi yedi bölge, NTU altı bölge ve son olarak RUR üç bölgede dünya kapsamında aranması gerçekleşmiştir. Ayrıca Google Trends aranma hacmi neticesinde elde edilen bulgularda görülüyor ki; farklı dünya sıralamasını kullanan bölgelerin ABD, Hindistan olduğu; THE, QS, US News, Webometrics, ARWU sıralamalarını, Kanada'nın THE, QS, US News, ARWU sıralamalarını, Almanya, Çin ve Türkiye'nin THE, QS, US News sıralamalarını, Rusya'nın ise THE ve QS sıralamalarını sık olarak kullanımda yer aldığı ve popüler olduğu görülmektedir.
Sonuç: Araştırma sonucunda; popülerliği ve bilinirliği en yüksek olandan sırasıyla THE, QS, US News, Webometrics, ARWU, URAP, SJR, CWUR, CWTS-Leiden, NTU ve RUR gibi önde gelen sıralamalarda bazılarının güçlü bir şekilde bibliyometrik verilere dayandığını ve yüksek benzerliklerinin bulunduğu görülmektedir. Dünya sıralamaları ölçütlerinde araştırma, öğretim ve alıntılara ağırlık verilmekte; aynı zamanda uluslararası görünüm, itibar anketi, alıntılar, akademik mükemmellik ve endüstriyel iş birliği ölçümleri de kapsamlı bir şekilde yer almaktadır. Ayrıca popüler olan dünya sıralamalarının, yoğun nüfusa sahip ülkelerde daha fazla kullanıldığını sonucuna varılmıştır.
Çıkarım: Sıralama ölçüt kriterlerinin esaslarını yerine getirmek üzere Google Trends popülerlik ve bilinirliğinde artış olması gerekmektedir. Bu nedenle yükseköğretim kurumları ulusların yetenek çekme kapasitesini kullanmak için sıralama yarışında yer almak istemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Google Trends, sıralama, üniversite sıralamaları, ölçütler, yükseköğretim, Ranking, Hochschulrankings, Benchmarks, Hochschulbildung

BEWERTUNG DER BELIEBTHEIT VON UNIVERSITÄTS-RANKING-SYSTEMEN MITHILFE VON GOOGLE-TRENDS

Öz

Zweck: In dieser Forschung, in der Weltrangliste; Ziel ist es, die wichtigen Kriterien aufzudecken, das Suchvolumen zu vergleichen und die Popularität der Rankings anhand von Google Trends-Daten zu untersuchen.
Methode: In der Studie wurden Daten von Google Trends zur Popularität und Bekanntheit von Weltranglisten herangezogen. Bei der Erhebung von Daten aus Google Trends wurde das Suchinteresse der Weltrangliste untersucht, indem die Kategorien „Weltweit“, „Letzte 12 Monate“, „Alle Kategorien“ und „Google-Websuche“ ausgewählt wurden. Zusätzlich wurden die im Jahr 2022 auf den Webseiten von URAP, ARWU, CWUR, CWTS-Leiden, NTU, QS, RUR, US News, SCImago-SJR, THE und Webometrics veröffentlichten Rankingkriterien untersucht.
Ergebnis: In dieser Studie wurden die Weltranglisten nach Kriterien wie Daten und Indikatoren von Google Trends bewertet. THE steht mit QS 69 Regionen in über 70 Regionen weltweit an der Spitze der Beliebtheit. US News folgt mit 31 Regionen, Webometrics mit 15 Regionen und ARWU mit 12 Regionen, was seine Anerkennung demonstriert. URAP 11 Regionen, SJR zehn Regionen, CWUR acht Regionen, Leiden Universität sieben Regionen, NTU sechs Regionen und schließlich RUR drei Regionen wurden weltweit durchsucht. Darüber hinaus ist es in den Ergebnissen zu sehen, die als Ergebnis des Suchvolumens von Google Trends erhalten wurden. die Regionen mit unterschiedlichen Weltranglisten sind die USA, Indien; Wir verwenden häufig THE, QS, US News, Webometrics, ARWU-Rankings, Kanadas THE, QS, US News, ARWU-Rankings, Deutschlands, Chinas und Türkeis THE, QS, US News-Rankings und Russlands THE- und QS-Rankings verwenden und beliebt.
Fazit: Als Ergebnis der Forschung; Es ist ersichtlich, dass einige der führenden Rankings wie THE, QS, US News, Webometrics, ARWU, URAP, SJR, CWUR, CWTS-Leiden, NTU und RUR stark auf bibliometrischen Daten basieren und hohe Ähnlichkeiten aufweisen, von den beliebtesten bzw. bekannt. Forschung, Lehre und Zitationen werden in den Kriterien der Weltrangliste betont; Es umfasst auch umfassende Maßnahmen zur internationalen Ausrichtung, Reputationsumfrage, Zitate, akademische Exzellenz und industrielle Zusammenarbeit. Es wurde auch festgestellt, dass populäre Weltranglisten eher in dicht besiedelten Ländern verwendet werden.
Schlussfolgerung: Die Beliebtheit und Bekanntheit von Google Trends sollte steigen, um die Grundlage der Ranking-Kriterien zu erfüllen. Aus diesem Grund wollen die Hochschulen am Ranking-Rennen teilnehmen, um die Talent-Anziehungskraft der Nationen zu nutzen.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ranking, Hochschulrankings, Benchmarks, Hochschulbildung, Google Trends

ASSSESING UNIVERSITYS’ POPULARITIES OF UNİVERSITY RANKINGS BY USING GOOGLE TRENDS

Öz

Purpose: In this research, in the world rankings; It is aimed to reveal the important criteria, to compare the search volume and to investigate the popularity of the rankings using Google Trends data.
Method: In the study, Google Trends data was used for the popularity and awareness of world rankings. While obtaining data from Google Trends, the search interest of the world rankings was examined by selecting the categories "worldwide", "last 12 months", "all categories" and "google web search". In addition, the ranking criteria published in 2022 on the web pages of URAP, ARWU, CWUR, CWTS-Leiden, NTU, QS, RUR, US News, SCImago-SJR, THE and Webometrics were examined.
Finding: In this study, the world rankings were evaluated on criteria such as data and indicators made on Google Trends. THE is at the forefront of popularity, with QS 69 regions in over 70 regions worldwide. US News follows this with 31 regions, Webometrics with 15 regions, and ARWU with 12 regions, demonstrating its recognition. URAP 11 regions, SJR ten regions, CWUR eight regions, Leiden University seven regions, NTU six regions and finally RUR three regions were searched worldwide. In addition, it is seen in the findings obtained as a result of Google Trends search volume; the regions using different world rankings are the USA and India; We frequently use THE, QS, US News, Webometrics, ARWU rankings, Canada's THE, QS, US News, ARWU rankings, Germany, China and Turkey's THE, QS, US News rankings, and Russia's THE and QS rankings. appears to be in use and popular.
Conclusion: As a result of the research; It is seen that some of the leading rankings such as THE, QS, US News, Webometrics, ARWU, URAP, SJR, CWUR, CWTS-Leiden, NTU and RUR are strongly based on bibliometric data and have high similarities, from the most popular and well-known, respectively. Research, teaching and citations are emphasized in the world rankings criteria; It also includes comprehensive measures of international outlook, reputation survey, citations, academic excellence, and industrial collaboration. It has also been concluded that popular world rankings are used more in densely populated countries. As a result, the study, which was built in line with the purpose of the research, is seen as an important resource for evaluating the excellence of universities across global university rankings, and it is of importance for every segment existing and affected at the education level conclusion is reached. Because both state and private universities can be considered as political institutions of the state.
Inference: There should be an increase in popularity and awareness of Google Trends in order to fulfill the basis of the ranking criteria. For this reason, higher education institutions want to take part in the ranking race to use the talent attracting capacity of the nations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Google Trends, ranking, university rankings, criteria, higher education., Ranking, Hochschulrankings, Benchmarks, Hochschulbildung

Kaynakça

• Agasisti, T., & Bonomi, F. (2014). Benchmarking universities’ efficiency indicators in the presence of internal heterogeneity. Studies in Higher Education, 39(7), 1237–1255.doi:10.1080/03075079.2013.801423
• Amsler, S. S. & Bolsmann, C. (2012) University ranking as social exclusion, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 33:2, 283-301, To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2011.649835
• ARWU (2022), https://www.shanghairanking.com/
• Aust, J., & Musselin, C. (2014). The reconfiguration of the French university landscape as an indirect consequence of the Shangay rankings, or how rankings indirectly affect the design of higher education systems. European Group of Organizational Studies (EGOS) Colloquium, Rotterdam, NL.
• Borup, D., & Schütte, E. C. M. (2022). In search of a job: Forecasting employment growth using Google Trends. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 40(1), 186-200.
• Bowen, G., A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. http://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027.
• Bowman, N., & Bastedo, M. (2009). Getting on the front page: Organizational reputation, status signals, and the impact of U.S. News and World Report on student decisions. Research in Higher Education,. doi:10.1007/sl 1162-009-9129-8.
• Cavallin, M., & Lindblad, S. (2006). Världsmästerskap i vetenskap? En granskning av internationella rankinglistor och deras sätt att hantera kvaliteter hos universitetet. Göteborg: Göteborgs Universitet Dnr G11 530/06.
• Chen, K. H., & Liao, P. Y. (2012). A comparative study on world university rankings: a bibliometric survey. Scientometrics, 92(1), 89-103.
• Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into practice, 39(3), 124-130.
• CWUR (2022). https://cwur.org/methodology/world-university-rankings.php
• Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. (2010). Letter on higher education funding for 2011–12 and beyond, December 20. http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/higher-education/docs/h/10-1359-hefce-grant-letter-20-dec-2010.pdf.
• Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher education, 49(4), 495-533.
• Europa (2004). Role of Universities in a Knowledge-based Society and Economy. Brussels: European Commission.
• Fauzi, M. A., Tan, C. N. L., Daud, M., & Awalludin, M. M. N. (2020). University rankings: A review of methodological flaws. Issues in Educational Research, 30(1), 79-96.
• Fowles, J., Frederickson, H. G., & Koppell, J. (2016). University rankings: Evidence and a conceptual framework. Public Administration Review, 76, 790–803.
• Gnolek, S. L., Falciano, V. T., & Kuncl, R. W. (2014). Modeling change and variation in US News & World Report college rankings: What would it really take to be in the top 20?. Research in Higher Education, 55, 761-779. Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24571815
• Goglio, V. (2016). One size fits all? A different perspective on university rankings, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 38:2, 212-226, DOI: 10.1080/1360080X.2016.1150553
• Google Trends (2022). https://trends.google.com/trends/.March 6, 2022 Grewal, R., Dearden, J. A., & Llilien, G. L. (2008). The university rankings game: Modeling the competition among universities for ranking. The American Statistician, 62(3), 232-237.
• Griffith, A., & Rask, K. (2007). The influence of the U.S news and world report collegiate rankings on the matriculation decision of high-ability students: 1995- 2004. Economics of Education Review, 26, 244-255.
• Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative research, 2(163-194), 105.
• Hazelkorn, E. (2014). Reflections on a Decade of G lobal Rankings: what we've learned and outstanding issues. European journal of education, 49(1), 12-28.
• Hazelkorn, E. (2018). Reshaping the world order of higher education: the role and impact of rankings on national and global systems. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 2(1), 4-31
• Hazelkorn, E., (2007). The impact of league tables and ranking systems on higher education decision making. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(2), pp.1-24.
• Jokar, M., Rahmanian, V., Sharifi, N., Rahmanian, N., & Khoubfekr, H. (2021). Feline infectious peritonitis and feline coronavirus interest during the COVID-19 pandemic: A google trends analysis. American Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 162-165. doi:10.3844/ajavsp.2021.162.165
• Kaul, I. (2008). Providing (contested) global public goods. In V. Rittberger & M. Nettesheim (Eds.), Authority in the global political economy (pp 89–115). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Kehm, B. M. (2014). Global university rankings—Impacts and unintended side effects. European Journal of Education, 49(1), 102-112.
• Kusumastuti, D., & Idrus, N. (2017). Nurturing quality of higher education through national ranking: a potential empowerment model for developing countries. Quality in HigHer education, 23(3), 230-248. Leiden (2022), https://www.leidenranking.com/
• Lindblad, S., & Lindblad, R. F. (2009). Transnational governance of higher education: On globalization and international university ranking lists. Teachers College Record, 111(14), 180-202.
• Margınson, S. & Van Der Wende, M. (2007). To rank or to be ranked: the impact of global rankings in higher education, Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, pp. 306–329.
• Marginson, S. (2007). University rankings, government and social order. http:// www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/people/staff_pages/Marginson/Simons_et_al_chapter%28Marginson%290707.pdf.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. sage.
• Neave, G. (2009). Institutional autonomy 2010–2020. A tale of Elan – Two steps back to make one very large leap forward. In B.M. Kehm, J. Huisman, & B. Stensaker (Eds.), The European higher education area: perspectives on a moving target (pp. 3–22). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers.
• Newman, M., (2010). Networks: an introduction. Oxford university press.
• Noumanong, T., & Leksakul, K. (2016). University Rankings for Higher Education Institutes in Thailand. Asr Chıang Maı Unıversıty Journal Of Socıal Scıences And Humanıtıes, 3(1), 61-72.
• NTU (2022). http://nturanking.csti.tw/methodoloyg/indicators
• Osborne, J. (2010). What happened to social justice? On the European higher education area (EHEA). Journal of Critical Globalization Studies, comment piece, January 12. http://www.criticalglobalisation.com/blogs/juliaosborn_what_happened_to_social_justice.html.
• Peters, M. A. (2019). Global university rankings: Metrics, performance, governance. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(1), 5-13. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2017.1381472
• Pusser, B. (2008). The state, the market and the institutional estate: Revisiting contemporary authority relations in higher education. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XXIII; pp. 105–139). New York: Agathon Press.
• Pusser, B., & Marginson, S. (2013). University rankings in critical perspective. The journal of higher education, 84(4), 544-568.
• QS (2022). https://support.qs.com/hc/en-gb/articles/4405955370898-QS-World-University-Rankings
• RUR (2022). https://roundranking.com/methodology/methodology.html
• Rybiński, K., & Wodecki, A. (2022). Are university ranking and popularity related? An analysis of 500 universities in Google Trends and the QS ranking in 2012-2020. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1-18.
• Saisana, M., d'Hombres, B., Saltelli, A. (2011). Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings and policy implications. Research Policy, 40(1), 165-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.003
• Sharma, M, & Sharma, S. (2020). The rising number of COVID‐19 cases reflecting growing search trend and concern of people: a Google Trend Analysis of eight major countries. J Med Syst.;44(7):117. doi:10.1007/s10916-020-01588-5
• Shattock, M. (2017). The ‘world class’ university and international ranking systems: what are the policy implications for governments and institutions?. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 1(1), 4-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2016.1236669
• SJR (2022), https://www.scimagoir.com/methodology.php
• StatCounter Google (2022). [Erişim tarihi: 12.03.2022]. Search engine market share Turkey. Erişim linki: https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/all/turkey/2020
• THE (2022). https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/world-university-rankings-2022-methodology
• URAP (2022). https://urapcenter.org/Methodology
• US News (2022). https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/articles/methodology
• Van der Wende, M., & Don, W. (2009). Rankings and classifications: The need for a multidimensional approach. Mapping the higher education landscape, 71-86.
• Van Eck, N.J. & Waltman, L., (2009). How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well-known similarity measures. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60, 1635–1651.
• Watts, R.J.& Porter, A.L., (1997). Innovation forecasting. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 56, 25–47.
• Webometrics (2022). https://www.webometrics.info/en
• Wedlin, L. (2008). University marketization: The process and its limits. The university in the market, 84, 143-153.
• YÖK (2020). https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Universiteler/izleme-ve-degerlendirme kriteri/2020/universite-izleme-ve-degerlendirme-gostergeleri-ve-aciklamalari 2020.pdf