An approach to improve the indicator weights of scientific and technological competitiveness evaluation of Chinese universities

被引:18
作者
Ding, Jingda [1 ]
Qiu, Junping [1 ]
机构
[1] Wuhan Univ, Res Ctr Chinese Sci Evaluat, Wuhan 430072, Peoples R China
关键词
Indicator weights; Improvement; Approach; Evaluation; JOURNAL EVALUATION; PERFORMANCE; MANAGEMENT; TAIWAN;
D O I
10.1007/s11192-010-0268-7
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
As indicator weights obtaining is often difficult in all types of evaluation, this paper describes an approach to improve the indicator weights of scientific and technological competitiveness evaluation of Chinese universities. As a public institution funded by Chinese government, the research center for Chinese science evaluation of Wuhan University has completed five annual evaluations for the scientific and technological competitiveness of Chinese universities since 2005, whose abundant and reliable data motivated us to try to improve the weights obtained by the AHP (analytical hierarchy process). Based on these data, we calculated the objective weights of the indicator using the representative mathematical methods of the least square and the variation coefficient. As the weights of AHP can be influenced by the knowledge, experience and preference of experts and the calculated objective weights neglect the subjective judgement information, we integrated the subjective and objective weights by respectively using the additive and multiplicative model to reflect both the subjective considerations of experts and the objective information, and obtained three kinds of integrative weights. Finally, we selected the integrative weights of multiplicative model as the best weights by comparing and analyzing the evaluation results in 2005 and 2009 of each kind of weights. The results show that the evaluation effect of the weights of multiplicative model is indeed the best for all types of Chinese universities among these kinds of weights, and the experts and university principals enquired also basically reached a consensus on the university rankings of the integrative weights of multiplicative model.
引用
收藏
页码:285 / 297
页数:13
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], MULTICRITERIA DECISI
[2]  
Bonnevie-Nebelong E, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V66, P411, DOI 10.1007/s11192-006-0029-9
[3]   Identifying 'highly-rated' journals - an Australian case study [J].
Butler, L .
SCIENTOMETRICS, 2002, 53 (02) :207-227
[4]   A MULTICRITERIA APPROACH FOR EVALUATING THE PERFORMANCE OF INDUSTRIAL FIRMS [J].
DIAKOULAKI, D ;
MAVROTAS, G ;
PAPAYANNAKIS, L .
OMEGA-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 1992, 20 (04) :467-474
[6]  
Guo Y.J., 2007, Theory, Method and Application of Comprehensive Evaluation, V1st ed, DOI DOI 10.1016/S1874-8651(08)60060-5
[7]   PERFORMANCE-MEASUREMENT IN UNIVERSITIES [J].
HIGGINS, JC .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 1989, 38 (03) :358-368
[8]   Research evaluation of research-oriented universities in Taiwan from 1993 to 2003 [J].
Huang, MH ;
Chang, HW ;
Chen, DZ .
SCIENTOMETRICS, 2006, 67 (03) :419-435
[9]  
Hwang C.-L., 1987, GROUP DECISION MAKIN
[10]  
Hwang Ching-Lai, 1981, MULTIPLE ATTRIBUTE D, P58