Berlin princeps

Berlin principles of International Rating Expert Group

Berlin, May 20, 2006

At the Second meeting of IREG “Methodology and standards of rating quality” in Berlin in 2006 organized by the Centre for development of higher education (CHE) (Germany), Institute of policy in higher education (USA), CEPES UNESCO (Bucharest, Romania) “Berlin principles of HEI ranking” were worked out by the participants from 19 states. National Accreditation Centre shares these principles.
Ranking of HEI and academic programs is a global phenomenon. They serve many purposes: reply the demands of consumers in getting access to clearly stated information about HEI status; stimulate competitiveness among them; provide basis of financing directions; help to classify various types of education institutions, academic programs and disciplines. Moreover, provided right understanding and interpretation, they contribute to define the notion of “quality” of HEI in their countries, adding many-sided activity realized by public and independent accreditation organizations in the field of expertise and quality control. That is why HEI ranking has become essential part of nation-wide processes of quality control and quality assurance, and because of it more and more countries will develop HEI ranking in future. Taking into account this fact, it is crucial for the organization developing rating positions to be responsible for the quality of their data, methodology and information spread. 
Taking into consideration all abovementioned, in 2004 The European centre for higher education UNESCO-CEPES (Bucharest) founded the Institute of strategy in higher education in Washington and the International Ranking Expert Group (IREG). In 18-20 May 2006 in Berlin the second meeting of IREG took place with the purpose to work out collection of principles and standards of HEI ranking – Berlin principles of HEI ranking.
  The results of the initiative were elaboration of creation and expansion fundamentals of nation-wide, regional and world rating which will finally lead to the system of constant improvement and perfection of the methods of conducting the rating. Taking into account heterogeneity of used methods, the principles of appropriate ranking will be useful for perfection of ranking and quality control

Principles of ranking:

A) Aims and objectives of ranking:

1. 1. To be one of the various approaches to an estimation of expenditures on higher education, processes and results in higher education system. Rating and ranking can give comparable information and deepen understanding in the field of higher education, but they must be the main instrument of assessment of what the HEI implies and what it carries out. Ranking means market perspectives for HEI which might be effective in the work of state departments, accreditation bodies and independent assessment agencies.
2. Clearly present objectives and special audience. Ranking must be the result of distinct awareness of the purposes. Indices designed for the performance of certain objectives or for the informing certain audience might not response for the performance of other tasks and complies with other special audience.
3. To admit variety of educational institutions and to take into consideration the difference of the aims and objectives of their work. For example, the principles of assessment of institutional quality, aimed at research, differ significantly from the principles regarding the institutions providing widespread access to education for the needy levels of the population. During conducting rating consultative interaction with HEI undergoing ranking and functioning in this process as experts must be put in order.
4. To provide clarity of the sources of information resources used in ranking, and the indicators generated by every such resource. The current importance of the results of the ranking depends on the audience getting information and the sources of this information (such as databases, teaching staff, students, and personnel). It is recommended to combine various approaches in evaluation of these sources for the purpose of gaining more complete insight about every university included into the rating.
5. To take into account linguistic, cultural, economic and historic context of the system of education in respect with which the rating is conducted. In international ranking it is especially necessary to account possible differences and have a clear aim. Not all countries and systems share same values and ideas, and do not have same idea about the notion of quality in HEI. That is why the systems of ranking must avoid irrelevant comparison.

B) Work-out of indices and their weight

6. To provide transparency of used methodology during the definition of rating position. The methods operating during the preparation of the rating must be clear and unambiguous. This transparency must deal with the principles of the analysis of indices and sources of information data.
7. To select indices in accordance with their relevance and validity. Selection of information data must be based on the capacity of every index to indicate quality, academic and institutional potential, and not the degree of the accessibility of these data. It is necessary to define distinctly why a certain index was used and what it should reflect.
8. To give preference to the assessment of the results before the assessment of initial resources. The data about initial resources are topical, as they reflect general parameters of a certain HEI, and are usually more accessible. The data about work results give more accurate evaluation of the status and/or the quality of a certain university or a program; the authors of the rating must maintain suitable balance between these types of data.
9. To determine clearly methods of evaluation of different indicators and to avoid changes in them as much as possible. Changes in the methods of evaluation create difficulties for consumers for whom it is complicated to define if there have been changes in the rating of a HEI because of some objective reasons or as a result of changes in methodology.

C) Collection and data processing

10. To draw attention on ethical standards and practical recommendations stated in present Principles. With the aim of provision of the reliability of an every rating, the specialists who carry our collection and data processing and also field research must be as unbiased and impassionate as possible.
11. To use whenever it is possible the data which can be checked up and approved. Such information has some advantages including the fact that these data can be admitted by the acting institutions, and can be compared and combined with the data of other different organizations.
12. To use the data collected with the help of maintaining the procedures applicable for the collection of scientific data. The information collected from the groups of students, faculties or other subject who are not able to be represented suitably, can not characterize a HEI or a program and should be eliminated.
13. To apply methods of quality assessment to the process of ranking itself. The expert methods used in the process of HEI evaluation must be applied to the process of ranking itself to evaluate this very process. Ranking should present systems of learning using the knowledge of experts logically for development of the methodology.
14. To use organizational methods increasing reliability of the ranking. These methods may include creation of consultative and even supervisory organs, preferably with the participation of an international organization.

 

D) Presentation of ranking results

15. To give consumers possibility to get clear idea about all the factors taking place with regards to rating working out, and to provide an option of a way to present the rating. So, the consumers will understand better what indices have been used in the rating of HEI and programs. Besides, the consumers should have opportunities to influence in some degree on how these indices should be estimated.
16. The results of ranking must be worked out and published so that mistakes in the given data have been expelled or minimized, and also the opportunity to correct mistakes have been provided. Acting organizations and audiences should be informed about committed mistakes.