ALIGNING NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY RANKING INDICATORS: A CROSSWALK METHODOLOGY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22209387Abstract
This article provides a systematic mapping of the correspondence between the indicators of Uzbekistan’s
national ranking of higher education institutions and those of four international ranking systems: the THE World University
Rankings, the QS World University Rankings, the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), and the THE Sustainability
Impact Ratings. The study employs document analysis, comparative content analysis, and crosswalk mapping. All
25 indicators of the national ranking were coded against the four international systems on a three-level scale (full match,
partial match, no match), and the degree of correspondence was quantified using a weight-based Alignment Index calculated
at the block and category levels. The results reveal that alignment is sharply block-specific rather than uniform: of
the 100 points in the national ranking, 57 align with THE, 39 with QS, and only 8 with ARWU. Alignment is highest in the
research block (88 percent), yet not a single indicator in this block constitutes a full match: the underlying constructs are
identical, whereas the measurement and normalization procedures differ. The graduate outcomes block diverges completely
from THE (0 percent) while showing 67 percent alignment with QS. Three structural asymmetries are identified:
category-differentiated national weights as opposed to uniform international weights; recursive references to international
rankings embedded within national indicators; and the absence from the national system of constructs measuring sustainability,
international co-authorship, and field-normalized citation impact.
Keywords
national ranking, international university rankings, indicator crosswalk, alignment index, document analysis, rankings-based governance, higher education competitiveness.References
Regulation “On maintaining the national ranking of higher education institutions”, approved by Order No. 8 of
February 2026 of the Director of the National Agency for Quality Assurance in Education under the Administration
of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan (registration No. 10/26/3783/0179, 2 March 2026). URL: https://lex.uz/
docs/8067678
Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. PF-58 of 10 April 2026 “On additional measures to
improve the system of higher education, science and innovation”. https://lex.uz/uz/docs/-8129755
Official communication of the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Innovation of the Republic of Uzbekistan
on the results of the THE Sustainability Impact Ratings 2026, 25 June 2026. URL: https://gov.uz/oz/edu/news/view/184051
World University Rankings 2026: methodology. Times Higher Education. URL: https://www.timeshighereducation.
com/world-university-rankings/methodology
QS World University Rankings: methodology. Quacquarelli Symonds, 2026. URL: https://www.topuniversities.com/
world-university-rankings/methodology
Academic Ranking of World Universities: methodology. ShanghaiRanking Consultancy. URL: https://www.
shanghairanking.com/methodology/arwu/2025
THE Sustainability Impact Ratings 2026: methodology, version 1.1. Times Higher Education, 2026.
Hazelkorn E. Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle for World-Class Excellence. 2nd ed. -
London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. - 304 p.
Marginson S. Global university rankings: Implications in general and for Australia // Journal of Higher Education
Policy and Management. - 2007. - Vol. 29, No. 2. - P. 131-142.
Espeland W.N., Sauder M. Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds // American
Journal of Sociology. - 2007. - Vol. 113, No. 1. - P. 1-40.
Power M. The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. - Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. - 208 p.
Muller J.Z. The Tyranny of Metrics. - Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018. - 240 p.
Erkkilä T., Piironen O. Rankings and Global Knowledge Governance: Higher Education, Innovation and
Competitiveness. - Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. - 316 p.
Pusser B., Marginson S. University rankings in critical perspective // The Journal of Higher Education. - 2013. -
Vol. 84, No. 4. - P. 544-568.
Dill D.D., Soo M. Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking
systems // Higher Education. - 2005. - Vol. 49, No. 4. - P. 495-533.
Altbach P.G. The globalization of college and university rankings // Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. -
- Vol. 44, No. 1. - P. 26-31.
Salmi J. The Challenge of Establishing World-Class Universities. - Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2009. - 116p.
Rauhvargers A. Global University Rankings and Their Impact. - Brussels: European University Association, 2011.
- 85 p.
Usher A., Savino M. A global survey of university ranking and league tables // Higher Education in Europe. - 2007.
- Vol. 32, No. 1. - P. 5-15.
Millot B. International rankings: Universities vs. higher education systems // International Journal of Educational
Development. - 2015. - Vol. 40. - P. 156-165.
Shin J.C., Toutkoushian R.K. The past, present, and future of university rankings // University Rankings: Theoretical
Basis, Methodology and Impacts on Global Higher Education / Eds. J.C. Shin, R.K. Toutkoushian, U. Teichler. - Dordrecht:
Springer, 2011. - P. 1-16.
Moed H.F. A critical comparative analysis of five world university rankings // Scientometrics. - 2017. - Vol. 110,
No. 2. - P. 967-990.
Safón V. What do global university rankings really measure? The search for the X factor and the X entity //
Scientometrics. - 2013. - Vol. 97, No. 2. - P. 223-244.
Saisana M., d’Hombres B., Saltelli A. Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings and policy implications //
Research Policy. - 2011. - Vol. 40, No. 1. - P. 165-177.
Docampo D. On using the Shanghai ranking to assess the research performance of university systems //
Scientometrics. - 2011. - Vol. 86, No. 1. - P. 77-92.
van Vught F., Ziegele F. (Eds.) Multidimensional Ranking: The Design and Development of U-Multirank. -
Dordrecht: Springer, 2012. - 194 p.
Lim M.A. The building of weak expertise: The work of global university rankers // Higher Education. - 2018. - Vol.
, No. 3. - P. 415-430.
Vernon M.M., Balas E.A., Momani S. Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review //
PLoS ONE. - 2018. - Vol. 13, No. 3. - e0193762.
Kehm B.M., Stensaker B. (Eds.) University Rankings, Diversity, and the New Landscape of Higher Education. -
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2009. - 202 p.
Bautista-Puig N., Orduña-Malea E., Perez-Esparrells C. Enhancing sustainable development goals or promoting
universities? An analysis of the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings // International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education. - 2022. - Vol. 23, No. 8. - P. 211-231.
De la Poza E., Merello P., Barberá A., Celani A. Universities’ reporting on SDGs: Using THE Impact Rankings to
model and measure their contribution to sustainability // Sustainability. - 2021. - Vol. 13, No. 4. - Art. 2038.
Bowen G.A. Document analysis as a qualitative research method // Qualitative Research Journal. - 2009. - Vol.
, No. 2. - P. 27-40.
Krippendorff K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. 4th ed. - Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications,
- 472 p.
Bowker G.C., Star S.L. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. - Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
- 377 p.
Marope P.T.M., Wells P.J., Hazelkorn E. (Eds.) Rankings and Accountability in Higher Education: Uses and
Misuses. - Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 2013. - 310 p.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 MUHANDISLIK VA IQTISODIYOT
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
