Cluster Analysis of Russian Universities Based on the Dynamics of Their Performance Indicators

The article presents the results of a study, the aim of which is to investigate the dynamics of the development of Russian higher education institutions based on an analysis of their performance indicators. The sample includes 535 universities from 80 constituent entities of the Russian Federation. It presents the results of the clustering of universities on the basis of changes in indicators of six variables characterizing the key areas of activity of universities for the period from 2013/2014 to 2017/2018 academic years. The characteristics of each cluster are described, an inter-cluster comparison of quantitative indicators of the activities of universities is presented.

As a result of the calculations of the average annual growth rates of six key indicators characterizing the activities of universities, fve clusters were identifed that differ in their development trajectories. Thus, the universities that belong to Cluster 1 over a fve-year period retained or improved their positions in the main areas of educational activity and managed to maintain income growth at an average level.

However, their indicators in such areas as international and research activities, as well as infrastructure development (provision of educational and laboratory facilities) have decreased. In universities from clusters 2 and 3, all performance indicators changed in a fairly balanced way. At the same time, the indicator of an increase in the internationalization of the students’ body was signifcantly higher in Cluster 2, while educational organizations from Cluster 3 showed a signifcant increase in the publication activity of academic staff.

The results of the activities of universities in Cluster 4 were positive in all considered areas. This cluster had the highest average annual growth rates in the average Unifed State Exam (USE) score and publication activity of the academic staff. Educational organizations from Cluster 5, on the one hand, achieved the best results in attracting foreign students, increasing the proftability of their activities and the provision of teaching and laboratory facilities but, on the other hand, their average annual growth rate of the average USE score has signifcantly decreased.

The study represents one of the frst attempts to cluster Russian universities based on the analysis of changes in their performance indicators. Previous studies on the clustering of universities were mainly based on the analysis of one-time indicators. The approach proposed by the author makes it possible to compare indicators of the dynamics of development of higher educational institutions of different size and scope. Further research in this area could be aimed at analyzing a larger number of performance indicators of universities and studying in detail their strategies for a deeper understanding of the reasons for the differences in their effectiveness.

1. Navodnov V., Motova G., Ryzhakova O. The Method of League Analysis and Its Application in Comparing Global University Rankings and Russia’s University Performance Monitoring. Voprosy Obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow. 2019;(3):130–151. (In Russ.) Available from: https://doi.org/10.17323/1814-9545-2019-3-130-151.

2. Siwinski W. Academic Rankings – Where Are They Heading? Voprosy Obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow. 2017;(1):158–166. (In Russ.) Available from: https://doi.org/10.17323/1814-9545-2017-1-158-166.

3. Arzhanova I.V., Vorov A.B. Potential of Export Education Services of Leading Russian Universities. University Management: Practice and Analysis. 2016;(6):6–17. (In Russ.) Available from: https://doi.org/10.15826/umj.2016.106.054.

4. Melikian A.V. Performance Criteria in Higher Education Monitoring Systems in Russia and Abroad. University Management: Practice and Analysis. 2014;(3):58–66. (In Russ.)

5. Zhitkova V.A. Simulation of a Control System of Personnel Development on the Basis of Key Performance Indicators in a Pedagogical University. Modern Problems of Science and Education. 2016;(6):364–364. (In Russ.) Available from: http://www.science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=25663 (accessed 09.01.2021).

6. Broshkov M. et al. Management of Key Performance Indicators by Heads of Higher Education Institutions. International Journal of Management. 2020;11(5):286–298. Available from: https://iaeme.com/Home/article_id/IM_11_05_028.

7. Abankina I.V. et al. A Typology and Analysis of Russian Universities’ Research and Educational Performance. Foresight-Russia. 2013;7(3):48–63. (In Russ.)

8. Titova N.L. (ed.) Development Strategies of Russian Universities: Answers to New Challenges. Moscow: MAKSPress; 2008. 668 p. (In Russ.) Available from: https://www.ifap.ru/library/book445.pdf (accessed 09.01.2021).

9. Howells J., Ramlogan R., Cheng S-L. The Role, Context and Typology of Universities and Higher Education Institutions in Innovation Systems: A UK Perspective. Manchester: Discussion Papers and Project Reports, Impact of Higher Education Institutions on Regional Economics: A Joint Research Initiative; 2008. Available from: https://ewds.strath.ac.uk/Portals/8/typology.doc (accessed 09.01.2021).

10. Ibáñez A., Larrañaga P., Bielza C. Cluster Methods for Assessing Research Performance: Exploring Spanish Computer Science. Scientometrics. 2013;(97):571–600. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0985-9.

11. Shin J.C. Classifying Higher Education Institutions in Korea: A Performance-Based Approach. Higher Education. 2009;57(2):247–266. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9150-4.

12. Valadkhani A., Worthington A. Ranking and Clustering Australian University Research Performance, 1998–200. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2006;28(2):89–210. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800600751101.

13. Erdogmus N., Esen M. Classifying Universities in Turkey by Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. Education and Science. 2016;41(184):363–382. Available from: https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.6232.

14. Melikyan A.V. Statistical Analysis of the Dynamics of Performance Indicators of Russian Universities. Voprosy Statistiki. 2021;28(1):38–49. (In Russ.) Available from:https://doi.org/10.34023/2313-6383-2021-28-1-38-49.

15. Ward J.H. Jr. Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1963;58(301):236–244. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1963.10500845.