Home⇛Recoletos Multidisciplinary Research Journal⇛vol. 14 no. 1 (2026)

Uncovering Conditional Patterns in the THE Ranking Criteria: An Apriori Analysis of Global Universities

Rex Villavelez | Giovanni Pable

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

Background: Global university rankings have become an increasingly crucial metric for measuring the quality and performance of universities. This study analyzed the interrelationships among the criteria used in the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings, identifying underlying patterns across the five criteria: teaching, research, citations, industry income, and international outlook, using data from 1,799 universities across 104 countries. Methods: The study utilized association rule mining with WEKA's Apriori algorithm to identify non-random, co-occurring patterns among the ranking criteria, using preprocessed data from the publicly available THE 2023 ranking of institutions as high- or non-high-performing. Pearson correlation was also used to assess linear relationships among the criteria. Results: Correlation analysis showed positive correlations among all the criteria. Interestingly, Apriori results identified an international outlook as a key factor associated with high citation performance. Strong bidirectional association rules indicate that internationally oriented universities are substantially more likely to achieve high research visibility. Additional rules reveal that a strong international outlook and high citation performance cooccur among institutions that do not necessarily have strong teaching ratings. Conclusion: While teaching and research remain critical for institutional quality, strong international linkages are closely associated with greater global visibility and research impact amongst highly ranked universities.



References:

  1. Aksnes, D. W., Langfeldt, L., & Wouters, P. (2019). Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: An overview of basic concepts and theories. SAGE Open, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019829575
  2. Azoulay, P., Ding, W. and Stuart, T. (2009). The impact of academic patenting on the rate, quality and direction of (public) research output*. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 57: 637-676. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6451.2009.00395.x
  3. Banal-Estañol, A., Jofre-Bonet, M., & Lawson, C. (2015). The double-edged sword of industry collaboration: Evidence from engineering academics in the UK. Research Policy, 44(6), 1160–1175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.02.006
  4. Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 286–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.003
  5. Bothwell, E. (2023, July 24). The world’s top universities for attracting industry funding. Times Higher Education (THE). https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/funding-for-innovation-ranking-2016
  6. Bowman, N. A., & Bastedo, M. N. (2011). Anchoring effects in world university rankings: exploring biases in reputation scores. Higher Education, 61(4), 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10734-010-9339-1
  7. Calcagnini, G., Favaretto, I., Giombini, G. et al. The role of universities in the location of innovative start-ups. Journal of Technology Transfer 41(4), 670–693 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9396-9
  8. Cordeiro, L. G., Lievore, C., & Pagani, R. N. (2020). Instituições de Ensino Superior no ranking THE: uma análise sobre ensino, pesquisa e renda industrial. Revista Stricto Sensu, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.24222/2525-3395.2020v5n1p043
  9. Delgado-Márquez, B. L., Bondar, Y., & Delgado-Márquez, L. (2012). Higher education in a global context: Drivers of top-universities’ reputation. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 40, 17–26. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/higher-education-global-context-drivers-top/docview/2344208486/se-2
  10. Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2017). The Triple Helix: University–Industry–Government Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315620183
  11. Frank, E., Hall, M. A., & Witten, I. H. (2016). The WEKA workbench: Online appendix for “Data mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques” (4th ed.). Morgan Kaufmann. https://ml.cms.waikato.ac.nz/weka/Witten_et_al_2016_appendix.pdf
  12. Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research policy, 35(6), 790-807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.005
  13. Haddad-Adaimi, M., Daou, R. a. Z., & Ducq, Y. (2025). Assessing institutional reputation beyond quality rankings. Corporate Reputation Review, 28(2), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41299-025-00219-4
  14. Han, J., Pei, J., & Kamber, M. (2006). Data mining: Concepts and techniques (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
  15. Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the reshaping of higher Education: The battle for world-class excellence. Tertiary Education and Management, 17, 373-375. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2011.601753
  16. Marginson, S. (2022). What is global higher education? Oxford Review of Education, 48(4), 492-517. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2022.2061438
  17. Mark, M., Jensen, R. L., & Norn, M. T. (2014). Estimating the economic effects of university-industry collaboration. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 13(1-2), 80-106. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTTC.2014.072687
  18. Park, H. W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Longitudinal trends in networks of university–industry–government relations in South Korea: The role of programmatic incentives. Research Policy, 39(5), 640–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.02.009
  19. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED434542
  20. Saisana, M., Tarantola, S., & Saltelli, A. (2005). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques as tools for the quality assessment of composite indicators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 168(2), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2005.00350.x
  21. Sisavanh, K. (2003) Educational research, policy and practice: National report on secondary education in Lao PDR. Educational Research for Policy and Practice 2, 3–11 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024417419791
  22. Sorz, J., Wallner, B., Seidler, H., & Fieder, M. (2015). Inconsistent year-to-year fluctuations limit the conclusiveness of global higher education rankings for university management. 3. https://uscholar.univie.ac.at/view/o:448488
  23. Times Higher Education. (2023). World University Rankings 2023. The Higher Education (THE). https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2023/world-ranking
  24. Witten, I. H., & Frank, E. (2005). Data mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
  25. Yüksel, F. Ş., Kayadelen, A. N., & Antmen, F. (2023). A systematic literature review on multi-criteria decision making in higher education. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 10(1), 12-28. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1104005

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic